Movements of “Crisis” and Movements of “Affluence”: A Critique of Deprivation and Resource Mobilization Theories

  • Kerbo H
  • 23

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 28

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

In response to the empirical and theoretical weaknesses of the older social stress or deprivation theories of social movements, a new general theory of social movements- resource mobilization theory-has become increasingly popular. One of the most basic points of disagreement between theorists accepting one or the other general perspective involves the extent to which the development and growth of a social movement can be attributed to the preconditions of social stress or some form of deprivation. This article begins by describing how the two perspectives are indirectly rooted in differing paradigms of social organization, which leads to divergent assumptions about the nature of social conflict and social order. Next, theoretical and empirical problems contained in each perspective are shown to be partially related to these assumptions. Finally, a continuum describing "movements of crisis" and "movements of affluence" is constructed to suggest that the structural conditions inviting social movement activity are varied. When such variance is recognized, we find there is a place for both theories in the complex field of study, though deprivation theories especially face many continuing problems. The

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • Harold R. Kerbo

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free