WHY DO MEN REBEL? A DISCUSSION OF TED ROBERT GURR'S 'WHY MEN REBEL'

In: Race: the journal of the Institute of Race Relations, Heft 1, S. 84-92

Abstract

A review article focused on T. R. Gurr, WHY MEN REBEL (Princeton, NJ: Princeton U Press, 1970). Abell calls Gurr's book 'the most comprehensive & sustained effort to applyfrustration-aggression theory to the macro-soc phenomenon of collective pol'al violence.' It 'is the best treatment of collective violence to come out of North Amer sociol for some yrs.' Gurr centers his analyses around 3 major variables-(1) the potential for collective violence, (2) the potential for pol'al violence, & (3) the magnitude of pol'al violence. These are tied into a causal model. A 'lack of theoretical development' is noted, but this lack is endemic to sociol. There is little or no theoretical work on the way the shape of distributions at the individual level influences behavior at the collectivity level. Several conceptual slips are noted in the book & some weaknesses in Gurr's causal structure are pointed out. It is concluded that 'there is little dynamic thinking in this work but it surely provides a firm foundation for further disciplined work in this direction. Jenkins calls the book 'a thorough systematization of Anglo-Saxon theorizing in violence & revolt.' It summarizes a whole Sch of res & reflects both its strengths & weaknesses. But after 400 pages it is still not clear whether the basic questions are structural or applied technological ones. Gurr apparently has failed to read K. Marx's theoretical work on the subject. Violence is defined by him as a certain kind of behavior, & this is considered superficial & unsci'fic. Apart from the theoretical inadequacy of the concept of behavioral violence, it also implies a value bias. Finally, Gurr's book is seen to reflect the whole present malaise of US soc sci. M. Maxfield.