Annotated Bibliography on Riots and ProtestThis semester the Research Team will continue constructing an annotated bibliography on riot and protest. The articles selected will reflect the interests of the team and the list will continue to grow throughout the semester. CONTENTS Bergesen, Albert. 1982. "Race Riots of 1967-An analysis of Police Violence in Detroit and Newark." Journal of Black Studies 12:261-274. An alternative annotation. Bobo, Lawrence. 1988. "Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement: Trends, Meaning, and Effects on Racial Policy Preferences." Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 287-302. Carter, Gregg Lee. 1992. "Hispanic Rioting During the Civil Rights Era." Sociological Forum 7: 301-322. Feagin, J.J. 1971. “White Separatists and Black Separatists: A Comparative Analysis.” Social Problems, 19: 167-180. Forman, James. 1969. "1967: High Tide of Black Resistance." Pp. 4050-4063 in Riots, Civil and Criminal Disorders. Washington: Government Printing Office. Gamson, W.A. and J. McEvoy. 1970. “Police Violence and Its Public Support.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 391: 97-110. Hacker, Frederick J. and Aljean Harmetz. 1969. "The Riot: A Liberating, Identifying Force." Pp. 87-92 in Urban Racial Violence in the Twentieth Century, edited by Joseph Boskin. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press. Jefferies, Vincent, Ralph H. Turner, and Richard T. Morris. 1971. "The Public Perception of the Watts Riot as Social Protest." American Sociological Review 36:443-451. An alternative annotation. Kaniss, Phyllis. 1991. Making Local News. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 46-70. Keith, M. 1993. “Blame. Guilt and ‘causes’ of ‘riots’.” Pp. 72-95 in Race, Riots, and Policing. Lore and Disorder in a Multi-racist Society. London: UCL Press. Knapper, Karl. 1996. "Women and the Black Panther Party." Socialist Review 26: 25-31. Knopf, T.A. 1974. “Race, Riots, and Reporting.” Journal of Black Studies 4: 303-327. Lieberson, S. and A.R. Silverman. 1965. “The Precipitants and Underlying Conditions of Race Riots.” American Sociological Review 30:887-898. Lieske, J. A. 1978. "Group Disorders in Urban Schools: The Effect of Racial Desegregation and Social Emancipation." Urban Affairs Quarterly 14: 79-101. Marx, Gary T. 1979. "External Efforts to Damage or Facilitate Movements: Some Patterns, Explanations, Outcomes, and Complications." Pp. 94-125 in Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and Tactics, edited by M. N. Zald and J. D. McCarthy. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop. McPhail, Clark. 1994. "Presidential Address-The Dark Side of Purpose: Individual and Collective Violence in Riots." The Sociological Quarterly 35:1-16. McPhail, Clark, John McCarthy, and David Schweingruber. 1997. "Policing Protest in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s." EUI Working Papers, No. 97/3. McCarthy, John, Clark McPhail and Jackie Smith. 1996. "Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991." American Sociological Review 61: 478-499. Myers, Daniel J. 1997. "Racial Rioting in the 1960s: An Event History Analysis of Local Conditions." American Sociological Review 62:94-112. Oliver, Pamela and Daniel Myers. 1999. "How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events." American Journal of Sociology 105:38-87. Reiner, Robert. 1997. "Policing, Protest, and Disorder in Britain." EUI Working Papers, No. 97/2. Ritterband, Paul and Richard Silberstein. 1973. "Group Disorders in the Public Schools." American Sociological Review 38:461-467. Snow, David A., E.B. Rochford, Jr., S.K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Process, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51: 464-481. Tilly, Charles. 1994. “Contention and the Urban Poor in Eighteen and Nineteenth Century Latin America.” Pp. 225-242 in Riots in the Cities. Popular Politics and the Urban Poor in Latin America, 1765-1910, edited by Sylvia Arrom and Servando Ortoll. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources. Thomas, Piri. 1969. "The Separate Worlds of Black, Brown, and White." Pp. 73-83 in Urban Racial Violence in the Twentieth Century, edited by Joseph Boskin. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press. Useem, Bert. 1985. "Disorganization and the New Mexico Prison Riot of 1980." American Sociological Review 50: 677-688. Widick, B.J. 1972. "A City Besieged: The Riot of '67." Ch.11 from Detroit: City of Race and Class Violence. Chicago: Quandrangle Books. Wirmark, Bo. 1974. "Nonviolent Methods and the American Civil Rights Movement 1955 - 1965." Journal of Peace Research 11: 115-132. Woodward, C. Vann. 1965. "After Watts-Where is the Negro Revolution headed?" New York Times Magazine. Bergesen, Albert. 1982. "Race Riots of 1967-An analysis of Police Violence in Detroit and Newark." Journal of Black Studies 12:261-274. In his 1982 piece, Bergesen evaluates the role of police hostility in two of America's most deadly race riots. Drawing from references that amass police reports, news sources, and eyewitness accounts, Bergesen notes the small proportion of deaths due to civilian aggression and/or accidents relative to the large percentage caused by official violence. In assessing the character and extent of police aggression, Bergesen details four scenarios in which law enforcement officials murdered black civilians. They include firing at looters, shooting at cars or crowds, firing at apartment houses, and personal attacks. Bergesen provides specific examples of each type, recounting with precise detail the various atrocities committed by the civil authorities during the Newark and Detroit riots. He then reveals the overall trends that stem from the data, noting and graphing two key patterns: 1.) Civilian violence occurred almost exclusively during the onset of the riots and 2.) Law enforcement violence grows more random, indiscriminate, and personal as the riot progresses. He concludes with the rather startling supposition that official violence continues and in fact escalates after the cessation of civilian initiated violence; from this deduction, moreover, Bergesen easily suggests that Newark and Detroit were at their core more characteristic of a "police riot" rather than a civilian event. While the role of official violence had been implicated in riot causality, a specific examination of the distinct actions and behavioral patterns of law enforcement authorities had not been conducted prior to Bergesen's work. Beyond the research implications, however, Bergesen's piece also brings to light several key racial issues deeply seeded within American culture and politics. Bergesen himself declares that a solid majority of the riots' violence "could only be described as personal attacks upon black civilians" (273). In a society that has grown historically to impugn blacks and other ethnic minorities for the majority of its violence, many would be tempted to attribute situations such as Newark and Detroit, in which numerous blacks were slaughtered, to some sort of provocative or antagonistic action on their part. Bergesen's data clearly refutes such speculations, and in fact paints an entirely different picture all together-one in which the very law enforcement officials who have sworn to our protection and safety turn the instruments of that protection into weapons of mass racial homicide. Following the disclosure of such profound findings, Bergesen's work opens the door for a myriad of additional studies. Bergesen's piece, while a highly informative and a necessary step in the analysis of police roles in racial violence, is nonetheless limited in scope. A more thorough analysis could entail additional riot events or even instances of police initiated hostility that does not necessarily result in death, for example. Annotation written by Anthony Perez and Joanna Bowen Bergesen, Albert. 1982. "Race Riots of 1967-An analysis of Police Violence in Detroit and Newark." Journal of Black Studies 12:261-274. This article by Bergesen is an analysis of the contribution of law enforcement official to the level of lethal violence that took place in the Detroit and the Newark Riots of 1967. In order to contribute "systematic empirical data" to the discussion of "police-civilian encounters in the black community" this study examines the circumstances surrounding the deaths in the two riots. First, Bergesen distinguishes between how the violence was initiated: by civilians, officials, or accidents. Specific deaths within these three categories are further detailed by the author. Right away, the reader sees most deaths in both rots, 75 percent, were initiated by officials. These deaths initiated by officials are the main focus of Bergesen's analysis. He categorizes the victims as looters, members of a crowd, passengers in cars, people in their homes, and those personally attacked by law enforcement officials. The findings definitely imply there was an atmosphere of lawlessness during the riots. Many of the deaths by officials Bergesen describes were carried out in an almost execution-like manner. Nearly 43 percent of those killed by officials were looters, many of whom were shot while fleeing the scene. Machine gun bullets strafed apartment buildings and homes in Detroit and Newark as tanks moved through the neighborhoods. In the officials' defense, Bergesen explains that when looters were shot it was in the "legitimate domain of law enforcement procedures." In conclusion, Bergesen's data refutes the idea that "official violence escalated simultaneously or in response to civilian violence." As the riots continued official violence became more "random, indiscriminate, and personal," seemingly reflecting a "lack of organization or normative control" over law enforcement activities giving both uprisings a "police riot" component. This article was helpful in detailing the specifics of lethal violence in each riot and exposing the nature of official violence during a riot. However, certain flaws in Bergesen's analysis hurt its overall effectiveness. One is a weakness in his classification procedures. Some of the deaths could easily be placed in more than one category. This reduces the reliability of the statistics. Further, Bergesen's study would be strengthened by a more balanced discussion of each death. Rarely does he mention the reasoning behind officials' violent actions. Finally, the graphs used to illustrate his points were more of a confusion than a clarification, although the more sophisticated reader may find them helpful. Annotation written by Andi Will and Catherine Bolzendahl Bobo, Lawrence. 1988. "Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement: Trends, Meaning, and Effects on Racial Policy Preferences." Social Psychology Quarterly 51: 287-302. Bobo's 1988 article attempts to operationalize, test, analyze, and theorize a number of "common sense" assumptions about racial prejudice and its influence on perceptions of minority political movements. He examines the changes in attitudes through time in regards to the Black Political Movement, with data spanning from the 1960s to the 1980s. Theoretical emphasis is placed on two somewhat contradictory approaches to examining race based attitude differentiation: prejudice theory and group conflict theory. While both deal with the social psychological dimension of race's effect on attitudes toward political movements, the prejudice theory fits most naturally with examining only the dominant group whereas the group conflict approach allows for the analysis to work from both dominant and sub-dominant directions. Bobo uses apparently sound methodological procedures. The measures he uses in his article appear to accurately operationalize the theoretical variables; he actually measures what he claims to have examined. We could think of no other measures, nor more efficient ways of measuring them. Bobo uses a variety of measures in examining prejudice and conflict theories, which include the following: 1) perceptions of conflicting behavior 2) fraternal deprivation 3) perceived threat 4) general orientation toward social protest 5) opposition to government action and 6) basic inter-group feelings. He also introduced a number of background controls such as age, years of education, and region. The results of Bobo's study are impressive while, for the most part, expected. The data support the group-conflict hypotheses including: 1) greater support for black movements by blacks (in-group differentiation) 2) changes in political context change attitudes and vary by race 3) conflict attitudes are positively associated 