Reflection

In week two, we discussed theories of social movements and collective action. We discussed collective behavior theories which are also referred to in some cases as strain or breakdown theories, the reason being because they often occur during times of social despair such as societal divisions among groups. Collective behavior theories arise from some sort of breakdown or strain but in order for the theories to arise, there has to be some common set of shared beliefs among people. The Chicago School makes a point that collective behavior comes about during situations where established systems of meaning and sources of information break down, forcing its participants to construct new meanings themselves to guide their behavior. This could be a form of symbolic interactionism: constructing meanings through social interaction. These new meanings are created from emergent norms, the shared view so of reality that guide collective behavior. Something that was interesting to me was the idea of Mass Society Theory which views collective behavior as an extreme response to social isolation, meaning people are more motivated to mobilize when they are isolated. A critique of this would be the opposite, stating that most people are less likely to mobilize when they’re in a circumstance of isolation. Personally, I believe that people will have more motivation to group together and take action when they are isolated as a way to feel recognized, understood, heard, etc. It makes sense to construct larger groups of like minds and create new meanings when many individuals feel like just that, individuals who aren’t noticed without mobilization. One thing I didn’t agree with however is Relative Deprivation Theory, which states that people often rebel when things are improving. I believe people tend to rebel when they see something getting progressively worse or they see the powers that be having a lack of attention or care to something the group holds in high regard.