Revolutionary origins and conditional mobilization

Abstract We examine the role played by popular expectations in the process of political mobilization and the dilemma this poses for nascent revolutionary organizations. In any target population, we argue, there will be a small ‘hard core’ minority of unconditional supporters of each side. The large majority of individuals (though they may have definite sympathies toward one of the two sides) can be influenced to support either side depending upon their predictions of others' behavior and their related estimates of each side's prospects. The conditional nature of such support, we argue, poses an early mobilization problem for revolutionary challengers. The revolutionary opposition begins the struggle from a position of weakness. The expected returns to membership are, therefore, quite low and the expected costs of association are correspondingly high. Why would anyone join such a high risk enterprise in the first place? Revolutionary groups attempt to overcome this challenge through the use of symbolic violence. Group violence is used as a surrogate variable by would-be supporters to estimate the size and relative prospects of the armed opposition. This process, if properly managed, can result in a situation in which agent expectations eventually become self-confirming, permitting the group to ‘jump start’ the mobilization process and achieve a self-sustaining level of revolutionary activity.

[1]  John M. Gleason,et al.  Behavioral and quantitative perspectives on terrorism , 1981 .

[2]  James DeNardo,et al.  Power in Numbers: The Political Strategy of Protest and Rebellion. , 1986 .

[3]  David M. Kreps,et al.  Reputation and imperfect information , 1982 .

[4]  C. Bicchieri Rationality and Coordination , 1995 .

[5]  Harvey E. Lapan,et al.  Terrorism and signalling , 1993 .

[6]  Samuel L. Popkin The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam , 1980 .

[7]  R. Debray Revolution in the Revolution? : Armed Struggle and Political Struggle in Latin America , 1968 .

[8]  T. Kuran Sparks and prairie fires: A theory of unanticipated political revolution , 1989 .

[9]  Nathan Leites Understanding the next act , 1979 .

[10]  Mark S. Granovetter Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[11]  Brian Michael Jenkins,et al.  The study of terrorism : definitional problems , 1980 .

[12]  Norman Frohlich,et al.  Political leadership and collective goods , 1971 .

[13]  T. Kuran,et al.  Now out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989 , 1991, World Politics.

[14]  T. Schelling Micromotives and Macrobehavior , 1978 .

[15]  J. Sobel,et al.  Strategic stability and uniqueness in signaling games , 1990 .

[16]  M. Lichbach,et al.  What Makes Rational Peasants Revolutionary? Dilemma, Paradox, and Irony in Peasant Collective Action , 1994, World Politics.

[17]  G. Marwell,et al.  The critical mass in collective action , 1993 .

[18]  J. Sobel,et al.  STRATEGIC INFORMATION TRANSMISSION , 1982 .

[19]  Sidney C. Sufrin,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. , 1966 .

[20]  Karl-Dieter Opp,et al.  Rational Choice and Rebellious Collective Action , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[21]  Anthony Oberschall,et al.  Social conflict and social movements , 1974 .

[22]  T. Kuran,et al.  The East European Revolution of 1989: Is It Surprising That We Were Surprised? , 1991 .

[23]  T. Schelling The Strategy of Conflict , 1963 .

[24]  James Turner Johnson,et al.  Rationality and Revolution , 1989, American Political Science Review.