With The Politics of Authenticity: Liberalism, Christianity, and the New Left in America, Doug Rossinow writes a history of the New Left that emphasizes continuity across both time and the broader political field of the 1960s. Unlike many scholars of the 1960s, Rossinow was not there; this is a much-needed history of the left from the outside. Instead of drawing on personal connections and personal experience, Rossinow relies on newspapers, TV, radio, and other media sources, as well as interviews, to understand the Left and place it in context. He argues that the New Left operated by applying an existentialist activism to the left; from this perspective, the New Left developed in response to the Cold War of the 1950s, and it ended partly because the seeds of identity politics within existentialism fragmented the Left after 1968.
Showing posts with label structural determinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label structural determinism. Show all posts
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
76: Piven & Cloward's Poor People's Movements
In Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, Piven and Cloward study four American social movements, two from the 1930s and two from the 1960s, to identify patterns in protester behavior, political and social context, and state responses that might inform lower-class political movements in the future. And they determine that in any social social movement (and all social movements, for their purposes, come from the working classes), "whatever the people won was a response to their turbulence and not to their organized numbers." In other words, uncontrollable mass insurgency, not SMOs, are what cause changes in society and win more rights for oppressed groups.
The reason SMOs kill a social movement instead of fueling it is that organizational development involves creating a disciplined, orderly membership and on getting resources, usually from elites, to sustain the organization. Elites are more than happy to help fund these organizations, because they're a way of calming down angry people and bringing them into orderly obedience again - or at least a way of distracting them from their revolutionary goals. "Organizations endure, in short, by abandoning their revolutionary politics, and therefore SMOs kill social movements.
The reason SMOs kill a social movement instead of fueling it is that organizational development involves creating a disciplined, orderly membership and on getting resources, usually from elites, to sustain the organization. Elites are more than happy to help fund these organizations, because they're a way of calming down angry people and bringing them into orderly obedience again - or at least a way of distracting them from their revolutionary goals. "Organizations endure, in short, by abandoning their revolutionary politics, and therefore SMOs kill social movements.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)

