The Problem of Order

  • Bob Jessop
Chapter
Part of the New Perspectives in Sociology book series

Abstract

In Londonderry and other places recently, a minority of agitators determined to subvert lawful authority played a part in setting light to highly inflammable material. But the tinder for that fire, in the form of grievance real or imaginary, had been piling up for years. And so I saw it as our duty to do two things. First, to be firm in the maintenance of law and order, and in resisting those elements which seek to profit from any disturbances. Secondly, to ally firmness with fairness, and to look at any underlying causes of dissension which were troubling decent and moderate people.… The changes which we have announced are genuine and far-reaching changes and the Government is totally committed to them. I would not preside over an Administration which would water them down or make them meaningless. You will see when the members of the Londonderry Commission are appointed that we intend to live up to our words that this will be a body to command confidence and respect. You will see that in housing allocations we mean business. You will see that legislation to appoint an Ombudsman will be swiftly introduced.1

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Bernadette Devlin, ‘The Price of My Soul’ (London, 1969) pp. 120 and 206.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    R. S. Rudner, ‘Philosophy of Social Science’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1966) p. 10Google Scholar
  3. A. Stinchcombe, ‘Constructing Social Theory’ (New York, 1968) pp. 16–32Google Scholar
  4. E. Nagel, ‘The Structure of Science’ (London, 1961) pp. 90–7.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Cf. N. J. Smelser, ‘Essays in Sociological Explanation’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1968) pp. 57–8;Google Scholar
  6. G. Willer, ‘Scientific Sociology’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1966) pp. 9–21.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Cf. R. Dubin, ‘Theory Building’ (New York, 1969) pp. 18–23.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    H. H. Eckstein (ed.), ‘Internal War’ (New York, 1964) pp. 8–16.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    L. Stone, ‘Theories of Revolution’, in ‘World Politics’, xviii (1966) 159–76 (quotation from p. 164).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 14.
    Ibid.; for further illustration and criticism, see A. Cobban, ‘The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution’ (London, 1964)Google Scholar
  11. C. Tilly, ‘The Analysis of a Counter-Revolution’, in ‘History and Theory’, iii (1963) 30–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    Cf. G. Lenski, ‘Power and Privilege’ (New York, 1966) pp. 17–22, on synthesis in theories of stratification; Lenski mentions two techniques — disaggregation of compounds and transformation of categorical concepts into variables.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    The otherwise excellent confrontation between consensus and conflict theories presented by Mann is thus forced to admit a need for synthesis without suggesting how this may be achieved: see M. Mann, ‘The Social Cohesion of Liberal Democracy’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxxv (1970) 423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 17.
    Cf. T. Gurr, ‘Why Men Rebel’ (Princeton, 1970) pp. 16–8.Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Cf. A Etzioni, ‘A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organisations’ (New York, 1961); Etzioni shows that coercion and remuneration are effective means of maintaining order in organisations where participants are alienative or calculative in outlook; normative control may be ineffective in such a situation — see pp. 12–14 and passim.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    See, for example, S. P. Huntington, ‘Political Order in Changing Societies’ (New Haven, 1968) p. 264;Google Scholar
  17. C. Johnson, ‘Revolution and the Social System’ (Stanford, 1964) p. 4Google Scholar
  18. H. Arendt, ‘On Revolution’ (New York, 1963) pp. 13–52 and especially 27–8.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    R. Tanter and M. Midlarsky, ‘A Theory of Revolution’, in ‘Journal of Conflict Resolution’, xi (1967) 265;Google Scholar
  20. R. A. Humphreys, ‘Latin America: the Caudillo Tradition’, in ‘Soldiers and Governments’, ed. M. Howard (London, 1959) p. 153;Google Scholar
  21. P. Calvert, ‘Revolution’ (London, 1970) p. 141.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See, for example, C. Brinton, ‘Anatomy of Revolution’ (Anchor Edition, New York, 1957) p. 4.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The coup d’état, for example, is supposedly institutionalised in Latin America: see M. Kling, ‘Violence and Politics in Latin America’, ‘Sociological Review Monograph’ 11 (1967) 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cf. R. N. Bellah, ‘Religious Aspects of Modernisation in Turkey and Japan’, in ‘American Journal of Sociology’, xliv (1958) 1–5, on the question of admissibility as it affects attempts at modernisation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The classic study of such processes is R. Michels, ‘Political Parties’ (New York, 1959 ed.);Google Scholar
  26. P. Selznick, ‘TVA and the Grass Roots’ (Berkeley, 1953).Google Scholar
  27. E. Bittner, ‘Radicalism and the Organisation of Radical Movements’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxviii (1963) 928–40, discusses solutions to these problems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 26.
    For a detailed discussion, see N. J. Smelser, ‘Theory of Collective Behaviour’ (London, 1962) pp. 319–33.Google Scholar
  29. On the importance of derogation in confirming a deviant role, see E. M. Lemert, ‘Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1967) pp. 40–60Google Scholar
  30. D. Matza, ‘Becoming Deviant’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1969) pp. 143–97.Google Scholar
  31. 27.
    C. J. Johnson, ‘Revolutionary Change’ (London, 1969 ed.) pp. 94–8;Google Scholar
  32. C. Leiden and K. M. Schmidt, ‘The Politics of Violence’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1968) pp. 46–52.Google Scholar
  33. See, for example, K. Chorley, ‘Armies and the Art of Revolution’ (London, 1943);Google Scholar
  34. E. Luttwak, ‘Coup D’Etat’ (London, 1968);Google Scholar
  35. M. Janowitz, ‘The Military in the Political Development of the New States’ (Chicago, 1964);Google Scholar
  36. S. E. Finer, ‘The Man on Horseback’ (London, 1962).Google Scholar
  37. 29.
    Cf. R. Dahrendorf, ‘Essays in the Theory of Society’ (London, 1968) pp. 6–8. Dahrendorf argues that the choice of subject is irrelevant to the validity of research but suggests that ‘the quality of scientific research improves to the extent that the choice of subject betrays a personal commitment on the part of the researcher’ (ibid., p. 8).Google Scholar
  38. 31.
    Cf. H. Stretton, ‘The Political Sciences’ (London, 1969) pp. 161–95;Google Scholar
  39. J. Seeley, ‘Some Probative Problems in Social Science’, in ‘Sociology on Trial’, ed. M. Stein and A. Vidich (Englewood Cliffs, 1963) pp. 53–65;Google Scholar
  40. C. Taylor, ‘Neutrality in Political Science’, in ‘Politics, Philosophy, and Society’, vol. 3, ed. P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman (Oxford, 1967) pp. 25–57.Google Scholar
  41. 37.
    Cf. L. Sklar, ‘Moral Progress and Social Theory’, in ‘Ethics’, lxxix (1969) 229–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 39.
    Sklar, in ‘Ethics’, p. 232; cf. W. G. Runciman, ‘Relative Deprivation and Social Justice’ London, 1966):‘a modified version of the contractual theory of justice can demonstrate in principle what kinds of grievances could be vindicated as legitimate and what reference group choices could therefore be described as “correct”’ (p. 248).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert Douglas Jessop 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bob Jessop
    • 1
  1. 1.Downing CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations