Transcript Slides for Sociology W3480: Part 2 of 2 Revolutions

Slides for Sociology W3480: Part 2 of 3
Revolutions, Social Movements, and Contentious Politics
Columbia College
Spring 2007
Prepared by
Charles Tilly and
Ernesto Castañeda
send questions to
[email protected]
Revolutions
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
2
Revolutions
• Revolution = forcible transfer of power over a state in
the course of which at least two distinct blocs of
contenders make incompatible claims to control the
state, and some significant portion of the population
subject to the state’s jurisdiction acquiesces in the
claims of each bloc.
• A full revolution combines a revolutionary situation
with a revolutionary outcome.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
3
Revolutionary Situations
1) contenders or coalitions of contenders advancing
exclusive competing claims to control of the state or
some segment of it: mobilization process.
2) commitment to those claims by a significant segment
of the citizenry: mobilization plus diffusion
3) incapacity or unwillingness of rulers to suppress the
alternative coalition and/or commitment to its claims:
ruler-subject interaction
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
4
Revolutionary Outcomes
1) defections of regime members
2) acquisition of armed force by revolutionary
coalitions
3) neutralization or defection of the regime’s armed
force
4) control of the state apparatus by members of
revolutionary coalition
5) transfer of state power to new ruling coalition.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
5
CONFLICT, REVOLT, AND REVOLUTION
complete
great
revolution
civil war
top-down seizure
of power
TRANSFER
OF
POWER
coup
revolt
routine
politics
none
none
complete
(Tilly
& Castañeda
2007)
SPLIT
IN REGIME
6
How to Analyze Contentious
Event Catalogues
Adapted from Tilly’s
“How to Detect and Describe
Performances and Repertoires”
Chapter 2 of upcoming book
“Contentious Performances”
April 11th, 2007
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
7
Aerial Graph of Contention in Russia (based on Bessinger 2001).
Figure 5.4: Demonstrations and Violent Events in the Soviet Union and Successor States,
1987-1992
300
250
Violent Events
Cumulative Number of Events
Demonstrations
200
150
100
50
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
0
Year
Source: Data Supplied by Mark Beissinger
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
8
Event Analysis
• The fundamental unit of analysis in this study is the
contentious event.
• Event analysis is widely recognized as a tool for
studying waves of mobilization.
• It is essentially a way of tracking over time the rise
and fall of particular types of events and the features
associated with them (Beissinger 2002: 42).
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
9
Different Soviet nationalities staged protest demonstrations
month by month from 1987 through 1991 (Beissinger 2002: 84).
For the most active, these were the peak months:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Armenians
Estonians
Moldavians
Russians
Crimean Tatars
Ukrainians
Latvians
Lithuanians
Azerbaijanis
Georgians
May 1988
November 1988
February 1989
January 1990
April 1990
November 1990
December 1990
December 1990
December 1990
September 1991
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
10
Results
• “In all, I have been able to identify thirty-two major waves of
nationalist violence in the former USSR during the 1987-92
period, part of sixteen larger ethnonationalist conflicts
involving violence during these years. Only in four of these
conflicts (the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, the GeorgianOssetian conflict, the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, and the
Moldovan-Transdniestr conflict) did violence become a selfsustaining strategy of contesting state boundaries, with
relatively short waves of violence growing increasingly
protracted over time. In all other cases, violent mobilization
remained short-lived. What distinguished conflicts in which
mass violence grew sustained from those in which violence
ceased to proliferate was the relationship of state institutions
to the production of violence” (Beissinger 2002: 309).
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
11
Graficas de violencia
Source:
Samuel González Ruiz
Mexican specialist in comparative legal systems,
in relation to the fight and prosecution of organized crime.
Increase of Violence in Mexico due to Organized Crime
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Niveles
de
Violencia
en
México
Violencia
mortal
Terrorist
a
Violencia
mortal
intimidat
oria
Generaliz
ada
Utilizació
n de
armas de
destrucci
ón media.
