Book Of Mormon | Course Paper

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

P1: GDX

Qualitative Sociology [quso] ph095-quas-367726 January 28, 2002 15:36 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 1, Spring 2002 (C

°2002)

Mobilizing the Single-Case Study: Doug McAdam’s

Political Process and the Development of Black

Insurgency, 1930–1970

Michael Armato1and Neal Caren

We apply a set of rules for theorizing developed to expand the “rigorous” method-

ology of quantitative research to Doug McAdam’s Political Process and the

DevelopmentofBlackInsurgency,1930–1970(1982). Wecontend that thestrength

and breadth of McAdam’s data and his application of that data to refute extant

theories combined with his new flexible—perhaps overly so—concepts allowed

political process theory (PPT) to rise to prominence in the field. We find his book

to be a good example of how a single-case study, despite its shortcomings, can

play a crucial role in the development of theory and the emergence of influential

research paradigms.

KEY WORDS: social movements; case study; political process theory.

INTRODUCTION

In this article, we apply a set of rules for theorizing developed to expand

the “rigorous” methodology of quantitative research to more qualitative work,

in this case, Doug McAdam’s Political Process and the Development of Black

Insurgency, 1930–1970 (1982). This is a crucial book in the development of the

sociology of social movements—the theory it advances, political process theory

(PPT), has come to be viewed as “hegemonic” in the field (Goodwin and Jasper

1999), and the book remains a staple of undergraduate syllabi. The success of

PPT is somewhat surprising, given that McAdam developed it from a single case

study, the Civil Rights Movement. How is it that a theoretical model developed

from a case study, which itself was chosen on the dependent variable, can become

1Correspondence should be directed to Michael Armato, Department of Sociology, New York

University, 269 Mercer Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10003; e-mail: armato@mail.soc.nyu.edu.

°2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

P1: GDX

Qualitative Sociology [quso] ph095-quas-367726 January 28, 2002 15:36 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

94 Armato and Caren

extremely influential in the field? Our central concern here is to address this

paradox.

Weframe ouranalysis ofMcAdam’sworkin terms of thecanons ofqualitative

methods, the most important recent articulation of which appears in Designing

Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (King et al. 1994). The

central weaknesses in McAdam’s book can be related to areas where McAdam

diverged from King, Keohane and Verba’s criteria. Single-case studies are not

held to be the best means to develop or adjudicate among generalizable theories

(Amenta 1991). Yet, we find his book to be a good example of how a single-case

study, despite its shortcomings, can play a crucial role in the development of theory

and the emergence of influential research paradigms. We contend that the strength

and breadth of McAdam’s data and his application of that data to refute extant

theories, combined with his new flexible—perhaps overly so—concepts, allowed

PPT to rise to prominence in the field.

MCADAM’S PROJECT

In Political Process, McAdam seeks to enter into dialogue with the two major

streams of thought on social movements at the time of his writing: the classical

and resource mobilization perspectives. McAdam sees both as deficient in their

approach to social movements. Thus, he develops an alternative to these perspec-

tives in the form of the political process model, which has two central tenets:

social movements are political rather than psychological phenomena; and social

movements represent a continuous process from development to decline (1982,

p. 36). Somewhat in keeping with the resource mobilization perspective, the po-

litical process model holds that relatively few elites control the wealth of power

in the political sphere. In contrast to the resource mobilization theorists, however,

McAdam suggests, as Marxists long have, that excluded groups do have the ca-

pacity to bring about structural change. Building on these assumptions, McAdam

explicatesthethree keysetsof elementsof thepolitical process model: the structure

of political opportunities (ibid., p. 40), indigenous organizational strength (p. 43),

and cognitive liberation (p. 48).

