na temat : RUCH SPOLECZNY


"What I disliked about this book was the writing style of the author.
It seemed that he was trying to express even the most simple concepts
with verbose, pedantic language that made his arguments difficult to
understand and distracted the reader from the points he was trying to
make.
HE IS LIKE THAT.
 For example, he defines a cycle of contention like this: "a phase of
heightened conflict across the social system: with a rapid diffusion
of collective action from more mobilized to less mobilized sectors; a
rapid pace of innovation in the forms of contention; the creation of
new or transformed collective action frames; a combination of
organized and unorganized participate; and sequences of intensified
information flow and interaction between challengers and authorities.

 Such widespread contention produces externalities that give
challengers at least a temporary advantage and allows them to overcome
the weaknesses in their resource base. It demands that states devise
broad strategies of response that are either repressive or
facilitative, or a combination of the two." (Page 142.)This review is
from: Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics
(Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics) (Paperback)

IT DOES TO HIM AT THE REST. THE LIE IS THAT HE HAD THIS BOOK IN 2003
OR 2007. IT IS JUST ON THE MARKET. IT IS IN FACT VERY NEEDED FOR THE
STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT. AUTHOR TEND NIT TO SKIP COMPULSION. WHILE
SOCIAL MOVEMENT IS THE POINT OF OVERFLOAWING SUCH A CONTENDED POINT IN
ITSEF, WHETHER INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIAL. HOW TO CONSOLIDATE THE FORCES FOR
THE SOCIAL CHANGE IS THE ART AND SCIENCE, THAT STAYS, THE WORLD THAT
IS ALWAYS ON THE MAKER, ( THAT FBI CAN NLT CONFISCATE)

HE HAS LONGEST STRUGLED WITH THE DILEMMA OF DUALISM IN THE SOCIAL
REALM,
THEIR BEING 'STRUCTURAL ALIGMENT' AND HE IS FLIPPING OUT UNSUCCESFULLY
( see next review below) WHERE TO? - TO THE FREE FLOW OF THOUGHS,
IDEAS AND ENTERPRISE; AS FAR AS MORE JUMPY CHANGE WE DO NEED TO GET
WHEN THE MOVEMENT CONSOLIDATES. THIS AUTHOR WHILE TOSSING THE
STRUCTUALIST VS PROCES SCIENTISTS IDEAS ALL THE TIME DID NOT
CONSOLIDATE WELL. MCADAM MODEL FOR SOCIAL MOVEMENT WILL
STAY( Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency,
1930-1970 by Doug McAdam (Nov 22, 1999  or earlier edition).
NONOTHING NEW UNDER THE AMERICAN SUN. REMEMBER ADVANTAGES, WHEN WE
LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT!

JUST IN TIME!        Yet, trap around the corner.

Below not recommended liers try in integration of the scial movement
theory
that did not make one more time:

"21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
 a spectacular bellyflop, September 25, 2004
By varmintThis review is from: Dynamics of Contention (Cambridge
Studies in Contentious Politics) (Paperback)
If you are an academic involved with the field of social movements,
you need to read this book, simply because so much of the current
debate in the field is about it. If you are not such a person, don't
bother. Dynamics of Contention is immensely disappointing. Within the
field of social movement studies, the authors are supposed to be the
equivalent of Olympic-level divers-- but what they deliver is a
spectacular bellyflop. I give the book two stars because the core
ideas lying behind it are good. The authors want to break down the
artificial academic barriers separating various fields that all deal
with "contentious politics"-- social movements, revolutions, ethnic
conflict, etc. They also want to move beyond their own structurally
oriented work, so central to the academic field of social movements,
to try to incorporate the ideas of their cultural constructionist
critics, plus introduce more of a focus on social relations. Instead
of trying to create an invariant model, they want to search for
patterns that recurr in widely different types of social conflicts,
with different outcomes. Finally, their methodology of comparing
unlike cases to find the common patterns is intriguing. Unfortunately,
they never really develop a solid intellectual framework for all this.
They identify some common patterns, but never explain the dynamics
underlying them or why they are so common. They are rather inept in
their attempts to bring culture into the picture, engaging in very
thin description. In their attempt to create a more relational
approach, they completely abandonn all the valuable structurally
oriented work they've done. Finally, despite their attempt to focus on
relationships and dynamic social actors, human agency-- as in so much
academic work on social movements-- falls out of the picture.
aka DANGLING CONTENTION TO STAY!
Although the authors obviously put a lot of work into this book, it
just does not come together. "