don’t ask/don’t tell and social change theory
What does the repeal of DADT say about social movement theory?
If you believe in the Burstein hypothesis (movements don’t matter, just public opinion), you’d point to the fact that the American government only moved way, way after public opinion had moved. If you believed in the Fetner hypothesis, you might argue that public opinion moved because of movement activists. Which one do you believe? What evidence do you have?
Written by fabiorojas
December 20, 2010 at 12:49 am
Posted in fabio, omar, social movements, sociology
7 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Comments are closed.
Not a literature I know super well, but my impression is that Burstein’s argument isn’t inconsistent with the notion that movement activists shape public opinion. In fact, I think he argues that movements can make issues salient, which amplifies the effect of opinion on policy.
So my view would be that agitation by social movements might move the needle on public opinion, and keep the issue salient enough that policymakers respond to opinion.
Not quite as sexy as picking a horse in your theory race, of course…
bork
December 20, 2010 at 2:47 am
Fair enough, bork. The activists-as-saliency-makers view would fit gay rights activism. There’s been a liberal drift in American culture for about 100 years now and it’s hard to ascribe it to any single movement, but gay rights activists certainly did a good job keeping the issue up front through protest, referenda, and lawsuits.
fabiorojas
December 20, 2010 at 3:28 am
Do you have any theory for the 100 year liberal drift? Robin Hanson says with affluence we are shucking parts of agricultural civilization for what feels more natural to hunter-gatherers (albeit combined with schooling for an industrial workforce). Mencius Moldbug‘s account of the mysterious long-term victory of “W-force” is…well if you have lots of free-time you’ll just have to read for yourself.
teageegeepea
December 20, 2010 at 2:52 pm
It’s trickier than you think. The industrial revolution is something that happened in the 19th century, but the liberalization of the West started sometime earlier. The Industrial revolution just accelerated the process.
fabiorojas
December 20, 2010 at 7:38 pm
As someone who has dabbled in the social movement aspects of this issue, I’d say the one that comes closest is Schneiberg and Soule’s “multilevel” argument: movements push forward on mulitiple dimensions, national and local, mass media and inter-personal. Is this basically a continuation of the diffusion of LGBT recognition among major organizations and states? Simply the next step in the broader march to LGBT equality? Or the culmination of a specific movement targetted at the US military. Answer is all three of course.
From an orgTheory perspective though, I think the more interesting (and tractable) question is how a discreet change in a rule like this will run up against the “culture” of the military. Or really, of the different branches. There is a great dissertation sitting here for students of culture with a very nice comparative set-up. Each of the Branches will take their own approach to implementing this change. And the existing cultures of each will push back in unique ways. Some will adapt to it more easily than others (and a great hook would be if, counter-intuitively, the Marines do so with fewer disruptions than the Air Force). The Pentagon has even, helpfully, gathered a huge amount of pre-policy-launch survey data. Calling all culture theorists, calling all culture theorists…
seansafford
December 20, 2010 at 8:26 pm
@Sean: Outstanding idea!
fabiorojas
December 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm
The Fetner hypothesis definitely would include a role for opponents to LGBT rights. The pattern I identify (for anti-discrimination laws and then same-sex marriage) suggests that it is the larger, louder religious right movement’s arguing with the lesbian and gay movement that gives the issue salience, keeps it in the news media by articulating two sides, giving the story an interesting hook, etc. Of course, my only counterfactual here is the amount of attention to LGBT movement activity before the religious right stepped in, so it is tough to test different effects once the historical wheels are in motion.
@Sean: Brilliant idea, but I think you meant to say the Marines vs. the Navy ;)
tina
December 22, 2010 at 6:18 pm