Violencia
contra
políticos
y de
primer
nivel
Violencia
mortal
contra
funcionar
ios y
periodista
s
Violencia
mortal
contra
Terceros
Violencia
mortal
contra
Rivales
Violencia
física
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
6
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
4
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
9
9
9
19
98
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
6
X
5
6
X X
7
8
13
14
X XX
25
23
15
X
16
X
X X
X X
17
19
18
XX
26
27
24
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
0
1
9
8
9
35
36
X
X
10
11
37
38
39
X
X
21
22
X X
X
X
29
1
30
28
31
42
34
20
X
X X X X X XX X X X
33
1
9
9
2
1
9
8
8
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
6
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
4
9
X XX X X
12
1
9
9
3
2
X XX X
4
1
9
9
4
X
1
3
1
9
9
5
40
32
X X X X X X X
43
41
44
2
45
46
X X
47
48
49
X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
54
X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
70
71
72
X
x
x
73
66
X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X x x
74
1
Violencia
Moral
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
13
X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X x x
Reduction of Violence in Colombia
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Niveles
de
Violenc
ia en
Colom
bia
Violenc
ia
Terrori
sta
Violen.
intimid
atoria.
General
izada
armas
de
destruc
ción
media.
Violenc
ia
contra
político
s y de
primer
nivel
Violenc
ia
mortal
contra
funcion
arios y
periodi
stas
Violenc
ia
mortal
contra
Tercero
s
Violenc
ia
mortal
contra
Rivales
Violenc
ia física
0
7
0
6
0
5
X X X
1
2
3
0
4
2000
9
9
XXX
X
x
4
7
X X X
15
16
17
0
3
5
0
2
0
1
6
X
X
19
9
8
97
9
6
9
5
9
4
8
9
3
9
2
9
1
9
0
26
27
8
6
8
5
X
9
11
14
13
10
12
8
4
82
X
X
21
8
3
23
22
X X X X X X
25
8
7
XXX
18
24
8
8
XX
X X
20
8
9
X
28
x
X
29
X X X X X X X
30
31
32
33
34
35
XXx x
39
36
37
X X
X
X x
43
45
46
44
X X X X Xx
47
48
X
X X X X X X
52
X
70
53
54
55
56
57
X X X X X
X X X X X X
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
41
68
73
X
42
XX
x
51
50
X X X X X
X X X X X X X XX X X
72
x X
40
49
XXXX
71
X X X X X X X
38
X
69
XXX
74
x
x
75
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
76
1
Violenc
ia
Moral
XXXXXXX
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
14
X
X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X
77
Trends of Organized Crime in Ireland
(not linked to terrorist organizations)
Niveles de
Violencia en
Irlanda
0
7
0
6
Violencia
mortal
Terrorista
Violencia
mortal
intimidatoria
.
Generalizada
Utilización
de armas de
destrucción
media.
Violencia
contra
políticos y
de primer
nivel
Violencia
mortal contra
funcionarios
y periodistas
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
9
9
98
9
7
9
6
9
5
94
9
2
Xi
9
1
9
0
8
9
8
8
8
7
x
X
x X
vi
8
6
8
5
8
4
8
3
8
2
X
ii
iii
X
X
ix
x
vii
x
x
xi
xii
ivv
viii
Violencia
mortal contra
Terceros
X X
Violencia
mortal contra
Rivales
X X X X
X X
xxxii
xxx
xxvii
xxix
xxxi
xiii
xiv
x
xv
x
xvi
Xxvii
X
xviii
x
X
xx
xix
x
xxi
X
xxii
X
xxiii
X
xxiv
X
X
xxv
xxvi
x
x
x
x
x
x
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxviii
Violencia
física
Violencia
Moral
9
3
X
xxxix
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
X
xl
15
x
xli
Violence in Italy
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Niveles
de
Violencia
en Italia.
Violencia
mortal
Terrorist
a
Violencia
mortal
intimidat
oria.
Generaliz
ada
Utilizaci
ón de
armas de
destrucci
ón
media.