4) perceptions of protest are shaped by individual background and attitudes. In Bobo's words, "Most important, prejudice is a factor in how many whites react to the black political movement and respond to the other conflict attitudes." Due to its quality Bobo's work does not lend itself to easy criticism. Nevertheless, three major assumptions can be identified in the article. If these assumptions were proven incorrect, the validity of Bobo's work would suffer greatly. These assumptions are 1) whites are the implicit comparison group when dealing with the fraternal deprivation issue 2) 'old fashion' racism precedes group conflict attitudes 3) political ideology is also considered prior to group conflict attitudes. While we find no fault with these assumptions, they do lend themselves to interpretation by other researchers. Also, in terms of his empirical analysis, we felt it would have been fruitful to include income level into the controls, as that may also have some impact on racial attitudes. Finally, Bobo includes a significant list of further research opportunities along these lines ranging from media coverage to leadership influence, all of which we feel deserve attention. In general, the piece provides a substantial empirical basis for some previously purely anecdotal assertions. The significant amounts of data support, well-presented in a series of explanatory graphs, give a concrete foundation for further empirical work in this area. Annotation written by Matthew Baggetta and Nathan Farley Carter, Gregg Lee. 1992. "Hispanic Rioting During the Civil Rights Era." Sociological Forum 7: 301-322. Almost all of the research on racial rioting in the 1960s-1970s has focused on black-led riots, where researchers either cite city-event models (focus on population of whole city that experienced rioting) or riot-event models (focus on population that participated in the riot). Gregg Lee Carter, in this piece, is this first to analyze these constructs used in examining black riots in order to determine how generalizeable these theories are for nonblack riots, specifically Hispanics. As a premise, Carter draws similarities between the black and Hispanic populations of this time period. According to Carter, both populations were equally discriminated against, especially in regards to police harassment. Furthermore, both groups developed charismatic leadership, militant elements, and strong organizations to mobilize their people in protest against social conditions. With this background, Carter shows the possibility of converting the black riot research to fit the Hispanic mold. Thus, the remainder of his work examines how appropriately the riot-event models (namely Seymour Spilerman) fit the Hispanic experience versus the city-event models (specifically Carter). Carter concludes that the event-model is not inclusive of the Hispanic situation, mainly since the southern-regional location aspect and the assassination of Martin Luther King (Spilerman) are not applicable to the greater Hispanic experience. On the other hand city-event models fit well, particularly the effects of family income inequality and the size of the local police force. While Carter's work is careful to examine a highly comprehensive database for his findings (most notably the Lemberg Center collections!), he confines his study to established theories not created for nonblack riots. Undoubtedly, this new terrain of study could benefit from new theories particular to the nonblack, minority populations. For example, Carter never mentions the differences in discrimination against Hispanics at this time. He safeguards against this criticism by claiming that discrimination against the two races was equal. Yet, orators and intellectuals like Piri Thomas note the distinction between black and brown: "Was I better than he is because he is only Black and I am a Puerto Rican dark-skin?" (75). Could the lighter-the-better complex in American society mean that Hispanics were less hindered in their economic and social pursuits and, thus, either looked down on the rioting or felt less urge to riot? This is an area crucial to a study comparing the differences in Black and Nonblack rioting. Annotation written by Mame Hogan and Colleen Quinlan Feagin, J.J. 1971. “White Separatists and Black Separatists: A Comparative Analysis.” Social Problems, 19: 167-180. In this paper Feagin focuses his study and analysis on the extreme separatist models, those which call for a separate country for black Americans or those which segregate the states of the United States into those for blacks and those for whites. He begins his analysis by giving the reader some historical background on separatism. He stresses the idea that, as opposed to popular belief, separatism seems to have always had a stronger backing from the white population rather than the black population. His goal with the rest of the paper was to address these four pertinent questions: “(1) To what extent do rank-and-file white and black Americans support separatist (non-assimilation) solutions to the racial adjustment dilemma? (2) Are white Americans now more likely to support separatist solutions that black Americans? (3) What are the social correlates of separatist sentiment? (4) To what extent is white support for separatism related to the fear of racial intermixture? to fear of riots and revolution? to general anti-Negro attitudes?” The most important result found by Feagin is that his data, even when adjusting for variables, such as sex, age, urban, education and occupation, supported the historical hypothesis that there were significantly more whites supporting extreme separatism than there were blacks. There was a much greater variation in white opinion across the subgroups defined whereas the black population was much more consistent in their beliefs. In most cases a very small percentage were in support of extreme separatism. A pertinent observation was that whites of lower educational levels and job status were more in favor of extreme separatism. Feagin found that as whites move up the status ladder they support the values of extreme separatism less and less. An explanation for the phenomenon could be that the perceived threat was greater at lower occupational levels and therefore those at lower status levels were more apt to agree with separatist values because this would remove the threat of blacks taking over their positions in society. Feagin failed to address the difference in percentages between those respondents who supported blacks having their own states in the United States and those who supported blacks having their own country outside the U.S. Further studies could develop ideas on why these disparities exist and what variables led to the respondents viewing these options differently. Annotation by Teresa Paulus Forman, James. 1969. "1967: High Tide of Black Resistance." Pp. 4050-4063 in Riots, Civil and Criminal Disorders. Washington: Government Printing Office. Many people try to analyze the roots and causes of the Black Movement, but very few are successful. Because of the limited exposure to the complete story of the Black Movement, it is difficult to accurately speculate on the topic. However, James Forman, a leader of the black resistance group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, presents us with his insight into the Black Movement along with some of its actual events. His insight toward southern blacks and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee's actions, enable the reader to see the racism and exploitation that occurred in the 1960's. He often comments on differences in racism and discrimination that divide blacks in the North from those in the South. Forman begins his article by describing the current state of affairs among blacks in the United States during the year of 1967. Having been exploited and discriminated against throughout their American existence, blacks were now ready to take back their humanity - to be liberated. "You can only kill us, but we shall die fighting for our freedom. We shall die knowing full well that we have advanced the cause of liberation. We shall say to the 'man' (U.S. government) that there is no other way for us but to fight by whatever means necessary for our liberation" (Forman, 4050). Forman clearly sets the stage of the paper by which he supplies us with important background information and circulating attitudes. Forman suggests that the beginning of the Black Movement started with the involvement of blacks in World War II. It is true that the fighting in the war inspired blacks to fight for their individual rights, but it was not necessarily the predominant factor that triggered the Black Movement. Forman's comments may lead one to believe that blacks were unaware of or better yet comfortable, with their lives and their treatment in the United States until the war and this is not very accurate. We believe that blacks were simply afraid of the "white" man and his guns. As soon as the blacks were taken from Africa, fear was put into them so they would not revolt against their master. They were trained to be followers, not leaders - to obey the white man. During the slavery period, it was common for a black to have death come upon her or him and their family if they decided to revolt against their master and hence blacks did not challenge the predominantly white caste system. Forman attempts to cite at least four different historical events that changed the mentality of blacks. Forman dramatically promotes and puts an emphasis on four historical events inside the United States in the fifties that shaped the current struggle of blacks in the 1967. According to Forman the four major events that shaped the blacks' struggle for justice were: "(1) The 1954 Supreme Court Decision; (2) The Montgomery Bus Boycott; (3) The lynching of Emmett Till and Charles Mack Parker; and (4) The Little Rock School 'Integration Crisis'" (Forman, 4050). Without these four events the struggle for black rights may have never progressed. In sum, there were many underlying events that aided the Black Movement but Forman only recognized these four in his article. Beleaguered by frustration and unrest, blacks insisted in changing their state of repression into a state of action for equal treatment. For example, the Montgomery Boycott was not the first protest of its nature. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had obtained strategic information and advice on how to organize the Montgomery Bus Boycott with Rosa Parks. Luther assisted in a successful Montgomery Boycott by utilizing the experience of leaders from an earlier bus boycott in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Government involvement influenced the Black Movement through its attempts to quell the black uprising. Forman exclaims that the government is fully aware of the fact that blacks are being exploited, oppressed and forced to suffer under a white racist capitalistic system. He also asserts that the government fears the concept and action of black revolts, and therefore attempted to control black people through containment, punishment, silencing, imprisonment, and extermination. "'Black Power' was frightening to white Americans in general and the U. S. government knows in particular because of its revolutionary implications" (Forman, 4056). Forman pays special attention on how the government attempted to discredit and destroys those supporting Black Power. The Democratic Party supported the NAACP's goal of integration in an attempt to clear the Black Power mentality from blacks; knowing that "Negro" vote from major cities was needed. Forman also noted that the government set out to destroy the movement by associating violence with different black groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, citing violence as contrary to the "American way." Forman uses these examples to illustrate the obstacles blacks were facing in the 1960's. In closing the article, Forman states that the black liberation struggle became internationalized, fighting racism, capitalism, and American imperialism, whether directed at black people abroad or at home. Black resistance to the war in Vietnam was developing and blacks knew they deserved equal rights - fighting against repression. Without the struggle for black rights, the struggle for liberation of black people would not have been started. Annotation Written by JoAnna Bowen and Domingo Maynes Gamson, W.A. and J. McEvoy. 1970. “Police Violence and Its Public Support.