Aldon D. Morris

Frontiers in social movement theory

Social protest movements such as the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement mobilize and sustain themselves in ways that have long been of interest to social scientists. In this book some of the most distinguished scholars in the area of collective action present new theories about this process, fashioning a rich and conceptually sophisticated social psychology of social movements that goes beyond theories currently in use. The book includes sometimes competing, sometimes complementary paradigms by theorists in resource mobilization, conflict, feminism, and collective action and by social psychologists and comparativists. These authors view the social movement actor from a more sociological perspective than do adherents of rational choice theory, and they analyze ways in which structural and cultural determinants influence the actor and generate or inhibit collective action and social change. The authors state that the collective identities and political consciousness of social movement actors are significantly shaped by their race, ethnicity, class, gender, or religion. Social structure--with its disparities in resources and opportunities--helps determine the nature of grievances, resources, and levels of organization. The book not only distinguishes the mobilization processes of consensus movements from those of conflict movements but also helps to explain the linkages between social movements, the state, and societal changes.

Reflections on Social Movement Theory: Criticisms and Proposals

The arrival of a new century and a new millennium are attention-grabbing symbolic markers. They provide a convenient opportunity for me to reflect critically on the current status of social movement theory. Because of space limitations, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive review and critique of this burgeoning field. I focus here on what I contend are serious blind spots within current social movement theory. I argue that these theories continue to slight the role that human agency plays in social movements. The slight occurs because assumptions in current theory lead its proponents to gloss over fundamental sources of agency that social movement groups can bring to the mobilization process, cultural framing, tactical problems, movement leadership, protest histories, and transformative events. I address the human agency and these movement phenomena, and offer correctives. By the mid-twentieth century, collective behavior and related theories constituted the dominant paradigm that guided research of social movements. These theories argued that social movements were a form of collective behavior that emerged when significant social and cultural breakdowns occurred. As a form of collective behavior, social movements were considered spontaneous, unorganized, and unstructured phenomena that were discontinuous with institutional and organizational behavior

NAKED POWER AND THE CIVIL SPHERE

The Civil Sphere offers a bold and original thesis about the critically important role that civil societies play in Western democracies. Although I will challenge Alexander’s thesis, it is important to state at the outset that The Civil Sphere is a valuable book packed with rich social histories, lively engagements with ancient and contemporary theories, and novel interpretations. There is much to be learned here about the historic and sociological nature of racial, gender, and ethnic oppressions, and the struggles waged to overthrow them. This book makes an excellent case why social scientists and humanists should undertake serious study of civil society. In Alexander’s (2006) view, the civil sphere has been neglected theoretically, empirically, and substantively by contemporary philosophers, humanists, and social scientists. This is a shame because the civil sphere is a powerful actor that significantly shapes the politics, stratification orders, economics, social movements, and all important dimensions of modern societies. Moreover, the civil sphere designates those persons who are considered worthy and deserving rights and selects those who are to be viewed as damaged goods not fully possessing democratic sensibilities. These designations correspond roughly to a society’s stratification order. This book pays particular attention to those aspects of the civil sphere that encompass structures of feelings, symbols, psychological identifications, and sympathies, which in turn, determine to a significant degree, who gets what, when, where, and how. While structural domination, instrumental power, brute force, and strategic thinking matter in modern democracies, they are, according to Alexander, less consequential than this structure of soft power nestled in the civil sphere. Alexander warns that to ignore the centrality of this sphere is to engage in faulty social science. Equally disturbing, if scholars fail to study and theorize the civil sphere, they miss the opportunity to harness a liberating force capable of providing an exit from the iron cage of oligarchic bureaucracies and other crippling structures of human domination. Thus, the inability to recognize and understand the civil sphere forces us to live inside an impoverished house of social science and human possibilities. We owe Alexander an intellectual debt for directing attention to the civil sphere and its structure of feelings and cultural institutions that knit social actors into in and out groups, and provide that sense of “we-ness” and solidarity that is the essence of peoplehood. And if the civil sphere (and our understanding of it) holds the key that unlocks the door to human emancipation, we are deeply in Alexander’s debt. I am convinced by Alexander’s argument that key aspects of the civil sphere have a significant impact on social life. To be sure, solidarities that are able to bind members of

Theorizing Ethnic and Racial Movements in the Global Age Lessons from the Civil Rights Movement

In this essay, we reflect on the history and legacies of the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and suggest avenues of future research of interest to scholars of ethnic and racial movements. First, we unpack how the Civil Rights Movement developed as a major movement utilizing both international and domestic influences. Second, we consider the central role of technology—including television and Internet communication technologies (ICTs)—in shaping contemporary ethnic and racial activism. In so doing, we aim to enhance scholarship on movements and efforts by those committed to challenging racial and ethnic disparities. Finally, we explore how the collective memories of past racial and ethnic struggles, including the Civil Rights Movement, are constructed. We argue that activists and their opposition have stakes in how past ethnoracial oppression and movements alike will be remembered and interpreted. Such memories and interpretations can serve as the basis for additional demands that activists make on power holders and influence actions of the powerful to resist such demands.

