The general plan of the methodology developed in this work will be to investigate the contexts of the "cases" of antisystemic mobilization. The goal is to move towards identifying the circumstances of each of the cases--with an eye not only towards local contexts but also with a consideration of world-historical opportunity structures. These structures of opportunity, delineated through the study of the contexts of the cases, can then be compared and contrasted using the process described. This can be done in search of generalizations about the historical circumstances that foster antisystemic contention. One can also investigate the manner in (and extent to) which these circumstances are interrelated and/or the extent to which one general set or subset of variables appear to be of primary significance.
McMichael (1990) has drawn some interesting distinctions among the particular methodological and theoretical stances informing many of the works tangentially employed in the present investigation (e.g., Skocpol [1984], Wallerstein [1974]). His argument for what he calls a "multiple form of incorporated comparison" (McMichael 1990: 392) might well prove a serious benefit for the continued development of what Bergesen (1994), among others, refer to as the nascent project of "globology." Certainly the utility of addressing "related, parallel events in the evolution of the state system as an ongoing, general process manifested in particular national settings," as McMichael (1990: 392) suggests Walton (1984) manages to do, is largely beyond question given the world-historical context in which all events (by virtue of the fact that they occur at some point in time and on this planet) take place.
The present work will incorporate cyclical aspects of the modern world-system as discussed below. Secular trends, however, and a more general treatment of the world-historical placement of the cases being investigated-especially in terms of how these events may be related to one another and, even, how they may have contributed to one another-awaits a more elaborate treatment. That said, however, the placement of the particular cases within their world-systemic context (whether temporally or spatially) will be considered. Exception must be taken to McMichael's assertion that
The comparative method specifies the sufficient and necessary conditions for socially-transforming revolutions, but in doing so the states in question are compared as cases with common conditions and destinies... In other words, comparative logic produces a conception of state-formation as historically and theoretically unaffected by the changing organizational principles and structure of the world economy... In short, conventional comparative design discounts the world-historical significance of modern social revolutions (McMichael 1990: 393).
Only if one assumes the espitemological certainty of secular trends does the present investigation possibly open itself to such blanket criticism. Even McMichael's "straw person"--Skocpol--does not fully fall into this trap due to her, albeit limited, treatment of "transnational contexts" (Skocpol 1979).
As Skocpol (1984) notes (drawing on Mill [1950]), there are two basic designs for comparative historical analysis such as that engaged in here-that based on the "method of agreement" and that based on the "method of difference." The method of agreement is portrayed in Table 3.1. The first three entries in each column (a, d, g, b, e, h, and the three occurrences of "x") represent "independent," possibly causal variables. The first two entries in each column (a, d, g, b, e, h) represent the disparate aspects of the cases being compared. The fourth entry in each column represents the phenomena to be explained (or the "dependent" variable). In a situation like that depicted by the above table, since "x" is the only variable that all the situations/cases that produced "y" (the phenomena to be explained) posses, the only generalizable, causal variable can be "x." Note that this does not establish that "x" caused "y", only that it could have done so.
The Method of Agreement
| Case One: | Case Two: | Case "n": |
| a | d | g |
| b | e | h |
| + x | + x | + x |
| =y | =y | =y |
The Method of Difference
| Positive Case(s): | Negative Case(s): |
| a | a |
| b | b |
| + x | + not x |
| = y | = not y |
The "method of difference"--see Table 3.2--is used to compare two very similar cases that resulted in different outcomes. Again, the "x" is the crucial independent variable. This is exemplified by the fact that, though the above two cases were mostly similar, they led to different outcomes coupled with the fact that the crucial difference between the two situations was the occurrence/non-occurrence of "x." Again, this does not demonstrate unquestionable causality (though the absence of such relationships tend to discredit claims of particular causal relationships).
The present investigation will be limited to an examination of positive cases, roughly employing the method of agreement. (A first step in fortifying the findings of the present study will be the introduction of negative cases and the utilization of the method of difference.) For the final formulation of generalizable statements, the kind of re-assessment of cross-national comparative research methodology proposed by Ragin (1987, 1989) will be employed.
Ragin's adaptation of Boolean algebra will be employed here not so much out of immediate necessity (since working with only two cases does not preclude using a strict Skocpolian/Millian construction) but to establish a procedure whereby a far greater number of cases and causal configurations can be introduced into the analysis without requiring a fundamental re-working of the study's methodology. Further, in the event that there are different single causes or causal conjunctures involved in the cases presented, Ragin's method will prove most useful.
The cases will be examined through a common set of generalizable contexts that will be assigned specific "values." These values will operationalize the specific historical situations involved in each of the situations in which mobilization has occurred (or, in the case of the interjection of negative cases, in which mobilization failed to occur). These "independent variables," then--derived through "sensitizing concepts" introduced in the form of "guiding questions"--are the items of comparison. Taken as a whole, the specific set of "answers" to a full set of guiding questions-when answered in the context of a particular case-constitutes a skeletal narrative, historical description of the case in question. When presented with other narratives (describing other historical cases) that have been constructed from answers to the same set of guiding questions, one can systematically compare and contrast disparate cases. Ideally, one can then formulate persuasive explanations regarding the causal regularities involved in the formation of, for example, antisystemic mobilizations by employing the comparative, historical methodology described here. In each of the cases to be examined, two general sets of factors will be investigated: the local (possibly involving both the sub- and the supra-national) and the global (involving the world-historical).
Of initial importance, it must be determined exactly when each of the movements under investigation occurred. In this way one can pin-point which values to associate with the various variables under consideration.
Probably the most satisfactory method for charting the birth of mobilization-indeed for charting the full life of waves of mobilization-is the collection of systematic data on protest events based on the content analysis of newspapers. Such a methodology has been successfully employed by many researchers working expressly in the investigation of opportunity structures and their interaction with social movements (e.g., McAdam 1982, Tarrow 1989, Tilly, et al., 1975). More general indexes of protest have also been constructed through this method and persuasively utilized by various researchers (e.g., Arrighi 1995, Beittel 1995, Burnstein 1985, Casparis and Arrighi 1995, Danzger 1975, Dubofsky 1995, Franzosi 1987, Jenkins and Perrow 1977, Korzeniewicz 1989 & 1995, Paige 1975, Quataert 1995, Silver 1992 & 1995, Selden 1995, Snyder and Kelly 1977, Snyder and Tilly 1972, Sugimoto 1978a & 1978b, Tilly 1978 & 1981 & 1986). For purposes of feasibility, however, the present study will rely on secondary source estimations of contentious activity.
The general time frame examined will reflect McAdam's (1982) observation that
Both resource mobilization and classical theorists seem to posit a stimulus-response view of the origin of social movements. That is, social movements are seen as emerging as a response to some short-run change in the period immediately preceding the outbreak of protest activity. By contrast, the political process model is based on the assumption that movements only emerge over a long period of time in response to broad social, economic, and political processes that afford insurgents a certain structural potential for collective action (McAdam 1982: 60).
In his own study, this predisposition had the effect of engendering "an empirical analysis of the origins and development of black insurgency between 1876 and 1970" (McAdam 1982: 60) to understand what is commonly considered the US civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. In this thesis, I attempt to examine as much of the hundred years preceding the arguable apex of each of the cases as is feasible.
Below are the specific variables to be examined, in the form of questions. For explanations regarding "why these variables," please refer to Chapter Two.
Link to the next chapter, US Woman's Suffrage.
Link to the Table of Contents.
Link to Nathan Wolfson's Home Page.