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 391: 97-110. Gamson and McEvoy attempt to explore the nature of public opposition to and support of police violence by testing this phenomenon within the context of two broad schema of interpretation for social movements: Reactive (mass society), and Proactive (class conflict). The reactive model is characterized by “weak social attachments and personal vulnerability” (98). The social movement participants in this model are not affiliated with social institutions, lack “group loyalty,” and are often mobilized by “elites” and “demagogues who skillfully exploit the vulnerabilities of the masses for their own political ends” (99). The proactive model is characterized by “conflict groups and group identification” (100). Participants within this model tend to be tightly associated with social organizations, and the model assumes that the majority of collective action results from activities within competing institutional channels. Gamson and McEvoy then relate these two models directly to the issue of public perception of police violence using data from a national cross-section probability sample of adult Americans conducted for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence during October 1968. Three of the twenty-five survey questions were regarded as applicable to public perception of police violence. The data was then broken down both demographically and based on participation within social organizations in order to decide which of the two general models better explain perceptions of police violence. The reactive model implies the following: 1) Higher education level yields more opposition to police violence. 2) Whites will be more opposed to police violence than Blacks. 3) Registered voters will be more opposed to police violence than their non-registered neighbors. 4) Identification with a major political party will increase opposition to police violence. Conversely, the proactive model implies the following: 1) Blacks will be more opposed to police violence than Whites. 2) Opposition to police violence decreases with age. 3) Opposition to police violence increases as economic deprivation increases. 4) Financially dissatisfied people will be more opposed to police violence than the financially satisfied. Gamson and McEvoy found that the latter model is vastly more applicable than the former, with one exception: education. All Blacks were equally opposed to police violence, regardless of educational level. However, with regard to white college graduates, 58 percent of those under thirty years of age opposed police violence, while only one-third of those over age fifty expressed opposition towards police violence. The authors suggest that this indicates that there is something other than the privilege that comes with education that may be contributing to attitudes toward police violence. They postulate that greater capacity for “cognitive differentiation” between police and the law exists within the educated population (108). There seems to be an inherent oversight in the general approach with which the authors address the issue of police violence. Social movements probably involve a mix of people as opposed to all “insiders” or all “outsiders” of social organizations as the proactive and reactive models suggest respectively. Also, Gamson and McEvoy’s data included interviews with 929 respondents of whom only 215 were Black, possibly resulting in skewed statistics. Annotation by: Ray Areaux Hacker, Frederick J. and Aljean Harmetz. 1969. "The Riot: A Liberating, Identifying Force" Pp. 87-92 in Urban Racial Violence in the Twentieth Century, edited by Joseph Boskin. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press. Dr. Hacker's comments provide an insight into the social psychological influences and impacts on rioting - whether he realizes it or not. Obviously not a scholarly piece, the article examines the feelings and moods of the residents of Watts in reaction to the riots. Hacker deals heavily with the framing processes used by rioters and non-rioters to define their individual actions, within the collective behavior. He found that rioters used a series of frames to justify their destructive behavior, while non-rioters used similar frames to give tacit support to those involved with the action. Hacker paints a vivid picture of the substandard conditions to which the residents were exposed. He notes grocery price differences between white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, disrespectful treatment by police, and even a geographic separation from the "haves" of Los Angeles because of the freeway running above the neighborhood. These conditions led to a general feeling of apathy in Watts prior to the riots, a sense that while positive and negative things happened in the world, nothing happened in Watts. Riot frames dealt with the riots as the antithesis to this apathy rather than as a breakdown of order. Rioters and non-rioters alike felt that while the action was destructive, the motivation was a means by which identity as an individual and as a group could be affirmed. Following the riots, black men felt that they had finally stood up and taken action against the injustices they had suffered, allowing them to gain respect from their peers and from themselves. Despite Hacker's ability to define these frames and analyze the black position, there are some questionable moments in his presentation of facts. His generalizations about certain riot behaviors seem to be unfounded, or at least unsupported. For example, the connections he draws between riots and sexual activity seem to be a matter more of personal opinion than fact. Perhaps the inclusion of some citations of others that have studied a correlation between the two would strengthen his argument. In spite of the lack of external support for his points, Hacker's piece allows the reader to examine the motivations of blacks in the Watts riot, possibly allowing for comparison to other cities that may have experienced similar events. His observations shed new light onto the reasons people riot. Contrary to the conclusions of others, Hacker shows blacks not as criminals in search of material gain through rioting, but rather as stifled individuals revolting against an oppressive system. Annotation Written by Francisco Sanchez and Matthew Baggetta Jefferies, Vincent, Ralph H. Turner, and Richard T. Morris. 1971. "The Public Perception of the Watts Riot as Social Protest." American Sociological Review 36:443-451. The study deals with the "after the fact" framing of those people who participated in the Watts riot by the Los Angeles white community. Jefferies, Turner, and Morris examine the possible factors that go into the development of frames towards the riots. Following the Watts riot, whites in the Los Angeles area were surveyed on a variety of attitudes toward race and riot issues. These were collected and then analyzed, breaking down data according to several characteristics including, but not limited to, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, attitudes toward races, and attitudes toward civil rights. The results produced some interesting relationships. Several theories were tested using a series of statistical techniques. A strong correlation existed between framing rioters as protestors working for an ideological cause and the presence of an ideology that favored protest in the interviewee, or the presence of a sensitizing experience for the interviewee before the riot (supports "credibility" theory). A somewhat weaker relationship was seen between those who recognized rioters as being in a comparatively worse situation than others, especially themselves, and a positive rioter frame (supports "comparison" theory). Conversely, people in similar situations to the rioters were significantly more likely to hold a negative rioter frame (negation of "common cause" theory). Several other theories were also tested resulting in primarily non-significant relationships. However, the authors note that the collection of different indicators may have resulted in a better method of testing those relationships. The study was very thorough in terms of statistical analysis. Unfortunately, some of the charts relating those statistics were unclear, primarily as a result of confusion surrounding their definition of the Index of Protest Definition, making interpretation by the reader difficult. Despite this drawback, the study presents some compelling arguments for the support of frame alignment theories, which actually were developed after this piece was published (for review, see Snow et al, 1986). If a study like this were to be repeated, it would be beneficial (but of course nearly impossible due to the general unpredictability of riots) to have pre-riot data set of attitudes toward race and riots. Also, it may be interesting to examine reactions and frames of blacks who were not involved in the riot rather than limiting the responses to the white population. Annotation Written by Matthew Baggetta and Francisco Sanchez Jeffries, Vincent; Turner, Ralph; Morris, Richard. 1971. “The Public Perception of the Watts Riot as Social Protest.” American Sociological Review 36:443-451. The authors of this article seek to understand what causes people to view disturbances in various ways. Specifically, they wonder what causes a person to view a disturbance as either a social protest or some sort of violent or criminal behavior. In order to do this, they created an “index of protest definition” (IPD), which became their measure for defining social protest. First the authors describe the five characteristics of an act of social protest: to express a grievance; to lack the ability to correct one’s conditions by one’s own efforts; to draw attention to one’s cause; to provoke ameliorative action by the target group; and to create sympathy or instill fear in the target group. The authors used three questions to determine the IPD: did the respondent believe that the incident was a Negro protest; what was the cause of the riot; and what steps could be taken to prevent riots in the future? The authors explain that the meaning a person attaches to an event reflects their personal preconceptions, emotions, and social relationships. From among the many determinants, they chose to focus on the credibility of the protest image to the individual, the communication balance between appeal and threat, and conduciveness to gestures of conciliation. The authors’ most conclusive findings resulted from their analysis of what makes a protest credible. They define credibility as “the ease with which the individual can believe that what he seeing, hearing, and reading about is an act of protest” (445). Individuals are more likely to find protests credible when they believe that there is discrimination against blacks, if they have a positive attitude toward the Civil Rights Movement, if they participated in a civil rights activity, and if they believe that the requests of blacks are just. The authors’ most conclusive finding concerning the balance between appeal and threat is that the appeal of the protest must be loud enough to be heard, but the threat of the protest cannot drown out the appeal. The authors’ findings on conciliation is inconclusive. The most significant flaw of this article is that the data set used included only white respondents. Since the perception of riots is an important issue, especially in relation to the media selection process in the coverage of riots, the results would have been more applicable to society at large if black respondents had been included in the data set. Annotation written by Kristin Geraty and Amy Szestak