DuBoisian Sociology: A Watershed of Professional and Public Sociology

concepts such as “Consciousness of Kind” and “Survival of the Fittest” were not conducive to understanding societies in real time and space. To produce a scientific sociology relevant to understanding and changing society, Du Bois advocated an empirically grounded approach based on data collected through multiple methods. From this empirical base, one developed interpretive frameworks. Thus, writing in the days when American sociology was loosening its bonds from physical metaphors and social philosophy, Du Bois’s mission was clear: “I determined to put science into sociology through a study of the condition and problems of my own group. I was going to study the facts, any and all facts, concerning the American Negro and his plight, and by measurement and comparison and research, work up to any valid generalization which I could” (Du Bois, 1968: 206). Du Bois’s aim was to build a systematic base of scientific knowledge that could be used as a public sociology to overthrow racial oppression. Du Bois never wavered from the idea that truth was the crucial club to be wielded in the pursuit of equality. For him, the essence of the scientific journey was the pursuit of truth because it alone was the shining sword that toppled tyranny. For Du Bois professional sociology and public sociology were of the same cloth, representing an unbroken continuum. Professional Marginality Du Bois never held an academic position in a major research university. When Du Bois left Harvard in 1895 he landed at Wilberforce, a small Black undergraduate institution. There he taught Latin, Greek, German and English. He begged the administration to teach sociology. In his words, “Try as I might, however, the institution would have no sociology, even though I offered to teach it on my own time” (Du Bois, 1968: 188–189). Describing Wilberforce’s students Du Bois wrote, “most of the student body was in high school grades and poorly equipped for study” (Du Bois, 1968: 188). The library consisted of a few piles of old books in the attic. Du Bois explained that, “I was determined to have a library. But there was no money. There was never money for anything” (Du Bois, 1968: 189). Du Bois remained at Wilberforce for only two years because of its lack of basic resources. Reflecting on Wilberforce’s initial promise Du Bois wrote, “I returned ready and eager to begin a life-work, leading to the emancipation of the American Negro. History and the other social sciences were to be my weapons, to be sharpened and applied by research and writing. Where and how, was the question in 1895, I became uneasy about my life program. I had published my first book, but I was doing nothing directly in the social sciences and saw no immediate prospect” (Du Bois, 1968: 192). Du Bois began his sociological career in a highly marginalized manner hardly conducive to nurturing a scholar who would become one of the great founders of American sociology. In 1896 Du Bois became affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania where he was given the title of “assistant instructor in sociology.” This was not a real professorship since it was temporary and offered only because the University recruited him to conduct a study of Black Philadelphians. After completing the study, he had to move on because no white university would hire Negroes. With a broken academic heart he explained, “It would have been a fine thing if after this difficult, successful piece of work, the University of Pennsylvania had at least offered me a temporary instructorship in the college or in the Wharton School” (Du Bois, 1968: 199). With righteous indignation he concluded, “White classmates of lower academic rank than I became full professors at Pennsylvania 50 Souls Summer/Fall 2005 and Chicago. Here in my case an academic accolade from a great American university would have given impetus to my work. . . .” (Du Bois, 1968: 199). As he looked back on his rude departure he wrote, “But then, as now, I know an insult when I see it” (Du Bois, 1968: 199). Du Bois accepted a position as professor of Economics and History at Atlanta University in 1897 remaining at this Black institution for thirteen years, where he launched a series of the first groundbreaking sociological studies on the Black community. What is of interest here is the working conditions at Atlanta University since they too resembled many of the problems he encountered at Wilberforce. He complained about cramped office space and lack of students properly prepared for research. But the overriding problem was his inability to secure research funds. Du Bois was forced to beg white philanthropists to support his pioneering research. He reported that each year he was on a budget of

International Politics and Civil Rights Policies in the United States, 1941-1960

5,000 which included his salary, costs of publication, investigations, and annual meetings. He pleaded repeatedly for support from potential funders. White philanthropists were not sympathetic causing Du Bois to conclude that they had no interests in funding a research program at a Negro college under Negro scholars. The wrath of Booker T. Washington also figured heavily in these denials for powerful whites tended to support Washington’s racial conservatism on which Du Bois unleashed a broadside attack. In that era, Washington was the gatekeeper of philanthropic funds for Blacks and his recommendations usually stood. Hemmed in by unsympathetic whites and a fierce Black opponent, Du Bois never had an abundance of research funds (Stanfield, 1985). This marginality created limitations on Du Bois’s scholarship and contrasted sharply with the institutional riches enjoyed by the white founders of American sociology. For example, Robert Park and W. I. Thomas at the University of Chicago had access to one of the finest libraries in the world. They attracted gifted graduate students who went on to edit sociology’s major journals, serve as presidents of the American Sociological Society, and to lead the discipline. They also had access to funds for research. While Du Bois begged for support, W. I. Thomas received