Violencia
contra
políticos
y de
primer
nivel
Violencia
mortal
contra
funcionar
ios y
periodist
as
Violencia
mortal
contra
Terceros
Violencia
mortal
contra
Rivales
Violencia
física
Violencia
Moral
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
99
9
8
97
9
6
9
5
9
4
9
3
9
2
9
1
9
0
8
9
88
8
6
8
5
X
XX
i
8
7
8
3
82
X
iii
ii
8
4
iv
X X X X X X XX X X X
v
X
X
vi
X
ix
X
vii
viii
X
X
XX
XX XX
x
xi
xii
xiv
xv
xiii
xvi
xvii
X1
x
x
xviii
xix
X
xx
X X
xxii
xxi
X X Xxxv
xxiii
xxiv
X X
xxvi
xxvii
X X X X
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
X
xxxii
X X X X XX
xxxiii
X X X X X X XX
xxxv
xxxvi
xl
X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X
xli
X X X X X X XX
X X X X X X XX
xxxiv
x x
xxxviii xxxix
xxxvii
xlii
xliii
X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X
X(TillyX& Castañeda
X X 2007)
X X X X X X X XX X X
16
Reported “corruption” offences - rates per 100.000 inhabitants
(Italy 1989-2000)
Rates per 100.000 inhabitants
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
“Concussione”
Passive corruption
Active corruption
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
Instigation to corruption
17
Convicted people for “corruption” offences Rates per 100.000 inhabitants (Italy 1989-2000)
0,60
Rates per 100.000 inhabitants
0,50
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
“Concussione”
Passive corruption
Active corruption
Instigation to corruption
18
•
“La relación entre la violencia, la corrupción y la obstrucción a la justicia son de protección directa de la
delincuencia organizada y se configuran como un círculo exterior que protege el silencio o la oferta de las
organizaciones criminales” (Gonzalez y Flores 2007).
Organized Crime ↔ Corruption ↔ Obstruction of Justice
= Escalation of Violence and Loss of State Capacity
Source forthcoming as:
. “Violencia, corrupción y narcotráfico: el desafío del México democrático.
”González Ruiz, Samuel y Carlos Flores.” Foreign Affairs en Español ▪
Volumen 7 Número 2.
Special thanks to Samuel Ruiz for sharing his research and slides with the Mexican Graduate Student
Groups at Conferences at Yale and Columbia.
19
Tarrow’s Italy Study
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tarrow examined Italy’s cycle of protest from 1965 to 1975, for which the national
newspaper Corriere della Sera yielded 4,980 “protest events”, non-routine actions
in which the participants revealed a collective goal.
Tarrow tells us,
I collected information on ‘protest events’, a category which included strikes,
demonstrations, petitions, delegations, and violence, but which excluded
contentious behavior which revealed no collective claims on other actors.
I defined the protest event as a disruptive direct action on behalf of collective
interests, in which claims were made against some other group, elites, or
authorities (Tarrow 1989: 359).
Tarrow produced a record for each event. But he enriched the enterprise in two
important ways:
First, he incorporated textual descriptions at a number of critical points –
summaries of events, grievances, policy responses, and more. That made it
possible to refine his classified counts without returning to the original newspaper
sources.
Second, within the record he placed checklists where two or more features could
coexist. As a result, he was able to analyze not only the overall distribution of
events but also the frequency of such features as different forms of violence –
clashes with police, violent conflict, property damage, violent attacks, rampages,
and random violence (Tarrow 1989: 78).
(Taken from Tilly Contentious Repertoires. Forthcoming [It has now appeared in Cambridge
university Press. 2008]).
20
Figure 5.2: Italian Contention, 1966-1973
600
550
500
450
400
350
Conventional Events
300
Confrontational Events
Violent Events
250
200
150
100
50
66
.1
66
.2
67
.1
67
.2
68
.1
68
.2
69
.1
69
.2
70
.1
70
.2
71
.1
71
.2
72
.1
72
.2
73
.1
73
.2
0
Semester
Source: Tarrow 1989: p. 70
(Source: Tilly and Tarrow 2007)
21
Tilly’s Great Britain Study
•
•
•
•
•
Over about ten years, research groups at the University of Michigan and the New School for
Social Research worked with me to create a systematic body of evidence on actions,
interactions, performances, repertoires, and their settings in Great Britain between 1758 and
1834.
The central data set we produced includes machine-readable descriptions for 8,088
contentious gatherings (CGs) that occurred in southeastern England (Kent, Middlesex,
Surrey, or Sussex) during thirteen selected years from 1758 to 1820, or anywhere in Great
Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales, but not Ireland) from 1828 to 1834.
In this study, a CG is an occasion on which ten or more people gathered in a publiclyaccessible place and visibly made claims which, if realized, would affect the interests of at
least one person outside their number. In principle, CGs include almost all events that
authorities, observers, or historians of the time would have called "riots" or "disturbances" as
well as even more that would fall under such headings as "public meeting", "procession" and
"demonstration".
Our standardized descriptions of CGs come from periodicals: the Annual Register,
Gentleman's Magazine, London Chronicle, Morning Chronicle, Times, Hansard's
Parliamentary Debates, Mirror of Parliament, and Votes and Proceedings of Parliament; we
read these periodicals exhaustively for the years in question plus January-June 1835.