Political opportunities refer to “any event or broad social process that serves

to undermine the calculations and assumptions on which the political establish-

ment is structured” (p. 41, emphasis in original). Examples given of such occa-

sions are “wars, industrialization, international political realignments, prolonged

unemployment, and widespread demographic changes” (ibid.). The key point is

that relatively long-term social processes yield shifts in the political status quo,

which are in effect changes in the opportunity structure. But the effect of such

changes does not inevitably lead to the emergence of social movements. The

“social processes …promote insurgency only indirectly through a restructuring

of existing power relations” (ibid.). Moreover, the shifting power relations “can

P1: GDX

Qualitative Sociology [quso] ph095-quas-367726 January 28, 2002 15:36 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Mobilizing the Single-Case Study 95

facilitate increased political activism on the part of excluded groups either by se-

riously undermining the stability of the entire political system or by increasing

the political leverage of a single insurgent group” (p. 42). Thus, the opportunities,

as McAdam describes them, can have diverse implications for different excluded

groups. Yet, political opportunities represent just that. They do not guarantee that

mobilization will occur among excluded groups. Thus McAdam turns to the next

facet of the political process model: indigenous organizational strength.

Indigenous organizational strength refers to the resources of the aggrieved

population that allow them to exploit the opportunities afforded them by the

changes in the political opportunity structure. Without these resources, it would be

difficult for a social movement to uphold a sustained effort. Factors that enhance

the indigenous organizational strength within the minority population are the exis-

tence of indigenous group organizations, both formal and informal (e.g., churches,

clubs); an established structure of solidary incentives, which refers to “the myriad

interpersonal rewards that provide the motive force for participation” (p. 45); a

well-developed communication network; and leaders or organizers. All of these

factors serve as resources, from within the excluded group, for the development

(and, presumably, success) of social movements.

The final factor in the political process model is cognitive liberation. Politi-

cal opportunities and indigenous organizational strength yield only the structural

potential for mobilization. What is needed beyond this is the recognition by the

excluded group that their status is not inevitable, that their status as a group has its

origins in the political system, and that their status can be changed (p. 51).

The confluence of these three factors—expanding political opportunities, in-

digenous organizational strength, and cognitive liberation—constitutes the polit-

ical process perspective, which serves as a viable alternative to the classical and

resource mobilization models. Indeed, unlike the alternatives, political process

attempts to account for both internal and external factors that influence social

movement emergence and longevity.

MCADAM’S EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

Armed with the three alternative perspectives, McAdam undertakes an em-

pirical analysis of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. In so doing, he focuses on four

historical periods he considers relevant to the movement. The general periodiza-

tion he employs includes the long-term historical background leading up to black

insurgency (1876–1954), the development of black insurgency (1955–1960), the

“heyday” of black insurgency (1961–1965), and the decline of black insurgency

(1966–1970). Throughout the treatment of each of these periods, McAdam is

mindful of the three alternative models available to him, and he is careful to incor–

porate a discussion of how well each accounts for the empirical data. What emerges

from his analysis of the data is an account of insurgency that highlights the

P1: GDX

Qualitative Sociology [quso] ph095-quas-367726 January 28, 2002 15:36 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

96 Armato and Caren

importance of changes in political opportunity structures, organizational strength,

and the degree of cognitive liberation across the relevant historical periods. Thus,

McAdam concludes that among the three models, political process best accounts

for the factors leading up to and surrounding the development, prominence, and

decline of the Civil Rights Movement.

In order for McAdam to support his claims, he uses a wide array of data,

including governmental and organizational data sources as well as data from the

New York Times Index. While all data sources are open to critical interrogation,

McAdam is aware that the utilization of the Times Index marks a specific point

of vulnerability. In a brief treatment of this issue in an appendix (pp. 235–237),

he justifies the use of the Times Index by citing three strengths of the technique:

it allows for replication by future authors as well as the systematic development

and testing of hypotheses; when carefully employed, it captures, albeit crudely, the

macro-level processes relevant to insurgency; and it stands as an exception to the

relative dearth of information on insurgency. McAdam’s discussion of this issue

suggests that he is aware of the limitations of his data, and we find that he uses

the data prudently throughout his analysis. What is perhaps most compelling is

not his use of any one data source, but the combination of data sources that come