W. E. B. Du Bois at the center: from science, civil rights movement, to Black Lives Matter

50,000 in 1908 to study problems of immigration that led to the publication of the Polish Peasant (Coser, 1977: 533). Thomas received continuous foundation support for years even after being forced to resign from Chicago because of a sex scandal. White sociologists of the era ignored Du Bois’s work. Nevertheless, the sage at Atlanta and beyond continued to produce groundbreaking work on race and social inequality that came to rest on a bedrock of theoretical and empirical principles that differed profoundly from those espoused at major centers of sociology. DuBoisian Thought vs. the Accepted Sociological Wisdom As James McKee (1993) has pointed out, until the 1970s American sociology of race was deeply flawed because its theories rested on the meta-assumption that Blacks were inferior either biologically or culturally. This assumption of inferiority led white sociologists to locate agency only in the white community. As a result, Blacks were viewed as an undifferentiated mass whose culture and social organization merited no independent analyses. Because Black people were thought inferior, sociologists were ambivalent over whether they would ever assimilate into American society. Without cultural or institutional agency, Blacks’ only hope for equality rested with the actions and attitudes of whites. This approach caused American sociology to be completely caught off guard by the emergence of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements. These mainstream assumptions found no place in Du Bois’ sociology. A coherent apCritical Perspectives on W.E.B. Du Bois 51 proach to race can be distilled from Du Bois’ writings in such classic works as the Philadelphia Negro (1899), the Atlanta Studies, Souls of Black Folks (1903) and Black Reconstruction (1939). What follows is a list of Du Bois’s major principles regarding the sociology of race and the sociology of the Black community. General Principles: The Sociology of Race Race is a socially constructed and dynamic category rooted in history and culture. Human agency resides in both oppressed and dominant groups. Thus, race and class conflicts are inevitable and required for social change. Capitalism is an economic system that produces worldwide class and racial inequalities. Thus, racism is structurally produced by the drive for profit for ruling classes. Race, class, and gender inequalities are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The subjective inner lives of racial groups are important determinants of social outcomes. Careful empirical studies from the ground up utilizing multiple methods are required to produce valuable sociological analyses that can also serve as a base for progressive change. Specific Principles: Sociology of the Black Community An absolute and unequivocal rejection of the claim of Black inferiority. On the contrary, Blacks possess unique gifts and cultural messages for the world. Hence, the end goal is not assimilation but social development. Agency resides in the social organization and culture of the Black community. Thus, the sociologist must study a host of Black institutions including the church, family, voluntary associations, Black leadership, social movements, and business institutions. The Black community is rooted in a diverse class structure and thus cannot be understood as an undifferentiated mass. Black people have developed a unique subjective world characterized by a double consciousness because of the impact of systemic racism. Race consciousness is a crucial dimension of the Black experience. Racial oppression in America can only be understood in the international context of class, gender, and racial dynamics. They derive from a common source—worldwide capitalism. Because race and class conflicts are endemic outcomes of capitalism, major movements for change are to be expected in the Black community. Du Bois’ scholarship received almost no attention in the American Journal of Sociology, the A

The Souls of White FolkThe Souls of White Folk

1. Introduction 2. Mobilizing and utilizing international pressure 3. Civil Rights Commissions 4. International pressure and the states response to racial segregation 5. Conclusion: implications of this study.

Sociology and Social Justice Confronting Challenges of the Twentieth-first Century

I am honoured to present the 2016 British Journal of Sociology Annual Lecture at the London School of Economics. My lecture is based on ideas derived from my new book, The Scholar Denied: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology. In this essay I make three arguments. First, W.E.B. Du Bois and his Atlanta School of Sociology pioneered scientific sociology in the United States. Second, Du Bois pioneered a public sociology that creatively combined sociology and activism. Finally, Du Bois pioneered a politically engaged social science relevant for contemporary political struggles including the contemporary Black Lives Matter movement.

The Souls of W. E. B. Du Bois

The Souls of Black Folk made W.E.B. Du Bois worldfamous well over a century ago. The book instantly became a classic because no other publication had thoroughly probed the depth and consequences of race in America. At the opening of the twentieth century, whites viewed blacks as an inferior homogenous mass likely headed for extinction because of their own moral degeneracy. In Souls, Du Bois invited whites to face real black people, whose cultural gifts and unpaid slave labor had shaped the essence of America. Souls laid bare how blacks made America what it was despite enduring centuries of brutal oppression, rape of black girls and women, political disenfranchisement, and the denial of their very humanity. Souls offered a discomforting message that white racism portended an awful fate for America and the world: “This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of color line.” Yet there is another “Souls” Du Bois wrote, unknown to all but a few Du Boisian specialists. “The Souls of White Folk” (1920) is an article of but a few pages. However, the length disguises its powerful, compact punch, revealing the author’s analysis of the very souls of white folk seldom dissected by anyone, especially whites themselves. Written in the wake of World War I, the key claim of “The Souls of White Folk” (TSWF) was that racism, colonialism, and European empire-building caused the war. These endeavors led whites to fight each other viciously because they wanted their own nation to rule the world by acquiring colonies and resources through the naked oppression and exploitation of dark people worldwide. Well beyond analysis of World War I, TSWF provided nuggets of sociological wisdom omitted from accounts of the origins of sociology, especially race as a sociological phenomenon. In TSWF, Du Bois argued unequivocally that whiteness and therefore race itself were socially constructed: