Advertisement

Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 355–377 | Cite as

Ambivalence and Control: State Action Against the Civil Rights-Era Ku Klux Klan

  • David CunninghamEmail author
Article

Abstract

Models that purport to explain the interplay between dissidents and the state generally assert, either explicitly or implicitly, that the path from state interests to action to outcomes is a linear one. Using the case of the United Klans of America (UKA) in North Carolina, I argue that state efforts to exert social control upon a perceived threat are shaped by a range of internal and external contingencies. In particular, I undertake a comparative analysis of two state agencies to demonstrate how a particular mechanism—ambivalence, here conceptualized as the relational consequence of a mismatch between organizational culture and organizational goals—leads to distinct, and sometimes heterogeneous, actions and outcomes not directly traceable to organizational mandates. Findings lend insight into how endogenous organizational processes shape contentious political outcomes in potentially divergent ways.

Keywords

Repression-mobilization nexus State repression Ambivalence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2007 Hixon-Riggs Forum on Science, Technology, and Society hosted by Harvey Mudd College, and at the American Sociological Association’s 2007 Annual Meeting in Boston. I thank participants in those sessions, in particular Gary Marx and Christena Nippert-Eng, as well as Wendy Cadge and Sara Shostak, for their helpful comments on early drafts.

References

  1. Akerstrom, M. (2006). Doing ambivalence: Embracing policy innovation—at arm’s length. Social Problems, 53, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsop, S. (1966). Portrait of a Klansmen. Saturday Evening Post.Google Scholar
  3. Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruckner, H., Martin, A., & Bearman, P. S. (2005). Ambivalence and pregnancy: Adolescents’ attitudes, contraceptive use and pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cagin, S., & Dray, P. (2006). We are not afraid: The story of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney, and the civil rights campaign for Mississippi. New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  6. Chafe, W. H. (1980). Civilities and civil rights: Greensboro, North Carolina, and the black struggle for freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, P. Y. (2008). Unintended consequences of repression: Alliance formation in South Korea’s democracy movement (1970–1979). Social Forces, 87(2), 651–677.Google Scholar
  8. Churchill, W., & VanderWall, J. (1988). The COINTELPRO papers: Documents from the FBI’s secret war against dissent in the United States. Boston: South End.Google Scholar
  9. Clay, R. (1966). Klan prober quits, cites secrecy in SBI. Raleigh News and Observer (26 July).Google Scholar
  10. Cockshutt, R. (1969). Clemency asked in Klan fire case. Raleigh News and Observer (29 July).Google Scholar
  11. Cole, D. (2003). Enemy aliens: Double standards and constitutional freedoms in the war on terrorism. New York: New.Google Scholar
  12. Crum, J. (1966). A report on the KKK to the Commission on Christian Social Action and to the Executive Board.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, D. (2003a). Understanding state responses to right vs. left-wing threats: The FBI, the Klan, and the New Left. Social Science History, 27, 327–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, D. (2003b). The patterning of repression: FBI counterintelligence and the New Left. Social Forces, 82, 209–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham, D. (2004). There’s something happening here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI counterintelligence. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cunningham, D., & Noakes, J. (2008). ‘What if she’s from the FBI?’: The effects of covert forms of social control on social movements. In M. Deflem (Ed.), Surveillance and governance: Crime control and beyond (pp. 175–197). New York: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davenport, C. (1995). Multi-dimensional threat perception and state repression: An inquiry into why states apply negative sanctions. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 683–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davenport, C. (2005). Repression and mobilization: Insights from political science and sociology. In C. Davenport, H. Johnston & C. Mueller (Eds.), Repression and mobilization (pp. vii–xli). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  19. Deflem, M. (2002). Policing world society: Historical foundations of international police cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. della Porta, D., & Reiter, H. (1998). The policing of protest in western democracies. In D. della Porta & H. Reiter (Eds.), Policing protest: The control of mass demonstrations in western democracies (pp. 1–32). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dittmer, J. (1995). Local people: The struggle for civil rights in Mississippi. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  22. Donner, F. (1990). Protectors of privilege: Red squads and police repression in urban America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Drake, M. J. (2006). Ambivalence at the academies: Attitudes toward women in the military at the federal service academies. Social Thought and Research, 27, 43–68.Google Scholar
  24. Earl, J. (2003). Tanks, tear gas, and taxes: Toward a theory of movement repression. Sociological Theory, 21, 44–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Emerson, R. D. (1998). Dancing with devils. New York: Vantage.Google Scholar
  26. Erwin, K. (1965). Tar Heel Baptist resolution blasts Klan. Raleigh News and Observer (17 November).Google Scholar
  27. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1964–1971). Memoranda (various). Washington: FBI National Headquarters Reading Room.Google Scholar
  28. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1966). Charlotte field office report on United Klans of America, Inc., Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (North Carolina) (2 May).Google Scholar
  29. Francisco, R. (1996). Coercion and protest: An empirical test in two democratic states. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 1179–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frierson, M. (2004). Interview with Dargan Frierson and George Dorsett. Greensboro, NC (video recording in possession of Michael Frierson).Google Scholar
