Student Movements and the Power of Disruption


Abstract


We seek to clarify the nature of militant student protest by proposing a theoretical distinction between two types of student-movement-initiated disruption that are too-often viewed as similar: structural disruption within educational institutions, centered around students' refusal to perform their role as such; and invasive disruption of other institutions, in whose functioning students do not have a routinized role. By drawing on a newspaper-based database of student-initiated protest in Argentina, triangulated by analysis of secondary accounts of these events and in-depth interviews with the activists who planned and implemented the protest, we seek to understand the strategic logic that leads to disruptive protest and to explore the differing dynamics that characterize structural and invasive disruption. Both structural and invasive protest by students (and other organized social groupings) can successfully interfere with the normal functioning of society and can therefore create usable leverage against institutional power holders. However, the tactical choice and the outcome of such confrontations derives from a complex equation of situational variables. The variables specific to student protest include the institutional target designated for disruption, whether the target has the formal authority and/or resources to grant the demanded reform, whether non-students who work or otherwise participate in the targeted structure support or oppose the demands and tactics of the students, and whether the protesting students have active allies among various non-student stakeholders. We conclude that structural disruption on campus can be a surer and less difficult-to-implement strategy, that it can generate leverage without the creation of alliances with outside groups and can force concessions if the administration has the authority and resources to deliver meaningful reform. In many circumstances, however, the institutional educational leadership cannot deliver meaningful concessions, and stu-dents therefore consider invasive disruption of neighboring structures aimed at delivering more comprehensive reforms, and consequently face far more complicated strategic and tactical decisions if they wish to generate productive leverage. These strategic and tactical choices rely on congealed experience from current and prior student protest and their capacity to generate alliances mediated by their understanding of what can succeed.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i20356609v12i1p112

Keywords: Disruption; leverage; occupation; power; student movements

References


Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Boren, M. E. (2001). Student Resistance: A history of the unruly subject. London: Routledge.

Buchbinder, P., Califa, J. S., & Millán, M. (Eds.). (2010). Apuntes sobre la formación del movimiento estudiantil argentino (1943-1973). Argentina: Final Abierto-Colección Críti-ca

Calhoun, C. (1997). Neither Gods nor emperors: Students and the struggle for democracy in China Berkey and Los Angeles University of California Press.

Catalinotto, J. (2017). Turn the Guns Around: Mutinies, Soldier Revolts and Revolutions. World View Forum

Earl, J., Martin, A., McCarthy, J. D., & Soule, S. A. (2004). The Use of Newspaper Data in the Study of Collective Action. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 65-80.

Esparza, Louise. (2010). “Grass Roots Human Rights Activism in Contemporary Colum-bia,” Doctoral Dissertation, Stony Brook University.

Gerring, J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Sci-ence Review, 98(2), 341-354.

Gonzalez Vailliant, Gabriela (2016), Building Counter-Power: A comparative study of stu-dent movements in Argentina and in Chile at the turn of the 21st century, PhD Disserta-tion, Stony Brook University.

Kimeldorf, Howard. (1985). Working class culture, occupational recruitment, and union politics. Social Forces, Vol. 64 (2), pp. 359-376.

Koopmans, R., & Rucht, D. (2002). Protest Event Analysis. In B. Klandermans & S. Stag-genbors (Eds.), Methods of Social Movements Research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Luders, J. E. (2010). The Civil Rights Movement and the Logic of Social Change. New York: Cambridge University Press

Marciano, J. (2016). The American War in Vietnam: Crime or Commemoration? NYU Press.

McAdam, D. (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom Summer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. New York Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, D. S., & Tarrow, S. (1998). A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. In D. Meyer & S. Tarrow (Eds.), The Social Movement Society: contentious Pol-itics for a New Century (pp. 1-29). Boulder, Colorado Rowman and Littkefield.

Morris, A. (1981). Black Southern Student Sit-In Movement: An Analysis of Internal Organ-ization. American Sociological Review, 46(6).

Morris, A. (1986). Origins of the Civil Rights Movement. New York Free Press.