Although we frequently consulted both published historical work and archival sources such as
the papers of the Home Office in interpreting our evidence, the machine-readable
descriptions transcribed material from the periodicals alone.
We did not try to find every event about which information was available or even a
representative sample of such events. Instead, we assembled a complete enumeration of
those described in standard periodicals whose principles of selection we could examine, and
sometimes even test.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
22
Tilly’s Great Britain Study
Tilly laced computer-stored records for Contentious Events into separate sections and provided:
• a general description of each event (8,088 machine-readable records)
• a description of each formation -- each person or set of persons who acted distinguishably
during the event (27,184 records)
• supplementary information on the geographical or numerical size of any formation, when
available (18,413 records)
• a summary of each distinguishable action by any formation, including the actor(s), the crucial
verb, (where applicable) the object of the action, and an excerpt of the text(s) from which we
drew actor, verb, and object (50,875 records)
• excerpts from detailed texts from which we drew summary descriptions of actions (76,189
records)
• identification of each source of the account (21,030 records)
• identification of each location in which the action occurred (11,054 records)
• a set of verbal comments on the event, or on difficulties in its transcription (5,450 records)
• special files listing all alternative names for formations and all individuals mentioned in any
account (28,995 formation names, 26,318 individual names)
• Except for straightforward items such as date, day of the week, and county names, the records
do not contain codes in the usual sense of the term. On the whole, we transcribed words from
the texts or (when that was not feasible) paraphrases of those words. Think of formation names:
Instead of coding names given to formations in broad categories, we transcribed the actual
words used in our sources.
• For example, the transcription of each action includes the actor’s name, a verb characterizing
the action, and (in the roughly 52 percent of cases in which there was an object) the object’s
name.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
23
Subject – Verb - Object
Transcription
subject
verb
object
the same night the mob (gathered)
mob
#gather
none
the mob committed great violences in
Surry-Street, in the Strand, particularly
at the Coach Office, not a window was left
with a whole pane of glass
mob
#break
owner of Coach Office
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
24
My research team found multiple accounts of these attacks in 1829’s Times of London.
Here is how we transcribed and classified the major actions within a cutting incident on
May 4th:
Transcription
Verb
Broad Verb Category
certain evil-disposed persons riotously assembled
assemble
move
entered the dwellings of the journeymen silk weavers
enter
move
and maliciously cut and destroyed the silk in the looms
destroy
attack
#end
#end
end
a reward of 200L is hereby offered
offer
negotiate
The left hand verb presents our simplified transcription of the phrase’s central action.
The right hand column shows our placement in one of eight extremely broad categories
of verbs: attack, control, end, meet, move, negotiate, support, and other. (More on
verb categories in a moment.)
Source: Tilly. Contentious Performances Chapter 2. Unpublished draft 2007.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
25
Figure 2-3: Major Categories of Verbs in British Contentious Gatherings, 1758-1834
100%
Percent of All CGs Featuring Verbs in Category
90%
80%
70%
60%
ATTACK
CONTROL
MEET
OTHER
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1758 1759 1768 1769 1780 1781 1789 1795 1801 1807 1811 1819 1820 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834
Year
26
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
Figure 2-2: Locations of Action Verbs in Two Factor Space
F1 = Indoor (low) vs. Outdoor (high)
F2 = Disagreement (low) vs. Agreement (high)
GATHER
0.90
MOVE
CONTROL
0.60
PROCEED
DISPERSE
SUPPORT
NEGOTIATE
RESIST
ENTER
ATTACK
0.30
BLOCK
DELIBERATE
ATTEMPT
ASSEMBLE
FIGHT
MARCH
REQUEST
F1
DECRY
RECEIVE
ADDRESS
COMMUNICATE
CHEER
0.00
OPPOSE
-0.30
VOTE
-0.60
PETITION
HEARPET
-0.90
CHAIR
RESOLVE
THANK
MEET ADJOURN
-0.90
-0.60
-0.30
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
F2
27
Over-represented Verb Categories* by Broad Type of
Gathering, Great Britain, 1758-1834
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
authorized celebrations (78 CGs): bracket, celebrate, cheer, dine, enter, gather, observe, proceed, receive
delegations (79): address, bracket, deliberate, gather, negotiate, proceed, receive, support
