Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:21:31.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revolutionary Collective Action and the Agent-Structure Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Jeffrey Berejikian
Jeffrey Berejikian
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unraveling the nexus between agents and structures is fundamental to an understanding of political and social change. The two most prominent methodological approaches to explain revolutionary collective action involve either individual reductionism or structural reductionism. Both approaches result in theoretical inconsistencies and/or explanatory anomalies. An alternative proposed here utilizes the concept of framing developed in behavioral decision theory primarily by Quatrone and Tversky. It directly addresses the agent-structure problem by developing the proposition that individuals evoke alternative decision rules in different structural contexts. The result is greater theoretical coherence and resolution of anomalous cases. Additionally, this model begins to define a new role for ideology in explanations of revolutionary collective action.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 86 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 647 - 657
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akhavi, Shahrough. 1989. “Reflections on a Decade of Scholarship on the Iranian Revolution: Background to Two Recent Perspectives in the Literature.” Middle East Journal 43:289–95.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, Daniel. 1954. “Exposition of a New Theory of Risk.” Econometrica 22:23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilcote, Ronald. 1989. “Popular Power and Revolutionary Struggle.” Latin American Perspectives 16:86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, James. 1986. “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 91:1309–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, James. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, James. 1962. “Toward a Theory of Revolution.” American Sociological Review 27:5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, Robyn, McTavish, Jeanne, and Shaklee, Harriet. 1977. “Behavior Communication and Assumptions about Other People's Behavior in a Commons Dilemma Situation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duran, Esperanza. 1982. “Revolution and International Pressures: The Mexican Experience 1910–1920.” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs 24(4):483–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstien, Harry. 1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7, ed. Greenstien, Fred and Polsby, Nelson. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Farhi, Farideh. 1988. “State Disintegration and Urban-based Revolutionary Crises: A Comparative Analysis of Iran and Nicaragua.” Comparative Political Studies. 21(2):231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gurr, Ted. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hawes, Gary. 1990. “Theories of Peasant Revolt: A Critique and Confrontation from the Philippines.” World Politics 42:261–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindess, Barry. 1989. Political Choice and Social Structure. Aldershot: Elgar.Google Scholar
Hooglund, Eric. 1982. Land and Revolution in Iran, 1960–1980. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1987. Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1982. “The Psychology of Preferences.” Scientific American 246:160–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loucks, William, and Whitney, William. 1983. Comparative Economic Systems. New York: Harper and Rowe.Google Scholar
Tse-Dung, Mao. 1927. “Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan.” In Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung, 1967, Vol. 1. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.Google Scholar
Meadwell, Hudson. 1988. “Peasant Autonomy, Peasant Solidarity, and Peasant Revolts.” British Journal of Political Science 18:133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward, and Opp, Karl-Dieter. 1986. “Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action.” American Political Science Review 80:471–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Edward, and Seligson, Mitchell. 1987. “Inequality and Insurgency.” American Political Science Review 81:425–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Pamela. 1980. “Reward and Punishments as Selective Incentives for Collective Action: Theoretical Investigations.” American Journal of Sociology 85:1356–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Pamela, and Marwell, Gerald. 1988. “The Paradox of Group Size in Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass II.” American Sociological Review 53:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Pamela, Marwell, Gerald, and Teixeira, Roy. 1985. “A Theory of the Critical Mass I, Interdependence, Group Heterogeneity, and the Production of Collective Action.” America Journal of Sociology 91:522–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Elizabeth. 1982. Review of The Rational Peasant, by Samuel Popkin. Journal of Asian Studies 41:889–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel. 1979. The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quatrone, George, and Tversky, Amos. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analysis of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 22:23–36.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1985. “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science.” American Political Science Review 79:293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snidal, Duncan. 1985. “The Game Theory of International Politics.” World Politics 38:25–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Michael. 1988. “Rationality and Revolutionary Collective Action.” In Rationality and Revolution, ed. Taylor, Michael. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Michael. 1989. “Structure, Culture and Action in the Explanation of Social Change.” Politics and Society 17:115–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilly, Charles. 1984. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tutino, John. 1986. From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexio: Social Bases of Agrarian Violence, 1750–1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
van de Kragt, A., Orbell, J., and Dawes, R.. 1983. “The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems.” American Political Science Review 77:112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, John. 1984. Reluctant Rebels: Comparative Studies of Revolution and Underdevelopment. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waterbury, Ronald. 1986. “Non-Revolutionary Peasants: Oaxaca Compared to Morelos in the Mexican Revolution.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 17:410–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations.” International Organizations 40(3):1335–70.Google Scholar
Wolf, Eric. 1986. “Peasant Rebellion and Revolution.” In Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative, and Historical Studies, ed. Gladstone, Jack. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.