Morris, A. (2007). Naked Power and the Civil Sphere. The Sociological Quarterly 48 (2007) 615–628

Morris, A., & Clawson, D. (2005). Lessons of the Civil Rights Movement for a Workers Rights Movement. WorkingUSA: Journal of Labor and Society, 8, 685-706.

Morris, A., & Clawson, D. (2005). Lessons of the Civil Rights Movement for a Workers Rights Movement. Working USA: Journal of Labor and Society, 8, 685-706.

Mueller, C. (1997). Media Measurement Models of Protest Event Data. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 2(2), 165-184.

Murray, J. and M. Schwartz (2019) Wrecked: How the Auto Industry Destroyed its Ability to Compete (New York: Russell Sage).

Murray, Josh & Schwartz, Michael. (2015). Moral Economy, Structural Leverage, and Or-ganizational Efficacy: Class Formation and the Great Flint Sit-Down Strike,1936–1937. Critical Historical Studies, 1, 219- 259.

Okamoto, D. G. (2003). Toward a Theory of Panethnicity: Explaining Asian American Col-lective Action. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 811-842.

Oliver, P. E., & Meyer, D. J. (1999). How Events Enter the Public Sphere: Conflict, Loca-tion, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events. American Journal of Sociology, 105(1), 38-87.

Olzak, S. (1989). Analysis of Events in the Study of Collective Action. Annual Review of So-ciology, 15(1), 119-141.

Page-Poma, Fernanda (2015) Contention and Control: Violent Protest Policing in Demo-cratic Argentina, PhD Dissertation, Stony Brook University.

Perrone, L. (1983). Positional Power and Propensity to Strike. Politics and Society, 12(2), 231-261.

Perrone, L., Wright, E. O., & Griffin, L. J. (1984). Positional Power, Strikes and Wages. American Sociological Review, 49(3), 412-426. doi: 10.2307/2095284

Perrone, L., Wright, E. O., & Griffin, L. J. (1984). Positional Power Strikes and Wages. American Sociological Review, 49(3), 412-426.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1971). Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Pantheon Books, 1971.

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor People´s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.

Piven, F. F. 2006. Challenging Authority. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Schuster, F. L., Pérez, G. J., Pereyra, S., Armesto, M., Armelino, M., García, A., Zipcioglu, P. (2006). Transformaciones de la protesta social en Argentina 1989-2003 Documentos de Trabajo INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES GINO GERMANI FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES, Buenos aires

Schwartz, M. (1976). Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers’ Alliance and Cotton Tenancy, 1880-1890. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Silver, Beverley. 2003. Forces of Labor: Workers movement and Globalization since 1870. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Snow, D. A. (2004). Framing process, ideology and the discursive field. In D. Snow, S. Soule & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 380-412). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing.

Medel Sierralta, R. M & Somma, N. (2016). “Demonstrations, occupations or roadblocks? Exploring the determinants of protest tactics in Chile” in Política y gobierno, 23 (1), pp. 159-194.

Tarrow, S. G. (1989). Democracy and Disorder: Protest and politics in Italy, 1965-1975. Oxford Oxford University Press.

Tarrow, S. (1995). Cycles of Collective Action: Between Moments of Madness and the Repertoire of Contention. In M. Traugott (Ed.), Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Ac-tion (pp. 89-115). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, V., & Van Dyke, N. (2007). “Get up, Stand up”: Tactical Repertoires of Social Movement in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements (pp. 262-293): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Tilly, C. (1986). Contentious French. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tilly, C. (1995). Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Van Dyke, N. (2003). Crossing Movement Boundaries: Factors that Facilitate Coalition Protest by American College Students, 1930–1990. Social Problems, 50(2), 226-250.

Van Dyke, N., Soule, S. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2001). The Role of Organization and Con-stituency in the Use of Confrontational Tactics by Social Movements. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Anaheim, CA

Zald, M. N., & Ash, R. (1966). Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change. Social Forces, 44(3), 327-341. doi: 10.2307/2575833

Zolberg, A. R. (1972). Moments of Madness. Politics & Society, 2(2), 183-207. doi: 10.1177/003232927200200203


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.