parades, demonstrations, rallies (142): attempt, block, bracket, celebrate, cheer, decry, dine, enter, gather,
march, negotiate, observe, oppose, other, proceed, receive, support, vote
pre-planned meetings of named associations (985): dine, hear petition, meet, petition
pre-planned meetings of public assemblies (3197): none
other pre-planned meetings (1672): dine, meet
strikes, turnouts (76): attack, attempt, block, control, deliberate, donkey, gather, hear petition, march, move,
negotiate, observe, other, proceed, resist, turnout
attacks on blacklegs (27): attack, block, control, decry, die, enter, fight, gather, move, observe, turnout
brawls in drinking places (24): attack, attempt, block, bracket, celebrate, control, deliberate, dine, enter, fight,
gather, give, move, negotiate, request, resist, turnout
market conflicts (12): address, block, gather, negotiate, oppose, other, proceed, request, support
poachers vs. gamekeepers (71): attack, attempt, block, bracket, control, deliberate, die, disperse, enter, fight,
gather, hunt, move, negotiate, observe, other, proceed
smugglers vs. customs (49): attack, attempt, block, bracket, celebrate, control, die, fight, gather, give, move,
observe, other, proceed, resist, smuggle
other violent gatherings (1156): attack, attempt, block, bracket, control, decry, enter, fight, gather, give, march,
move, negotiate, observe, petition, proceed, resist
other unplanned gatherings (520): block, celebrate, cheer, control, decry, demonstrate, enter, gather, march,
move, negotiate, observe, other, proceed
* over-represented = 2+ times the proportion in all gatherings or (in the case of end and meet, which appear in
73 and 54 percent of all gatherings respectively) 20%+ more than their general proportions
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
28
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
From Hector Forero’s
Student Memorandum
29
Takeshi Wada
•
Wada (Wada 2003, 2004) drew accounts of protest events from the daily newspapers
Excélsior, Unomásuno, and La Jornada for 29-day periods spanning national elections over
the 37 years, a total of 13 electoral periods.
• From the newspapers he identified 2832 events, some linked together in campaigns, for a
total of 1797 campaigns.
• Wada’s subject-verb-object-claim transcriptions made it possible for him to employ
sophisticated network models of who made claims on whom. Overall, they reveal a sharp
politicization of Mexico’s collective claim making as the country’s partial democratization
proceeded. From claims on business, landowners, and universities, protesters moved to
making increasingly strong claims on the government itself.
• According to Wada’s analysis, the weakening of network ties among the elite (especially as
concentrated within the longtime ruling party PRI) provided an opportunity for claimants to
divide their rulers. It thus advanced the partial democratization of the 1990s. Technically,
Wada broke free of many restrictions imposed by classified event counts. That technical
freedom opened the way to a sophisticated treatment of interaction in Mexican politics.
Source:
Wada, Takeshi (2003): “A Historical and Network Analysis of Popular Contention in the Age of
Globalization in Mexico,” unpublished doctoral dissertation in sociology, Columbia University.
(2004): “Event Analysis of Claim Making in Mexico: How Are Social Protests Transformed into
Political Protests,” Mobilization 9: 241-258.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
30
Lessons
The innovations of Tilly, McPhail, Tarrow, Franzosi, Beissinger,
Wada and others offer three lessons for analysts of contentious
politics:
• First, it is practically feasible to record and analyze the internal
dynamics of episodes instead of settling for classified event
counts.
• Second, the recording of particular verbs rather than general
characterization of the action is crucial for that practical
purpose.
• Third, verbs with objects make it possible to move from
individualistic analyses to treatments of connections among
contentious actors (relational).
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
31
Extra lecture:
What Happened in Oaxaca?
Triangulating Outside Witness Accounts
to Analyze the Contentious Politics
in Oaxaca, Mexico
Nayeli Chavez-Geller, UNIVISION
Rene Ramos, MPA Student SIPA Columbia
Ivania de la Cruz Orozco, MPA Student SIPA Columbia
Manuela Garza, The New School and Fundación Comunitaria Oaxaca
Ernesto Castañeda-Tinoco, PhD Student Department of Sociology, Columbia
Leslie A. Martino, PhD Student, Department of Sociology, CUNY, The Graduate Center
Thursday April 12th, 2007
.
Organized by
Mexican Initiative
Co-sponsored by the
Institute of Latin American Studies, LASA-SIPA, and ALAS-TC.
For this see extra Lecture file 4.
Move to file number 3 for the rest
of the course material.
(Tilly & Castañeda 2007)
33