Kaniss, Phyllis. 1991. Making Local News. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 46-70. In Phyllis Kaniss' article, she presents several theories that have been used to explain how commercial interests influence the stories that constitute the news. Such theories include sensationalism, advertisers' influence, boosterism, the downtown bias, and zoning. In order to sell their stories and attract an audience, journalists have been criticized for sensationalism, in which a reporter covers a story or stints a story in an angle that seeks to reach the emotions of viewers or readers. In doing so, journalists are accused of entertaining their audience instead of informing them of important events. Although many journalists refute this point, Kaniss explains that some papers need to employ "attention-grabbing" methods to solicit readers. Information can also be biased because the media feels a need to please advertisers who contract with them. Kaniss points out that this seems to be the tendency for smaller papers or stations, while larger ones can maintain more of their own autonomy. Another bias Kaniss points out is the idea of boosterism where the local media takes an interest in supporting economic growth. Ultimately, this will benefit the media because if there are more people in their target audience, this will increase their readership and viewing body. The better their city is doing the better the local media will do as well. However, Kaniss later argues against this tendency when she explains that the local news media also covers negative stories. Finally, "the downtown bias," Kaniss explains, is the tendency for the news media to focus on issues that occur in the central part of the city, rather than in the outlying areas. To reach these outlying areas, newspapers have begun to implement a process called "zoning," in which a news organization changes the content of its medium to reach different suburbs. Ironically, this specialization aims at unifying the greater metropolitan area by highlighting common threads, which happens downtown. Kaniss successfully maintains her objectivity in discussing the theories, carefully balancing both sides of the argument without favoring one side over the other. Kaniss could strengthen her discussion by addressing historical trends that have come about with such biases. For example, sensationalism has existed since the advent of the newspaper media, while zoning and the downtown bias are relatively new (as suburbs have only recently multiplied across the United States). Annotation Written by Anna Benjamin and Tiffany Monroy Keith, M. 1993. “Blame. Guilt and ‘causes’ of ‘riots’.” Pp. 72-95 in Race, Riots, and Policing. Lore and Disorder in a Multi-racist Society. London: UCL Press. Keith writes this article in an attempt to compile and analyze the views of various social scientists in regard to the riots that took place in Britain in 1981. According to Keith, these riots “played a major role in the shaping of popular perception of Britain in the early 1980’s” and as a result it is important to understand the nature and underlying causes of the riots. In his analysis, Keith looks into several areas of previous research, including “official inquiries,” collective behavior and the crowd, and guilt. The beginning of the piece spends time addressing riots on American soil and analyzing reasoning that had previously been presented as causing factors for the US riots. While addressing the “official inquiries” performed after the British riots, Keith makes comparisons to the Kerner Commission’s Reports that followed the race riots in the United States in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. At this point Keith emphasizes that the government and other people behind the commissions held a special interest in the study, and as a result, may have influenced the published results. Keith also refers to the “recipe analysis” that many use in attempts to understand the causes of rioting. Although the flexibility of this theory is helpful to anyone trying to create their own “recipe,” the fact is that the fallibility of the theory exists because there is no exact recipe that can be identified. Keith does eventually get this point across, but in a much more complex manner than necessary. Finally, Keith emphasizes that the police tended to be seen as visible symbols of white society, and more importantly of a racist white society. After concluding his discussion of riots in America, Keith proceeds to get to his original point and look for underlying causes that have been referenced in regard to the riots in Britain. In each of these previously discussed areas of analysis, Keith delves into theories of other social scientists and then proceeds to systematically refute each of their conclusions. He finally concludes that because previous research fails to address the impromptu nature of rioting, there is no conception of rioting that will accurately describe what happened in the riots of Britain. It seems that Keith falls short of his initial goal of understanding the underlying causes of the British riots. In addition, Keith’s analysis of the studies conducted by others tends to leave the reader with more questions than answers, but as a result could be the basis for further sociological research. Annotation written by Teresa Paulus Knapper, Karl. 1996. "Women and the Black Panther Party." Socialist Review 26: 25-31. This introductory article tells of how the Black Panther group evolved. Karl Knapper does a great job of recognizing that the Black Panthers grew out of an "evolving and increasingly militant activism of the civil rights movement." The Black Panthers was established by modeling the Lowndes County Freedom Organization of Lowndes County, Alabama that was organized by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Formation of the Black Panthers called for its followers to employ an armed self-defense and paramilitary lifestyle. Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale created the Black Panthers in an attempt to promote Black Rights and increase the levels of black political activism, particularly in police brutality in the Oakland, CA area. Knapper shows that the ideas of many Civil Rights groups were incorporated in the Black Panther's ideology. He displays where the Black Panthers carried out the goals of Marcus Garvey and the Nation of Islam's, Elijah Muhammad. Knapper makes very clear that the leaders of the Black Panthers were greatly inspired through a diverse range of ideologies, from Marxist- Lennist and Black Nationalist ideologies to revolutionary movements in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Black Panthers' primary appeal was to young urban blacks that were willing to confront police power through armed self-defense. Although these goals were not in the Black Panther constitution, young blacks willing to fight were recruited. Since men founded the Black Panther party, it was no mistake that women had small roles in the group. Knapper recognizes the role of women in the Black Panther Party was not only to act as a support to their spouses, but also to act as leaders in the party at the local and national levels. Women gave speeches at Panther rallies and assisted in "community survival programs that provided food, clothing, health services, and other necessities" (Knapper, 27). They also served to provide transportation and other support services to the group. However, women often faced sexism and the assignment of gender-specific tasks. The group's force weakened over the years as many of its core members were jailed killed or expelled from the group. Troubles mounted including legal problems and awry financial matters. In the midst of this decline, women maintained the community survival programs until the 1981 shutdown of the Oakland-based Black Panther Party. Annotation Written by Domingo Maynes and JoAnna Bowen Knopf, T.A. 1974. “Race, Riots, and Reporting.” Journal of Black Studies, 4: 303-327. In this article, Terry Ann Knopf seeks to characterize the nature, consequences, and implications of misreporting evident in interracial conflict. To do so, she examines the press coverage of eleven riots between the years of 1917 and 1943. In six out of the eleven cases, evidence of gross misreporting was found, taking the form of “…one-sided, biased, and distorted press coverage against blacks, reflecting and exploiting the sentiments of the white community.” Specifically, Knopf identified four themes particularly pervasive in the data: rumor-mongering, race-baiting, loaded language, and advancing the white version of events. Knopf identifies rumor-mongering as the readiness with which the press would publish rumors that were “hostile in content and directed against blacks.” This is illustrated in the Washington, D.C. riot of 1919 where the Washington Post reported rumors of black attacks on white women that incited the lynching of two black suspects and the beating of black men and women. Race-baiting is identified by Knopf as the emphasis on reporting criminal acts by blacks while underreporting criminal acts committed by whites, as was the case in the Chicago riot of 1919. Another theme Knopf identified was that of loaded-language, a tactic in which the press tended to use words that place non-whites in a negative light, as seen in the press coverage of the 1943 Los Angeles riot where all Mexican-Americans were labeled as “zoot-suiters.” Finally, Knopf recognized the tendency of the press to present the one-sided white version of incidents, such as in the Arkansas riot of 1919. After identifying the patterns in the sample data, Knopf questions the basis of such biased and inaccurate reporting. Rejecting the conspiracy theory and sensationalism as explanations for this trend, she views the best explanation as the structure of the press itself, which is white-dominated and generally directed towards a white audience. She argues that the press needs to be more responsible in their reporting because of the consequences that can arise from inaccurate coverage, as seen in the six riots studied. Since the data used in this article was limited to the years between 1917 and 1943, further research into current press coverage of interracial incidents could illuminate to what degree such themes are still present in not only newspapers but in other forms of media as well. Annotation written by: Katie Higgins Lieberson, S. and A.R. Silverman. 1965. “The Precipitants
and Underlying Conditions of Race Riots.” American Sociological Review
30:887-898. Lieberson and Silverman attempt to determine the precipitants and underlying conditions and race riots by comparing cities with and without riots between 1913-1963. They explain a race riot as “an assault on persons and property simply because they are part of a given subgroup of the community” (887). They talked of two general ways a riot can be triggered within a city. First those arising from offenses committed by one racial group against another, and secondly, those that violate established social norms. Most of the cities that experienced a riot had a precipitating event that fell into one of these general categories. However there were many cities that didn’t have a riot but did have a precipitating event, for this reason Lieberson and Silverman investigated the possibility that some other factors in addition to the precipitating event led to the riot. These underlying conditions were divided into four categories: population growth and composition, work situation, housing, and government. They found that the factors that had a significant impact were the work situations and government. Specifically, more riots occurred in places where blacks were expanding outside their traditional economic positions. In addition, there were a greater number of riots in cities where voters have a more indirect relation to their local governments. In light of such findings, they suggest that these underlying conditions reflect the failure of social institutions to function adequately and meet the needs of a changing society. Lieberson and Silverman’s methods worked nicely for the time period they were considering, however, due to the large influx of rioting in the late 1960’s it may be harder to pair riot cities with similar non-riot cities. Their use of crude methods and measurements to define “traditional” black occupations and to gather data about political conditions is problematic because they base some of their key hypotheses on these assumptions. Additionally, knowing how hard it is to determine a precipitating event, it’s questionable how they were so clearly able to determine these events in so many different cases. Annotation Written By: Katie Higgins and Andi Will Lieske, J. A. 1978. "Group Disorders in Urban Schools: The Effect of Racial Desegregation and Social Emancipation." Urban Affairs Quarterly 14: 79-101. In this article, Lieske creates a causal model of racial violence to explain the outbreak of school disorders during the late 1960s. He tries to demonstrate a connection between societal factors and the outbreak of school riots throughout the United States. Lieske uses a causal model of school violence to compare the theoretical premises of three competing explanations of riotous behavior: social marginality, "riot ideology", and cultural contact-conflict. Social marginality links the levels of black well-being to racial violence in the communities, racial violence is the result of "the flawed character of minority individuals and their inability to enter the economic and social mainstream of urban life.". Riot ideology theory looks at the wide range of social and political