  31. Gamson, W. A. (1995). Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and the politics of exclusion. American Sociological Review, 60, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gould, D. (2001). Rock the boat, don’t rock the boat, baby: Ambivalence and the emergence of militant AIDS activism. In J. Goodwin, J. Jasper & F. Polletta (Eds.), Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (pp. 135–157). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hardee, R. (2003). Personal interview with author, Pitt County, NC (2 July).Google Scholar
  34. Hibbs, D. A., Jr. (1973). Mass political violence: A cross-national causal analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Hochschild, J. (2006). “Ambivalence about equality in the United States or, did Tocqueville get it wrong and why does that matter? Social Justice Research, 19, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Khawaja, M. (1993). Repression and popular collective action: Evidence from the West Bank. Sociological Forum, 8, 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kryder, D. (2007). Organizing for disorder: Civil unrest, police control, and the invention of Washington, DC. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 105–125). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lichbach, M. (1987). Deterrence or escalation? The puzzle of aggregate studies of repression and dissent. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 266–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luescher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lynch, B. (1968). Knightdale popular Klan meeting place. Raleigh News and Observer (15 February).Google Scholar
  42. Marx, G. T. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. McAdam, D. (1995). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy & M. D. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 23–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. McMillen, N. R. (1971). The citizens’ council: Organized resistance to the second reconstruction 1954–64. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  46. Merton, R. K. (1976). The ambivalence of physicians. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays (pp. 65–72). New York: Free.Google Scholar
  47. Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (1976 [1963]). Sociological ambivalence. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Sociological ambivalence and other essays (pp. 3–31). New York: Free.Google Scholar
  48. Mitroff, I. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moss, E. (n.d.). Bureau of investigation. Raleigh: NC State Archives.Google Scholar
  50. Olivier, J. L. (1991). State repression and collective action in South Africa, 1970–1984. South African Journal of Sociology, 22, 109–117.Google Scholar
  51. Opp, K.-D., & Roehl, W. (1990). Repression, micromobilization, and political protest. Social Forces, 69, 521–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Poe, S., & Tate, N. (1994). Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review, 88, 853–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rasler, K. (1996). Concessions, repression, and political protest in the Iranian revolution. American Sociological Review, 61, 132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sarkisian, N. (2006). ‘Doing family ambivalence’: Nuclear and extended families in single mothers’ lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 804–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schlosser, J. (2007). The Klansman and the lawman. Greensboro News and Record (10 June).Google Scholar
  56. Skrbis, Z., & Woodward, I. (2007). The ambivalence of ordinary cosmopolitanism: Investigating the limits of cosmopolitan openness. Sociological Review, 55, 730–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smelser, N. J. (1998). The rational and the ambivalent in the social sciences. American Sociological Review, 63, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smiley, W. W. (1966). The North Carolina press views the Ku Klux Klan from 1964 to 1966. Greenville: Smiley.Google Scholar
  59. Snyder, D. (1976). Collective violence: A research agenda and some strategic considerations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 499–534.Google Scholar
  60. Spence, J. T. (1968). The making of a governor: The Moore-Preyer-Lake primaries of 1964. Winston-Salem: Blair.Google Scholar
  61. Starling, H. (2003). Phone interview with author (4 September).Google Scholar
  62. Steinbach, A. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and ambivalence: Types of relationships in German families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 115–127.Google Scholar
  63. Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  65. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Un-American Activities. (1966). Activities of Ku Klux Klan organizations in the United States, 89th Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  66. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Un-American Activities. (1967). The present day Ku Klux Klan movement, 90th Congress, First Session. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  67. Waddington, P. A. J. (1998). Controlling protest in contemporary historical and comparative perspective. In D. della Porta & H. Reiter (Eds.), Policing protest: The control of mass demonstrations in western democracies (pp. 117–140). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  68. Waynick, C. M., Brooks, J. C., & Pitts, E. W. (1964). North Carolina and the negro. Raleigh: North Carolina Mayors’ Co-operating Committee.Google Scholar
  69. White, R. W. (1989). From peaceful protest to guerrilla war: Micromobilization of the provisional Irish Republican Army. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1277–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Willson, A. E., Shuey, K. M., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2006). Ambivalence in mother-adult child relations: A dyadic analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young, P. (1968). The gun and the guitar: White ghetto revisited. LBJ Archives, Federal Records—Eisenhower Commission [RG 283]; Task Force I—Assassination; Series 12; Box 5.Google Scholar
  72. Young, P. (1969). A few soft words for the Ku Klux Klan. Esquire (July), 104–5, 134–7.Google Scholar
  73. Zimmerman, E. (1980). Macro-comparative research on political protest. In T. R. Gurr (Ed.), Handbook of political conflict (pp. 167–237). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations