Social Strain, Structural Breakdown, Political Opportunity, and Collective Action
Steven M. Buechler
Abstract
Steven M. Buechler
Abstract
Abstract Sociology traditionally identified social strain and structural breakdown as causes of collective action. Such explanations were widely interpreted as endorsing social order and viewing its breakdown and the resulting collective action in a negative light. In the 1970s, advocates of the resource mobilization perspective criticized strain and breakdown explanations and this negative connotation of collective action. Rather than strain or breakdown, these theorists explained collective action in terms of solidarity, interests, and resources. Despite these criticisms, strain and breakdown explanations persisted at the margins of mainstream social movement theory. Moreover, the resource mobilization approach invoked ‘opportunity’ to explain collective action. There is a strong resemblance between ‘strain and breakdown’ and ‘opportunity’. Both explain collective action in terms of external, facilitating conditions, but opportunity explanations connote a more favorable evaluation of the resulting collective action. Such resemblances suggest the viability of a synthesis between older and newer explanations of collective action.
OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Abstract Sociology traditionally identified social strain and structural breakdown as causes of collective action. Such explanations were widely interpreted as endorsing social order and viewing its breakdown and the resulting collective action in a negative light. In the 1970s, advocates of the resource mobilization perspective criticized strain and breakdown explanations and this negative connotation of collective action. Rather than strain or breakdown, these theorists explained collective action in terms of solidarity, interests, and resources. Despite these criticisms, strain and breakdown explanations persisted at the margins of mainstream social movement theory. Moreover, the resource mobilization approach invoked ‘opportunity’ to explain collective action. There is a strong resemblance between ‘strain and breakdown’ and ‘opportunity’. Both explain collective action in terms of external, facilitating conditions, but opportunity explanations connote a more favorable evaluation of the resulting collective action. Such resemblances suggest the viability of a synthesis between older and newer explanations of collective action.
Key concepts: Collective action, Resource mobilization, Political opportunity, Mainstream, Solidarity, Action (physics), Connotation, Social movement