circumstances that shape the communities where riotous conditions form. Racial violence seems to stem from the new values of younger adults who have more militant views and have attained a higher education level than their parents. Cultural Contact-Conflict theory bases racial violence in the community to the extent of desegregation in the schools and the indirect magnitude of class differences between the students in the schools. Essentially, students who are worse off are least likely to riot, as compared to students whose families are on equal socioeconomic statuses as their counterparts. Lieske found that as the absolute and relative well-being of blacks increases, the number of riots generally increases. This is a direct contradiction of the equal-status assumption of contact theory. The results also contradict the theories based on absolute and relative deprivation, but are consistent with theories in which the interpretation are derived from a parapolitical nature of urban racial violence. Although the previous finding contradicts the contact theory, some of Lieske's correlations give support to the contact theory. The findings are that as the contact between white people and black people increases, the number of riots increases. These are only a few of his findings that support or contradict the aforementioned theories. Lieske's overall conclusion is that school violence depends on the conditions in the community as well as those in school. Contrary to Ritterband and Silberstein (1973), Lieske's results base the cause of riots to problems in the greater society as well as other problems within the school system in addition to the number of black students in a particular school. A more appropriate study of school violence and the relationship between school causes and societal causes would be using individual schools as the unit of analysis as opposed to cities. The causes of school riots are from school factors and the larger society as a whole. The intertwined nature of our schools and their society perpetuates an environment that creates conditions for school violence. Many students cannot separate what goes on in their homes from what occurs in their school environment; therefore, problems that stem from diminished social environmental factors are transferred into the attitudes of students in schools. Marx, Gary T. 1979. "External Efforts to Damage or Facilitate Movements: Some Patterns, Explanations, Outcomes, and Complications." Pp. 94-125 in Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and Tactics, edited by M. N. Zald and J. D. McCarthy. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop. Gary Marx's eye-opening article mainly informs about the lengths to which government agencies will go to monitor, influence, repress, and even facilitate social protest. While the details Marx reveals about government efforts are dramatic, he has a more general theoretic purpose. Marx wishes to feed into what was, at the time of his writing, a developing perspective on social movements (resource mobilization) that emphasized how forces external to social movements affected their development, success, and failure. One set of these external actions has to do with fostering or degrading the public image of a movement and thus its ability to attract new recruits to its ranks. Example here include the FBI's supply of information to journalists about Martin Luther King's sexual behavior. Activists have also be directly "de-recruited" once FBI agents discovered activist leaders identities and directly or indirectly threatened them. A second set of actions is related to the financial resources of protest groups. Threats to funding can force a group to become more moderate in its approach or even to disband. On an individual basis, activists' jobs have been threatened and their credit standing has been influenced by governmental agents. Third, the government has also be involved in destroying movements from the inside. Schisms have been created by accusations of infidelity, accusations of key activists being informants, and general attempts to exacerbate any conflict that existed within movement groups. Governmental agencies did not just work to damage movements, but they also sought to aid movements that would balance or provide a challenge to groups perceived as being particularly dangerous. They would also provide resources to moderate groups in hopes of siphoning protest energy away from the more radical groups. Marx completes the article by tracing these government actions through a series of historical processes. In particular, he notes the government's growing willingness to use social control measures on its own citizen, the inherent tensions in social control roles, and the growth of bureaucracy and governmental resources that would allow such behavior to develop and be supported. He also notes that governmental actions seemed to be the most effective against radical groups and considerably less so against moderate groups. However, the story is not complete because more evidence about the interplay of radical and moderate activists with the police is necessary to understand the success and failure of a movement. Other analysts (Gamson; Piven and Cloward) have noted the violence and radicalism are often the most important elements that drive a successful protest campaign. Even if the government can snuff out radicalism and violence, it sometimes seems that they are too late and that the radicals will have already made their contribution to the movement's trajectory. Annotation Written by Dan Myers McPhail, Clark. 1994. "Presidential Address-The Dark Side of Purpose: Individual and Collective Violence in Riots." The Sociological Quarterly 35:1-16. Clark McPhail’s article provides the reader with a solid overview of the sociological theories that have been proposed to explain the origin of riots. McPhail first explains structural strain. There are two types of structural strain – relative and absolute. Structural strain results in the generalized hostile beliefs about who/what are responsible for the strain. A precipitating incident exacerbates the strain, escalates the belief and results in mobilization for action. Once an outburst occurs, the reaction of social control agents can either escalate or diminish rioting. This model is linked to the relative deprivation model. The relative deprivation model holds that a deprived group will get frustrated with their situation and this leads to riots. In the 1970s, Seymour Spilerman disputed the previously proposed theories about rioting and took riot research in a new direction. According to Spilerman, only two factors were responsible for riot frequency or severity. These were the geographic location of the city in which the riot occurred and that city’s percent of nonwhite population. Using Spilerman’s model, large ghetto populations provided participants for frequent and severe disturbances. Spilerman also cites the likelihood of this population’s participation because of individual strain. Spilerman’s theory ties to another emerging theory of the 1970s, that of the new ghetto male. The new ghetto male theory holds that black men would riot against a system that denies them upward mobility. McPhail says that the new ghetto male theory is merely another name for deprivation models. In his words, "Such persons were simply more available for participation of the large amount of unscheduled/uncommitted time which results from being a young, black male without education credentials in the urban ghettos of contemporary U.S. society (6)." McPhail disregards structural strain and deprivation models, going on to explore various reasons as to how riots begin, gain participants and what activities these activities these participants engage in. Annotation Written by Jen Weaver and Kimberly Berg
McPhail, Clark, John McCarthy, and David Schweingruber. 1997. "Policing Protest in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s." EUI Working Papers, No. 97/3. In their recent piece for the European University Institute, McPhail, McCarthy, and Schweingruber (who will be henceforth referred to as the authors) analyze the interaction between protesters and police over four decades from the 1960s to the 1990s. The paper, which provides a comprehensive history of the shift in protest policing tactics and training, focuses on the development of a public order management system, an organization whose duty is to manage public disorder problems. First, the authors contrast two styles of protest policing according to five dimensions. The two styles of protest policing are "escalated force" and "negotiated management." The five dimensions used to compare the styles of protest policing are 1) the extent of police concerns with the first amendment rights of protesters, and police obligations to respect and protect those rights; 2) the extent of police toleration for community disruption; 3) the nature of communication between police and demonstrators; 4) the extent and manner of arrests as a method of managing demonstrators; and 5) the extent and manner of using force in lieu of or in conjunction with arrests in order to control demonstrators. The authors used the examples of an anti-segregation campaign in Birmingham and anti-apartheid rallies to show the ends of the spectrum with respect to their five dimensions. Next the authors looked at the development of one public order management system (POMS). The system began as presidential commissions set up in response to riots and demonstrations. These commissions looked at urban rioting, campus unrest, and the causes and prevention of violence. The next step in the development of POMS was a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding the First Amendment rights of free public assembly. These decisions detailed definitions of public forums and the types of behaviors allowed in various classes of public forums. The third step in the development of POMS was the evolution of a protest permit system. Protest permits define the details regarding a protest so that police may protect the First Amendment guarantees. The final step in the development of POMS was the implementation of a program known as SEA-DOC I and its offspring SEA-DOC II. These programs were designed as a civil disturbance orientation course. The authors continue their piece with an exploration of the variables necessary for the development of POMS. First, they examine the components of the organizations which have the responsibility of managing public disorder. Some components of POMS are public order policies, the recruiting and training of personnel, the actual practices of the personnel, and the equipment and technology used by said personnel. Next, the authors look at the environment in which a police organization works. Temporal and geographic variation and different types of events all affect an organization's reaction to public disorder. Finally, the authors examined the political and legal environment in which police agencies currently operate. They report that the federal government has lost much of its role in making management decisions, leaving this instead to police agencies themselves. Finally, the authors look at how standardization was achieved in many different police forces. They point to three different constraints to adopting innovations. Coercive constraints include such things as the development of the public forum law by the Supreme Court. Normative constraints include recommendations strongly supported by the public or by institutions to which police belong. Lastly, mimetic processes include the examination of other forces' actions and consequences and seeing how to best apply that to one's own force. While this report gave a thorough and detailed explanation of the 1963 riots in Birmingham and the 1985 anti-apartheid rioting, these two examples may not be sufficient representation of the two styles of police protesting on which the authors focus. Furthermore, while this article examines and describes the ideal public order management system, perhaps the authors should have investigated the number of police forces in the country that actually have a system like the one they describe. Therefore, to improve the article, the authors could have studied more examples of police reaction to riots and protests during the two time periods studied, and investigated the implementation of the POMS discussed. Annotated by Amy Szestak and Kimberly Berg
