Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftpel Hill. NC 27599 ktaiz iurc.eduMichael Biggs Department of Sociology-Uni versify of Oxford Manor Road. Oxford 0X1 3UQ inichael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk1 Ducct correspondence to Kenneth T. Andrews Department of Sociology. University of North CarolinaChapel Hill. NC. 27599. kia'fl unc.edn. The autho Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftrs contributed equally to the paper, their names aie listed alphabetically. We received financial support from the Center for the Study of the AmericaAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
n South at ƯNC. A prior version of the papei was presented at the 2010 American Sociological Association Meetings.Protest Campaigns and Movement SucceProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftmost recent studies examine whether stronger movement organization increases the chance of success. Where protest is analyzed, most studies find no positive effect of disruptive protest. We examine a classic case of disruptive protest - the 1960 lunch counter sit-ins by black college students. Using Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft an original dataset of 334 cities 111 the South, we analyze the occurrence of desegregation following the sit-ins We test whether protest, after contAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
rolling for many characteristics that predict the occurrence of protest, increases the likelihood of desegregation. We also test whether the presence Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftt sit-in piotest increased the likelihood of desegregation. and that piotest in nearby cities also had a positive impact. Tins indirect effect reveals the diffusion of success: sit-ins 111 a nearby city-made desegregation there more likely, which in turn facilitated desegregation in this city. We fi Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftnd partial support for movement infrastructure, political mediation, and economic opportunityarguments.After many decades of sustained focus on the orAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
igins of social movements, scholars have recently begun serious investigation into then consequences. Amenta and colleagues (2010) provide one key indProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Drafttween 2003 and 2009 * We advance this growing body of scholarship by examining the success of protest campaigns lo desegregate public accommodations dining the Southern civil rights movement.Despite the gr owth of research on movement consequences, most scholar s focus on whether greater organizatio Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftnal resources increase movement influence. Among rhe studies that do examine whether protest matters, many indicate tliat protest lias no effect. ForAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
example, McAdam and Su find that anti-war protest "depressed the overall rate of House and Senate voting” related to the Vietnam War (2002. p. 718). SProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftt movements 111 gaining an audience in Congress” (2009. p. 219. see also Giugni 2007). Thus, our understanding of protest influence is uncertain at best.We assess the influence of protest while controlling for the factors that explain protest itself. Building on recent work, we argue dial protest ma Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Drafty have direct influence by imposing costs oil targets and indirect influence by shifting bystanders support for rhe target (King 2008; 2011). AlternatAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
ive explanations must be considered as well, and we lest whether stronger movement infrastructure. supportive political environments, and favorable ecProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Drafty-four articles on movement consequences in eleven sociology and political science journals published between 1990 and 2007.3neighboring cities influences the likelihood of success because success Itself may diffuse as elites adapt to new new norms and preempt further protest. The central contributi Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Drafton of our paper is that we provide a strong test of protest efficacy alongside three alternative theories. Moreover, we shed new light on a central caAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
se in the study of social movements.Sit-in Campaigns and DesegregationThe desegregation of public accommodations IS a historically significant and. suProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftool desegregation and social welfare provisions, there has been much less attention to the desegregation of restaurants, movie theaters, hotels, libraries, hospitals, beaches and other public settings (Andrews 2004: Button 1989: Santoro 2002). Tins IS surprising because most of the mass protest occu Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftrred around campaigns to desegr egate public acconunodations (Wright 2008).The civil rights straggle - often characterized as a “movement of movementsAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
” - encompassed numerous campaigns, organizations, and leaders pursuing a wide range of goals and targets (Isaac 2008). However, if was the challengesProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftnd campaigns of the Southern movement such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956). the Sit-ins (1960). the Freedom Rides (1961). the Albany Campaign (1962). and the Birmingham Campaign (1963). These events were all coordinated assaults on segregation in public settings. Data on civil rights movem Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftent activity reported 111 the AW York Tunes show the centrality of4desegregation in the early 1960s.3 The desegregation of neighborhoods, schools, pubAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
lic or commercial facilities was “the primary claim 01 demand made by protesters’' at 75% of rhe events 111 1960 and 83% in 1961/ In 1963 alone there Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftpolitical authorities, businesses were a target of collective action for roughly half of the civil rights events occurring in the South in 1960 and 1961 By contrast, school desegregation strategy relied on litigation, and voting barriers were challenged using community organizing and voter registrat Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftion campaigns (Andrews 2004).Campaigns to desegregate public accommodations have a long history dating back at least to tiun-of-the-centuiy challengesAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
to segregation in street cars (Meier and Rudwick 1975). The sit-in tactic itself was developed in the 1940s and 1950s by CORE and NAACP activists andProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftlic spaces thereby challenging and disrupting the normal operation of business. The tactic was employed most famously at lunch counters, but many other sites were targeted including restaurants, libraries, public beaches, churches, and bus stations.Data from the Dynamics of Collective Action project Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft, led by Doug McAdam. Jolui McCarthy, Susan Olzak, and Sarah Soule (www.sranford.edu group collectiveaction). The South is defined here as the fourteeAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
n states used 111 our analysis below.4 This designation is based on whether one of rhe four possible claims coded by the Dynamics of Collective ActionProtest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Drafteleration of the civil rights struggle and a key turning point. Earlier protest campaigns were typically isolated to one or a small number of cities, and most occurred outside of the core Southern states where segregation was fully institutionalized (Morris 1981). In the mid-1950s, the Montgomery bu Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Drafts boycott and Its forerunners demonstrated the viability of organizing a mass movement to challenge segregation. However, there weie few protest campaAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
igns between 1956 and the beginning of the Greensboro sit-ins on February 1. 1960 (.Andrews and Biggs 2006). This changed quickly as college students Protest Campaigns and Movement Success: Desegregating the South, 1960-61'Keiuieth T. Andrews Department of Sociology University of North Carolina Chap Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft and politicizing college students. Moreover, the sit-ins led to the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) that played a critical role 111 shaping the civil rights movement (Carson 1981).The initiating event occurred when four students at Greensboro’s North Carolina A&T b Andrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draftegan then protest on February 1. 1960 (Chafe 1980: Woiff 1970). Following Greensboro, protest spread to nearby cities with large munbers of black collAndrews-Biggs-Protest-Campaigns-Draft
ege students. By mid-April sit-in campaigns had been launched in over 60 cities in every Southern state except Mississippi Thousands of college studenGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook