Do working men rebel? A call for papers.

[marct]

The relative deprivation hypothesis is probably one of the better ones around, especially since it is one of the few that actually reflects how we, as a species, think / perceive, which is in "relative" terms. Part of the reason why I suggested looking at marriage is that it is a rather complex proxy for both sex and status that is independent of any particular economic system 9i.e. it goes on regardless of the formal economic systems).

One of the other things that, I think, is important to look at is the countervailing question. Why do me rebel when they have (good) jobs? Take a look, for example, at the number of people involved in terrorist attacks who have well paying jobs and great careers. I would submit, as a subject for discussion, that the emphasis on looking at the unemployment - rebellion nexus is really a reflection of the US and Western cultural assumption of the primacy of income as a status marker, and its obverse; looking at well employed people who "rebel" casts doubt on that assumption.

Having thrown the cat amongst the pidgeons, I'll now gracefully withdraw ...

[MikeF]

Why do me rebel when they have (good) jobs?

That is the answer that seems to alude us all. Here's five very different examples to consider.

1. Charles Manson. We view him as a sociopath, but to his followers, he was leading a rebelion. His recruits came from rich families. Purpose- anarchy.

2. Latino Gangs. Money, Respect, Power is one LA gangs motto.

3. UBL/ Al Qaeda. Purpose- establish Caliphate.

4. Tyler Durbin/ Fight Club. Purpose- Anarchy.

5. Ayn Rand/Libertarians/Tea Parties. Purpose- Reclaim Capitalism.

Each group taps into some type of recruiting method that targets something (grievance, emotion, religion, whatever).

Disclaimer- I am not suggesting that the Tea Parties are akin to al Qaeda. I could have easily used a group like Code Pink.

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike,

That is the answer that seems to alude us all. Here's five very different examples to consider.

Well, the pattern is similar behind all of them. as one pundit noted, "Man does not live by bread alone". What it really comes to is a quest for meaning and the differences between meaning structures provided by a society/culture and the opportunities to pursue them. You might want to check out Merton and Strain Theory (decent little article here).

[MikeF]

Well, the pattern is similar behind all of them. as one pundit noted, "Man does not live by bread alone". What it really comes to is a quest for meaning and the differences between meaning structures provided by a society/culture and the opportunities to pursue them. You might want to check out Merton and Strain Theory (decent little article here).

Marc,

Thank you for the link. Merton's expansion on Anomie theory makes a bit more sense to me than Durkheim's original definition. On a side note, this excerpt on the differences between the inalienable pursuit of happiness and the American Dream seems particularly relevant today.

The wording of the paper and the order of ideas remained quite close to the original product until Merton began his discussion of the accumulation of wealth and the American Dream. It is at this juncture that he expanded the discussion significantly. He elaborated on the American Dream and Americans’ desire for pecuniary success stating that there is no stopping point within the dream. The American Dream is cyclical in nature. An individual wants just a little bit more than what he has and once he achieves the little bit more the process will begin again. Merton (1949:233) declared that the origin of the dream was an individual’s parents, who he deemed to be the “transmission belt for the values and goals of the group of which they are a part, with schools acting as the official agency for passing on prevailing values.” He also claimed that individuals are bombarded from all sides with culturally accepted goals, citing numerous examples.

This description seems to be the core assumption of Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded, and his call for nation-building in the US.

Our Parents were the Greatest Generation...My generation...turned out to be the "Grasshopper Generation..." devoted to our recent age of excess...and gorged on the savings and natural world that had been bequeathed to us- leaving our children huge financial and ecological deficits...And therefore we and our children are going to have to be the "Re-Generation," and summon the will, energy, focus, and innovative prowess to regenerate, renew, and reinvent America in a way that will show the world a new model for growing standards of living and interacting with nature that is truly sustainable, renewable, healthy, safe, fair, and creative of more opportunities for more people in more places than ever before.

Mike

[outletclock]

is that the authors utilized a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are questionable, and may have caused the disconfirmation of their results.

1) Is participation in insurgency really a full-time occupation? Isn't one of the defining characteristics of (some) insurgencies that the insurgents are "part-time" soldiers (and thus difficult to distinguish from the population)? In other words, soldiers by night, "ordinary people by day?"

2) Is insurgency a low-skill occupation? It would seem to me it might make more sense to take an industrial organization approach, in which insurgent organizations are looked at as "firms," with various members possessing various skill sets of varying scarcity and complexity (or lack thereof)?

3) Sure, the supply of labor might be a binding constraint, but *how* binding is it? Was there a *real* scarcity of insurgents in, say, 2003 Iraq?

Regards,
OC

###

The opportunity-cost approach is based upon a number of often implicit assumptions about the production of insurgent violence. Some of these include:

- Participation in insurgency is a full-time occupation, in the sense that individuals cannot be legitimately employed and active insurgents at the same time.
- Insurgency is a low-skill occupation so that creating jobs for the marginal unemployed reduces the pool of potential recruits.
- The supply of labor is a binding constraint on insurgent organizations.

[outletclock]

the disconfirmation of their hypotheses.

Regards
OC

[Schmedlap]

Participation in insurgency is a full-time occupation, in the sense that individuals cannot be legitimately employed and active insurgents at the same time.
- Insurgency is a low-skill occupation so that creating jobs for the marginal unemployed reduces the pool of potential recruits.

I think both of those are inaccurate. Many members of the insurgency in Iraq included doctors, engineers, and other professionals. Many were still doing their legitimate full-time jobs. Many insurgent roles are low-skill, but many are not, particularly folks who were in leadership, who were financiers or logisticians, and the guys who handled propaganda.

[M-A Lagrange]

I tend to believe that men rebel for a cause. The main problem for us is to actually recognise that cause. Few weeks ago there was a threat in SWJ called do soldiers fight for a cause.
The main feeling I had in that threat was that most of the participants came with the assumption that soldiers do a job. It goes with our model of society but does not fit into Afghan society for example. (Yes soldiers and policemen have a job there).
My point is that we, westerners, engage in the army or police with some bottom line adhesion to the cause it is fighting for. Cause and job are combined.
In the case of rebels, it is the cause that drives the engagement.
Looking at Iraq with a complete external eye, I can see that men did not rebel in a first time. They took an opportunity due to power vacancy to first pay back what the other side made them suffer and then impose their domination. And yes, the US did see it as a rebellion, rebels questioning their domination on Iraq.
In Afghanistan it is even deeper as US came and said we will change your society from A to Z.
In both cases what they have in common is a cause, not the same but a cause.

What makes them embrace that cause is the question.
But if an external power comes to your home and says: Ok I’am the new sheriff in town and you will do things the way I want.
Wouldn’t you rebel?

May be we should start looking at that first.
Because what makes you rebel (the deep and high theoretical cause) is probably the same as them.
If the US comes in my home to tell me they will run my country. Despite I like them and we share core value: I will rebel!

[MikeF]

I think both of those are inaccurate. Many members of the insurgency in Iraq included doctors, engineers, and other professionals. Many were still doing their legitimate full-time jobs. Many insurgent roles are low-skill, but many are not, particularly folks who were in leadership, who were financiers or logisticians, and the guys who handled propaganda.

Maybe it's more appropriate for Outletclock to refute the assumptions with some quantitative or at least multiple case-study qualitative evidence rather than just say "I don't like the assumptions" and ask further questions.

Yes, in the Iraq case, we caused immediate unemployment when we disbanded the Army and outlawed the Ba'ath party. But, they're covering Iraq and the Phillipines. Furthermore, Rex added the Israel/Palestine study to provide additional weight.

With that said, I got to check the dictionary on the definition of parsimonous.

Mike