McCarthy, John, Clark McPhail and Jackie Smith. 1996. "Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991." American Sociological Review 61: 478-499. Various works have addressed different aspects of media bias in protest demonstration coverage. McPhail, McCarthy, and Smith explore selection bias, i.e., whether an event is covered or not, as they probe coverage of Washington D.C. protests in the New York Times, Washington Post, and three major networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS). The reference data set is a large collection of permit records compiled by the three Wash. D.C. police agencies. The authors theorize significant influence on coverage by several primary bias mechanisms, including news gathering routines, professional incentive and sponsorship effects, and media issue attention cycles. They test models measuring these effects as well as a slew of other regressors addressing the various contexts (size of demonstration, timing etc.), forms (rally, march, picket etc.) and purposes (labor, foreign policy, environment etc.) of protest demonstrations. Their results suggest an overall decline in coverage over time, a massive under-representation of small demonstrations, and other significant variation in demonstration forms, patterns, and purposes. Despite the variation, however, the authors conclude that their results suggest a temporal (both 1982 and 1991) and regional (NYT and WP) robustness and stability for the demonstration size and media attention models. The media attention model holds for the networks as well, although protest size loses predictive validity in 1991, due in part to the massive over-representation of Gulf War coverage. The overall results suggest that the vast majority of demonstrations are ignored by the media, and those that are covered are influenced heavily by size, timing (whether or not they correspond to current media "hot topics"), and the influence of corporate hegemony. The McPhail, McCarthy, and Smiths piece impacts the endless quantity of research that employs media sources as primary data sets. Due to the fact that so much of the research on social disturbances is based on media reports, it becomes critical to ensure that inferences based on such evidence are valid. Similarly, the majority of public knowledge about protest stems from media portrayals as well. When we consider that everyone from policy makers and public officials to interest groups and corporate elitists also rely on the mass media for information about the protest habits and grievances of disgruntled citizens, it becomes apparent that media bias can play a serious role in larger political affairs. One major limitation of this study revolves around the absence of a viable disruption model, due in large part to the nature of the data set (rioters do not apply for permits). In addition, Washington D.C., as noted by the authors, is a veritable protest capital. Indeed, the frequency of protest in our nation's capital could monopolize the content of any single network's coverage. Accordingly, selection bias is a given in Wash. D.C., thus external validity concerns arise on these grounds. In short, Due to the singularity of Washington as a common arena for demonstration activity, it is highly doubtful that the author's research is applicable to protest demonstrations in other areas, or to other forms of social protest such as riots. Annotation written by Anthony Perez and Rhonda Stewart
Myers, Daniel J. 1997. "Racial Rioting in the 1960s: An Event History Analysis of Local Conditions." American Sociological Review 62:94-112. In 1970, Seymour Spilerman published the first in a series of important articles that examined the racial rioting that dominated urban race relations during the 1960s. "Racial Rioting…" re-examines Spilerman's first paper in light of theories about collective violence and new statistical techniques that have been developed since Spilerman published his studies. The author begins by replicating Spilerman's analysis of four theoretical arguments about rioting: Structural Strain, Absolute Deprivation, Relative Deprivation, and Political Representation. As in Spilerman's analyses, none of these theoretical arguments are supported by the empirical data. However, it is not the case that there are no relationships between these economic and structural indicators and the amount of rioting in U.S. cities (as some readers of Spilerman have erroneously concluded). Instead, a correct interpretation of the results is that the pattern of relationships do not make sense with any of the theoretical perspectives. Given the failure of these earlier perspectives, Myers turns to a more recent theoretical take on collective violence, developed in large part by Susan Olzak. In Olzak's competition model, increased interaction and desegregation among groups lead to increased competition and ultimately to collective violence of the advantaged group toward the decreasingly less disadvantaged group. The violence of the 1960s, however, was primarily instigated by the disadvantaged group, and therefore the author reinterprets Olzak's arguments to recognize not just increased competition, but important outcomes of that competition. Taken in this new light, competition arguments provide a coherent and empirically supported theoretical understanding of the pattern of riots in the 1960s. Finally, the author re-examines Spilerman's assessment of contagion among the riots. While Spilerman found no evidence for contagion, the statistical techniques he used were not well suited to detecting contagion. In this analysis, the author finds strong support for contagion processes. The contagion from some riots appears to have been uniform across the country while the effects of others appear to have had a limited geographic scope. The major limitation of the study appears to be that the author did not address regional differences that had extremely powerful effects on rioting in Spilerman's and others' studies. Annotation Written by Dan Myers
Oliver, Pamela and Daniel Myers. 1999. "How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events." American Journal of Sociology 105:38-87. In their article, Oliver and Myers break through some of the current research in the field of protests and gatherings, how they enter the public arena, and how they are covered by the news media, particularly news print. The authors do this by carefully defining all pertinent terms, inspecting old theories and literature on the topic, and looking at new research in the Madison, Wisconsin area. To investigate what others have written on a given topic, one must fully understand the vocabulary used. Oliver and Myers go to great lengths to define every term they use in their article, including public sphere, conflict, message, news holes, drama, and so forth. The bulk of the research in this paper inquires as to how disruptions or public events become a matter of public record, particularly the news (print). The methodology used to do this involved looking at two local newspapers and comparing the number of reports of public events to the actual number of public events. One acknowledged flaw in this gathering of data arises in that it is impossible to obtain an exact number or record of public events. The authors compiled as exhaustive of a list as possible, though, by pouring over police and other public records–such as permits, equipment rental records, etc. They acknowledge this is not a perfect data set, but it is as complete as physical constrictions allow. Oliver and Myers include a number of statistical graphs, charts, and tables in their article, and they explain each one in the text, making it more easily readable and the results clearer. Perhaps one of the most interesting in Table 8, which shows a number of independent variables and how important they were in the coverage of the two newspapers studied. This and other tables lead to a number of conclusions. The following factors are important in determining if an event is newsworthy: size of event, group involved (established groups receiving more attention), conflict (88% coverage rate) vs. consensual (46%) messages, events utilizing amplifiers and vehicles, and location (student areas receiving the lowest coverage location). Only a few critiques can be made of this piece. One includes an ambiguous indicator for event size. Due to the fact that few of their data sources recorded size, the authors made estimates based on chair requests and records of that sort, along with subjective opinions based on the area and type of event. This could lead to errors in either direction as such estimates have very little factual base. Furthermore, the authors point out that conflict events are, with one exception, a subset of message events. This is dangerous as they may have missed a message and considered some message events to be non-message or vice versa. Despite these mild shortcomings, the article is an insightful look at public events and news coverage. Annotation Written by Nathan Farley and Domingo Maynes
Reiner, Robert. 1997. "Policing, Protest, and Disorder in Britain." EUI Working Papers, No. 97/2. In Reiner's 1997 article "Policing, Protest, and Disorder in Britain" the author examines the policing trends in British history from 1829, which he describes as a historical U-turn. Britain's initial actions toward protesters consisted of a militia chosen by a county official, which posed the problem of neighbors fighting against each other. With the spread of industrial capitalism in the early 19th century, a new type of order was needed to end the riotous protests of the poor voicing their grievances to the rich. This protesting was viewed as a social and political threat to order. Using the army, militia, and yeomanry was no longer a sufficient solution. As a result the Metropolitan Police force was formed, whose responsibility it was to obtain the support of the people. Since the police force was formed at a time of great political unrest, when establishing a police force was not widely supported, the police were encouraged to use minimal force and to control protests without the aid of arms, practicing much discretion. Presently Britain is seeing a resurgence of militaristic policing in regards to protests. Reiner maintains that the police in Britain have always tried to use as least force as possible, citing the 1856 County and Borough Police Act, which spread forces around the country, but remained unarmed. There were times, however, that the public complained of police exercising excessive force, which were mainly during political protests and intense industrial conflict. Particularly significant is the violence that surrounded the economic and political crisis in the 1930s during the Fascist meetings, which resulted in the 1936 Public Order Act. In 1934 the National Council for Civil Liberties was founded in response to the violent suppression of marches. During these times, however, the appearance of low-key policing was still encouraged. After World War II, picket line violence was very subdued. This change was not purely a result of police control, but rather the actions of the citizens who practiced an increasing aversion to violence. Protesting eventually gave way to other forms of collective bargaining, such as striking. The 1970s and 1980s reflected a change in policing practice, referred to as "militarisation." This new policing includes the occasional use of rioting equipment as well as changes in training, the deployment of squads engaging in the use of force, if necessary, to maintain order. The turning point event occurred in the 1972 miners' strike, where the police were apparently defeated by demonstrators throwing pickets, thus succeeding in closing the Saltley coke depot. Increased police violence appears to be the result of police resenting the restraint they must exercise while being increasingly provoked. Even during recent protests demonstrators have made complaints of heavy-handed police tactics. Reiner's inclusion of a police perspective is crucial in understanding the need for more aggressive policing tactics. He also makes significant note of political motivation and its effects on police behavior. Another important point he makes is police response to society's intolerance of disorder by increasing containment efforts through the use of riot training and equipment. To improve his article, Reiner's could employ a better temporal structure. Updating the article to include activity within the last twenty years would also be helpful in supporting his historical analysis. Annotated by Tiffany Monroy and Andrea Will Ritterband, Paul and Richard Silberstein. 1973. "Group Disorders in the Public Schools." American Sociological Review 38:461-467. Ritterband and Silberstein attempt to prove their thesis that while disorders occur in the schools, their roots lie in the larger society. They had two purposes for writing this article: 1.) to account for the rates of two forms of disorder in New York City high schools and 2.) to determine to what extent variation in rates of student disorder and disruption reflect variations in system characteristics of ethnic aggregates in the schools. In defining a disorder, Ritterband and Silberstein use events involving greater than five people for which the police were called to intervene. The authors distinguish political disorders (mass-picketing, circulation of petitions, presentation of list of demands) from non-political disorders (free for all fights, gang rumbles) in their article. They used three alternative models for understanding group disorder: random events, exogenous causes of disorder, and system effects. The random events model shows that contagion was not a factor in causing group disorders to occur. The Poisson model was used to compare expected distribution of random events from the actual distribution. The exogenous causes of disorder model displays the effects of the presence of black teachers in schools. The systems effects model includes two types: the dynamics of disorders and educational and custodial characteristics of schools. When looking at dynamic system effects, Ritterband and Silberstein discussed contagion. When looking at the education and custodial characteristics of schools, the authors found that no school characteristic seemed to make any significant difference in generating political disorders. In summary, Ritterband and Silberstein found that the only significant characteristics were the ethnic composition of the student body and the teaching staff. The greater proportion of minorities within the school caused greater incidences. Schools did not seem to create their own political climate as much as they reflected the climate of the larger society. Overall, there were several problems with the conclusions of Ritterband and Silberstein's study. The authors believe the evidence presented supports their thesis, but major flaws can be found within their arguments. Their data is very limited because of a short collection period and limiting it to only New York City. In addition, including only disorders in which police were called limits the data. The definitions given for political and non-political disorders are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. Under their vague definitions, some events could be placed in both categories. Ritterband and Silberstein's analysis of the correlation of school characteristics with disorders leaves out any information about the relatively high correlation of achievement level, drop-out rate, pupil-teacher ration, average size class, and teacher seniority with the number of disorders in the schools. Ritterband and Silberstein started with a good idea for a study, but there is room for much improvement. The study could be replicated with a greater sample size taken from more than one city over a longer period of time. Also, a clearer definition of political and non-political disorders is needed. Finally, a future study should ensure that there are no outside explanations for the results. Annotation written by Andrea Wald and Celeste Warda Snow, D.A., E.B. Rochford, Jr., S.K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Process, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review, 51: 464-481. In his article, Snow attempts to convey that participation in a movement is dependent on the ability to link an individual’s values and beliefs with a particular social movement organization’s (SMO) activities, goals and ideologies. Snow refers to this linkage as “frame alignment.” The article first looks at three shortcomings of other theories: neglect of the process of grievance interpretation, a static view of participation, and the tendency to over-generalize participation-related processes. The first and third of these lacked any real evidence and examples, however the second was clearly laid out and seemed more logical. The real problem with studying these SMO’s is that they must be studied over their entire lifetimes and on multiple levels to be thoroughly understood; this however, is nearly impossible to do. After noting these shortcomings, Snow looks at the four frame alignment processes: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation. Frame bridging says that people will join groups that support their grievances and groups will join each other in order to attract more membership – thus the bridge concept. The second process, frame amplification, has two parts: value and belief amplification. The first involves projecting the goals of an SMO so that they will coincide with accepted values – such as the value of saving a neighborhood. Beliefs support or impede action toward these values and therefore must be addressed by SMO’s as well, in order to achieve goals. SMO’s beliefs and values are exaggerated in order to achieve certain ambitions. Frame extension deals with enlarging the base of a SMO by including issues, which aren’t central to their mission, and portraying them as though they were. Finally, frame transformation also deals with two forms: domain-specific and global interpretive. These both involve a reframing of a set of conditions in that that condition is defined and therefore experienced in a different way. Framing is a hard topic to study because it’s continually changing and can be read in so many different ways. Therefore, Snow’s “static view of participation” criticism of why other movement participation studies won’t work can also be a criticism for his idea of framing. His allowance of such change gives framing the appearance of an unrestricted scapegoat for when other theories are rejected. Annotated By T.J. Laubacher and Andrea Will Tilly, C. 1994. “Contention and the Urban Poor in Eighteen and Nineteenth Century Latin America.” Pp. 225-242 in Riots in the Cities. Popular Politics and the Urban Poor in Latin America, 1765-1910, edited by Arrom, Sylvia and Servando Ortoll. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources. Tilly begins his article with a historical recap of the developments of Latin America, beginning from AD 800 to the European expansion into Latin America, and concluding with the twentieth century. He does this in an attempt to place the Latin American urban conflicts in a comparative perspective. The author then transitions into the discussion of the causes of variation in popular claim-making. Tilly defines “claim-making” as “…commands, demands, requests, petitions, invitations, applications, and supplications that will, if realized, affect other people’s interests” (228). He divides these causes into three categories: social base, culture, and opportunity structure. The social base consists of the day-to-day routines and relationships of the people. Culture, as Tilly defines it, is the beliefs and values commonly held by the people. Finally, opportunity structure refers to the makeup of a political infrastructure and the relative advantages and disadvantages for people living within that infrastructure. Under Tilly’s analysis, collective action takes the form of what he calls “performances,” which eventually become repertoires, which are acceptable forms of claim-making in a certain setting. For example, repertoires of today include marches, rallies, and strikes. Though observers generally refer to performances as riots, Tilly notes that the terminology for riots tends to be highly subjective. He then goes on to extract seven different conclusions about the variable nature of riots, including how they start, how they are recorded, and how they are perceived throughout history. Tilly then diagrams the various positions historians have taken in attempting to explain collective action. The diagram takes into account two main variables: the spontaneity of intentions, ranging from direct impulse to shared understanding, and the precipitating social progress variable, ranging from social stress to continuous struggle. Returning to the urban unrest in Latin America, Tilly determines that popular claim making in that region appeared to have little effect because elitist structure of urban politics. However, while many claimants were not able to achieve their specific aims, Tilly does enumerate the differences their claim-making did generate, such as the increased interaction between authorities and the public, the involvement of third parties, and the threat of the popularization of rebellion. Tilly concludes with a brief discussion of the previous essays and the acknowledgement that while the essays are primarily concerned with very specific settings, they address a general phenomenon that can be found throughout human history. While the article is a satisfactory introduction into some of the aspects of riot research, Tilly may have been too hasty to abandon the divisions of social movements into primitive, reactionary, and modern. He explains his decision to do so as motivated by his belief that such terms imply a supposedly unfounded evolutionary nature to movements. However, observations of events as they are portrayed in the articles suggest that events do indeed tend to have an evolutionary character, progressing from uncoordinated rioting to a more controlled, concerted effort. Annotation by: TJ Laubacher Thomas, Piri. 1969. "The Separate Worlds of Black, Brown, and White." Pp. 73-83 in Urban Racial Violence in the Twentieth Century, edited by Joseph Boskin. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press. Thomas' article is a passionate testimony and criticism attacking the ironical situation he perceives between the existence of a racially oppressive society and a country that advocates freedom and democracy. In addition to being an upbraiding of the social state of America, the article is also a plea for racial cohesion and acceptance. Thomas first describes his family background. He poignantly depicts the deplorable conditions of his origin, the barrio in Spanish Harlem. Also, he explains his family's sense of disillusionment concerning the inequality they encounter in society. At this point, Thomas powerfully enters the dialogue to admit his own lurid background that has fueled his desire to "put my arm down there and bring my people up" (76). Acting as an observer looking out at the world, Thomas lists a barrage of questions designed to interrogate those who are enjoying a comfortable yet ignorant lifestyle. He reveals his own upsetting experiences through these very disturbing questions. All of the interrogation then melts into the contrasting image of Thomas as a young boy, naive and unable to understand the horrors that will plague him in later life. After thoroughly explaining the conditions that have incited his anger, Thomas explains how he wishes the situation to be different: "We want the goddam chance that belongs to all of us" (79). He softens his tone by proceeding to appeal to the reader's emotions, asking for a chance to "share" (79) the country. He predicts that a result even worse than war will result if his request is not met. To conclude this testimony, Thomas shares a poem that he has written entitled, "Fruits of Dignity." It is an inspirational piece of work with a focus on the commonalties among all people. Though very moving in nature, the poem is also a very forceful call to reform the dynamics of society. In addition, Thomas gives a hint of a current social problem: mockery directed toward minorities concerning the passage of a "rat bill." Thomas' testimony strikes at the heart of each reader with his vividly painted images of the past and his eloquent description he has endured in a racist society. Driven by such passion, however, Thomas might alienate some readers who seek a more coherent and pragmatic approach to confronting the problem of racism. Perhaps a concrete and better-defined set of solutions could better guide Thomas's readers toward understanding his call for change. Annotation Written by Colleen Quinlan and Mame Hogan
Useem, Bert. 1985. "Disorganization and the New Mexico Prison Riot of 1980." American Sociological Review 50: 677-688. Breakdown models theorize that collective action originates from a breakdown in structures that would otherwise channel people into standard behavior. These structures include the church, family, work and schools, etc. This breakdown causes disorganization and the disorganization releases people from controlling mechanisms and increases discontent within the population. Here, Useem treats absolute and relative deprivation as the expression of breakdown by assuming that content expresses properly functioning and hence, controlling structures. Useem generalizes criticisms by resource-mobilization theorists to say that there are four major arguments against breakdown theory:
Useem uses the New Mexico prison riot of February 2, 1980, to show that the breakdown model can be more accurate than the resource mobilization model. He argues that inmates often lack social skills, organizational and material resources. Therefore, resource-mobilization theory would predict inmates to be a passive and easily controlled group. Moreover, resource mobilization theory becomes particularly inaccurate "if prisoners rebel precisely when their deprivation is greatest, resources fewest and social structures most atomized", as was the case in New Mexico (679). During the 70s, the State Penitentiary changed from a relatively safe and orderly institution to one that was harsh, abusive, painfully monotonous and absent of the previous regulatory mechanisms. In all prisons, inmates develop a sense of proper deprivation and in the case of New Mexico, inmates perceived a sharp turn for the worse. Supported by interviews of inmates and guards, Useem reports that the riot was a product of "the termination of inmate programs, crowding, idleness and a generally poorly administered prison system" (685). The riot began "when several inmates overpowered, stripped, and severely beat four guards who were conducting a routine inspection of a dormitory in the prison’s south wing" (680). Twelve guards were taken hostage, eventually, and although none of them were killed, many were threatened, beaten and sodomized. One hostage recounted an incident in which a man approached the group of guards, holding the severed head of a fellow inmate with threats of doing the same to them. Useem tries to support his breakdown model using other evidence but he makes a very weak case. He cites the work conditions that give rise to riots of the underclass and crime waves that sharply coincided with civil discord in London, Stockholm and Calcutta. But Useem is forced to admit that breakdown models are not widely applicable. In fact, Useem states that he is only trying to show that breakdown theory more accurately accounts for one instance of collective action, than resource-mobilization. The reason that a breakdown model applies in this case is because Useem has twisted the idea of "disorganization" until it applies. He redefines breakdown to be discontent and in this case, discontent means unemployment. However, as we have seen from Myers (1997) and Olzak and Shanahan (1996), it is this unemployment of the oppressed group that becomes the major factor correlated with the frequency and severity of riots. Annotation Written by Kimberly Berg and Jen Weaver
Widick, B.J. 1972. "A City Besieged: The Riot of '67." Ch.11 from Detroit: City of Race and Class Violence. Chicago: Quandrangle Books. This article examines the Detroit riot of 1967, which the author terms as a new sort of disorder, not a race riot, but a social riot. Widick discusses the role of each actor in the unfolding of this event: law enforcement, politicians, media, black leaders, and citizens of the community. This analysis found facts to be misconstrued, a reliance on rumor, hysteria on all sides, and poor reporting in many cases. The article focuses on how the actions of law enforcement officials escalated the violence beyond what most agree was acceptable or necessary. Decision-making surrounding attempts to extinguish the riot were criticized as being naive and incompetent. Politicians were worried about their image, law enforcement officials were ill-trained and efforts were unorganized, media relied on Vietnam-style adding fuel to the fire, black leaders were helpless in influencing the community, and most citizens were just trying to cope with the situation of complete social breakdown. In short Detroit was a community "saturated with fear." With each attempt to quell the riot, lawlessness intensified. As the riot grew beyond the city's control, National Guardsmen had to be called upon. Widick goes on to explain the inadequacy of police and Guardsmen in dealing with this riot. It eventually evolved into a racial battle with the implementation of white law enforcement on a black community. Police became convinced that the riot was organized and snipers were a part of this conspiracy. Guardsmen joined this paranoia, everyone assuming that the black man was part of "them." This breakdown of rationality resulted in many unnecessary deaths based on a policy of "shoot first and ask questions later." In the end, these events, combined with rampant police brutality "created a new mood of militancy and bitterness among young blacks." Though this article is very critical regarding the handling of the riot, the discussion is presented in a fair and balanced manner. Widick analyzes all sides of the Detroit riot of 1967; however, this approach limits his ability to explore, in depth, any one factor of the riot. Annotated by Katie Bolzendahl and Andi Will Wirmark, Bo. 1974. "Nonviolent Methods and the American Civil Rights Movement 1955 - 1965." Journal of Peace Research 11: 115-132. Wirmark addresses nonviolent methods in the civil rights movement in six sections. He first divides nonviolent action into three types: acts of omission, acts of commission, and a combination of both. He then discusses the commencement of nonviolent action in the civil rights movement and the objectives and tactics of its participants and traces these actions locally and nationally over the course of a decade (1955-65) providing a standard course of events for a local nonviolent campaign. Wirmark continues to discuss the shift in ideological approach to the civil rights movement from one of conversion to one of coercion, to a movement whose ideals gain acceptance post-change rather than as the movement progresses. His final section debates the effectiveness of nonviolent methods in general, expanding from the civil rights movement. Wirmark's article centers around his belief in the effectiveness of nonviolence and the requirements that he feels make such movements effective. Primarily, he feels that nonviolent movements must be organized around strong leadership with specific strategies and goals. Participants must be well-trained, disciplined, and dedicated to nonviolent methods. Both the goals of the movement and the identity of the opposition must be clearly defined. Secondarily, Wirmark addresses the important roles that strong mass media attention and public reactions play in the success of a nonviolent campaign. He feels that the purpose of effective nonviolent movements is to harness such mediums to affect pressure on higher authorities (i.e. federal/local governments), which will in turn affect a change in social structure. The movements' actions will not directly or immediately change the current situation, but will yield future benefits. Wirmark's formulaic approach to nonviolent movements, while seemingly thorough, may prove to be too ideal. While setting up movements like this may be quite effective, other variables will inevitably come into play (e.g. unsympathetic public reactions). Annotation by: Ray Areaux and Teresa Paulus Woodward, C. Vann. 1965. "After Watts-Where is the Negro Revolution headed?" New York Times Magazine. Woodward's article provides a brief overview of key events and trends within the Negro movement, his personal interpretations of such trends, and speculation about the future of the movement. He suggests the Civil Rights Mvt. Served as a necessary pre-cursor the greater Negro revolution as he calls it and begins by noting the many legislative and political gains procured by blacks in the first half of the decade. He notes the remarkable increase in political opportunities as evidenced by the 280+ elective offices which include six black congressmen and some 90 state legislators. He even suggests a general improvement in overall living and economic conditions due to massive urban migration. He then masterfully outlines the inaccuracy of viewing too highly such apparent gains by suggesting first that such changes benefit only a fraction of the population and furthermore that blacks have come to view gains in relative terms rather than absolute. Essentially, "the Negro is now measuring his advance, not by what he once was but by what the white man now is" (117). Next, Woodward elaborates on the various increases in economic, educational, and social gaps that have accompanied the quasi-sociopolitical "gains" of the Civil Rights Mvt. Specifically, he notes the widening of the racial gaps in residential segregation, employment, and school segregation. Regarding employment, for example, automation is wiping out a massive number or unskilled and semi-skilled positions, most of which have been traditionally occupied by a disproportionately large percentage of blacks. Indeed, with the meager rate of employment gains procured by blacks from 1950-60, it would take some 700 years until blacks reached proportional representation among business managers and proprietors. In light of such lingering problems, Woodward notes the emergence of the Negro Mvt. catalyzed by the realization of black leaders that the Civil Rights Mvt., while a necessary step, is simply insufficient in terms of it's ability to secure the integration of the Negro into American Life. The second half of his article he thus devotes to the various hands of the Negro Movement, ranging from the militant radicals of the extreme right to the leftist views of various student groups such as the grassroots S.N.C.C. and the Freedom Democrats. He also notes the significance of the moderate factions such as the N.A.A.C.P. and Dr. King's organization. In particular, he notes the various criticisms that various factions have toward one another. S.N.C.C. for example, criticized Dr. King's organization for it's lack of a grass-roots program, whereas S.N.C.C. critics viewed the students leftist views of rejecting all established institutions (and thus all possible allies) as hopeless defeatism, which seemed ill placed in a movement based on hope, rather than despair. Such criticisms led to the formation of Bayard Rustin's branch of Dr. King's organization, which fostered grass-roots programs such as the Summer Community Organization and Political Education (SCOPE) while working through the established political and institutional channels. Woodward then goes on to explore the main question his article seems to present, which is what lies ahead for the Negro Revolution, noting the various degrees of social, economic, and political changes that will inevitably follow. He speculates a move from protest to politics but then notes the likelihood of violence within the cities. He speaks of tactical changes, trailing off of extreme right radicalism due to an inability to gain white converts, and internal conflicts caused by divisions in class, temperament, and socio-economic status or the Negro community. Woodward's article is neither scientific nor extremely difficult to follow, and considering the audience it need not be. He has no hypothesis to test, so his paper has no statistical or technical supplements. Considering his target audience and the placement of this article in the Times Magazine, these points are rather irrelevant anyhow. The very title is itself open ended and as such, one would be hard pressed to criticize Woodward for writing an article that does not seem to take any definitive position on the issues he is summarizing. Woodward's article is much more informative and fact-oriented in the first half where he discusses past and current trends. As such, he succeeds in providing an excellent overview of the current status of the movement. The title of the article however, suggests that he proposed to provide at least some speculation on the future of the Negro Mvt. It is in this area that he seems to trail off from his more specific language used in previous parts of the article. He predicts changes in all areas yet specifies only that they "will affect the whole society profoundly" (124). Woodward certainly could have made better use of the previous trends to make some more concrete predictions of future trends, but as aforementioned, his piece seems more informative than persuasive. His greatest concern, that of "an opportunity [for equality]" being tragically passed up by an apathetic white America and divided black America seems as broad as his future predictions. Annotation Written by Tony Perez
|