Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EXPLAINING SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS
THEDA SKOCPOLTheda Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard. She is a native of the state of Michigan. She received her Bachelor’s degree from Michigan State in 1969 and then went on to study for her PhD at Harvard. From 1975 to 1981 she taught as a member of the non-tenured faculty at Harvard (Homepage). In 1981 the all-male department of Sociology at Harvard refused tenure to Dr. Skocpol and Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) filed charges against Harvard with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (E.E.O.C.) on her behalf (Impersonal at Best). From 1981 to 1985 she taught Political Science and Sociology at the University of Chicago, she then returned to Harvard’s Sociology Department. She now has tenure in both Sociology and the Department of Government at Harvard. Dr. Skocpol utilizes her experience in sociology and political science to analyze the nature of public policy and social revolutions. Her work includes discussions about the nature of the state, social policies and revolution through historical and comparative methods. Her earlier works focused more on revolution while her more recent literature tends to deal extensively with the United States’ domestic social policies. Not only is Dr. Skocpol a researcher, professor and well-known author, but she is a wife and mother. In addition to all of this responsibility she still finds time to be what she calls her readers to be, an active citizen. She is involved in the community around her not only through her books but by contributing to local newspapers. In this essay I will briefly describe some of Theda Skocpol’s most prominant works and the theories she has developed in them. Each section should provide another useful way of approaching domestic and foreign topics in the realm of social policy or social change. I will end with a general discussion of the importance of Skocpol’s work for Lincoln-Douglas debaters. EXPLAINING SOCIAL REVOLUTIONSIn her early work, States and Social Revolutions, Theda Skocpol defines social revolutions as, “rapid, basic transformations of a society’s state and class structures,” (4). She points out that they are accompanied and partially carried out by, “class-based revolts from below.” This type of change is not the only force of change in the modern world, in fact, full scale social revolution has been quite rare. However, Skocpol argues, that this particular form of change deserves special attention because they are a distinctive pattern of sociopolitical change that has a large and lasting effect on both the country where the revolution occurs as well as other nations around the world. Social revolutions are fundamentally different, shows Skocpol, than other types of societal change. She argues that social revolutions involve two coincidences. First, a social revolution involves the coincidence of societal structural change with class upheaval. Next, they involve the coincidence of political and social transformations. Other forms of change never achieve this unique combination. The examples she points to are rebellions that, by nature, involve class-based revolt but not structural change. As well as political revolutions that transform the state but not society and do not necessarily involve class struggles. The nature of the social revolution is unique because of its mutually reinforcing nature and the intensity through which they work. Debaters are often drawn to a social science perspective on social change in order to explain the effects of their views on society. Skocpol’s work refutes such mechanisms as the best method, especially in analyzing revolutions. Her work focuses on a structural perspective and pays special attention to the specific contexts in which certain types of revolutions take place. Through comparative historical analysis she helps to create an understanding of international contexts and changes in domestic policies that spawn revolutionary change in a particular society. She then uses her knowledge of history to create a more generalizable framework and allow readers to move beyond particular cases. This perspective is useful for Lincoln Douglas debaters because it allows for method of examining values within a particular social and political climate and the effect they will have on particular resolutions. It also allow debaters to utilize historical examples without making it sound simply like a list that can be easily countered by a list on the other side. Skocpol’s way of tying social and political forces together and analyzing those issue which effect both provides debaters with a model for effective argumentation through a discussion of past events. Skocpol’s work draws heavily on Marxist tradition from which she recognizes that class conflicts figure prominently in social revolutions. She takes the Marxist analysis further by examining other factors that have an influence on social change. After understanding that a particular class may come to a place where they realize the can struggle for change it is also important to understand how such groups may carry out their objectives. For this understanding political-conflict theories are necessary in Skocpol’s analysis. The idea of political-conflict is based in the assumption that, “…collective action is based upon group organization and access to resources…” (States and Social Revolutions 14). Thus, in following Skocpol’s model successfully a debater would outline a particular stance on the resolution, those individuals capable of creating change, their social position, and the resources available to the group. Hopefully, through this analysis the debater should be able to show how their stance can create positive changes in society. The same method may prove successful in answering a plan that could have detrimental effects. The structural perspective taken by Skocpol is one that examines, for better or worse, the conditions that cause change. Her claim is that: First, changes in social systems or societies give rise to grievances, social disorientation, or new class or group interests and potentials for collective mobilization. Then there develops a purposive, mass-based movement- coalescing with the aid of ideology and organization- that consciously undertakes to overthrow the existing government and perhaps the entire social order. Finally, the revolutionary movement fights it out with the authorities or dominant class and, if it wins, undertakes to establish its own authority and program. (States and Social Revolutions 14-15) Obviously, not all social revolution is a positive thing. A debater can use this strategy to make the argument that the status quo is good or at least that the case brought about by their opponent, if affirmed, could create a situation that would lead to an undesirable revolution. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|