CAPITULO I: MARCO TEÓRICO
CAPITULO 3: DIAGNOSTICO, ANALISISY DISCUSION DE RESULTADOS
3.1. Necesidades formativas
1.0 Introduction 2.0 Objectives
3.0Main content3.1 Relative deprivation theory
3.1 Issues
4.0 Self-Assessment Exercises
1.0 Introduction
This unit introduces you to relative deprivation theory. Relative deprivation theory is very popular in the area of deviance, the theory associate factors related to the activities of the political state as being responsible for deviant behavior. In other words, the theory looks at the inability of the actors to meet some particular needs as the ultimate cause of involvement in deviance; such inability is usually attributed to state failure.
2.0 Objectives
At the end of this unit, you will be able to:
The latent consequences of social dissatisfaction among the populace
State the core assumptions of relative deprivation theory 3.0 Main content
3.1Relative deprivation theory
The Sociologist, Samuel A. Stouffer (1900-1960), is credited with developing relative deprivation theory after World War II. Stouffer first wrote of relative deprivation theory in his study entitled “The American
Soldier” (1949) which is part of a four-volume series entitled “Studies in Social Psychology in World War II.” The series and its component study was a compilation of the data collected during a five-year war-time project that was funded by Carnegie Corporation and the Social Science Research Council (Heck &
Wech, 2003).
Relative deprivation theory refers to the idea that feelings of deprivation and discontent are related to a desired point of reference (i.e. reference groups). Feelings of relative deprivation arise when desires become legitimate expectations and those desires are blocked by society. Social satisfaction is the opposite of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is generally considered to be the central variable in the explanation of social movements and is used to explain the quest for social change that inspires social movements; social movements emerge from collective feelings of relative deprivation (Morrison, 1971).
Relative deprivation theory is applied to socio-political, economic, and organizational problems. For example, relative deprivation theory is used to analyze the organizational issues of pay satisfaction and sex-based pay inequities. Relative deprivation theory focuses on feelings and actions. For example, the theory encourages the exploration of an individual’s feelings of deprivation that may result from comparing his or her situation with that of a referent person or group as well as the behavioural effects of deprivation feelings. Relative deprivation theory distinguishes between egoistic deprivation and fraternal deprivation. Egoistic deprivation refers to a single individual’s feeling of comparative deprivation. Fraternal deprivation, also called group deprivation, refers to the discontent arising from the status of the entire group as compared to a referent group. Fraternal deprivation may strengthen a group’s collective identity (Singer 1992).
Relative deprivation theory has influenced the development of numerous fields in the social sciences including psychology, economics, and sociology. For example, the theory of relative deprivation has
influenced psychological theory. In particular, relative deprivation theory is the foundation of multiple theories of social psychology including frustration-aggression theory, equity theory, social comparison theory, and reference group theory. The concept of relative deprivation and its measurement is used in the field of economics. Economics focuses on the measurement and quantification of relative deprivation using multiple summary indices of deprivation including the Gini coefficient, the maximum index, and the coefficient of variation (Chakravarty& Mukherjee, 1999). In the field of sociology, relative deprivation theory is used to explain the root causes of social movements and revolutions (Krahn &
Harrison, 1992).
Sociologists use relative deprivation theory to explain the origins of social movements. Social movements refer to a deliberate voluntary effort to organize individuals who act in concert to achieve group influence and make or block changes. Social movements are power-oriented groups rather than participation-oriented movements. This distinction means that the group actions of social movements are not necessarily of primary benefit to individual members but instead serve the groups’ larger goals.
Coordinated group actions are undertaken to make changes in the larger socio-political context. Social movements tend to be most successful in open, democratic societies in which social mobility and social change are accepted concepts. Norm-oriented social movements are more common than value-oriented social movements.
Sociologists use relative deprivation theory to explain the origins of the Labour and Civil Rights Movements in the United States. The early American Civil Rights Movement, which occurred in the 1950s and early1960s, grew to include a wide range of groups united by a belief in equality and equal access to resources. Civil rights activists framed their demands in the language of relative deprivation, democratic rights and Christian universalism. The narrative of the Civil Rights Movement highlights the1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, famous public protests, as well as the passage of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Morisson, 1971). The early Civil Rights Movement was born from African Americans’ feelings of deprivation in relation to Caucasian segments of society.
Access to a public education was a defining issue of the Civil Rights Movement. In the 1950s, racial segregation in public schools was pervasive throughout the United States. At this time, the schools educating African-American students were inferior, as judged by limited resources and teacher quality, to schools educating Caucasian students.
3.2Issues with Relative deprivation theory
Critics debate and question numerous aspects of relative deprivation theory. Namely, critics question the link between feelings of deprivation and the rise of social movements and argue that studies of relative deprivation must recognize egoistic deprivation, fraternal deprivation, and self-referenced relative deprivation.
Since the development of relative deprivation theory in the 1950s, sociologists have used relative deprivation theory to explain the origin of social movements. The central idea of relative deprivation theory suggests that individuals or groups feel deprived when their current circumstances are negatively compared to the situation of others. Scholars have questioned the link between relative deprivation and social movements. Much of the evidence linking social movements to feelings of relative deprivation is indirect. While absolute deprivation clearly leads to feelings of discontent and ultimately efforts to effect social change, feelings of relative deprivation may or may not definitively lead to the creation of social movements and collective identity (Morrison, 1971).
The second serious criticism of relative deprivation theory concerns a lack of focus on the individual.
Critics assert that sociologists using relative deprivation theory tend to examine individual and collective relative deprivation but ignore self-referenced relative deprivation. Relative deprivation theory distinguishes between egoistic deprivation and fraternal deprivation. Egoistic deprivation refers to a
single individual’s feeling of comparative deprivation. Fraternal deprivation, also called group deprivation, refers to the discontent arising from the status of the entire group as compared to a referent group (Singer, 1992).
3.3Relevance of Relative Deprivation Theory to Revolution and Society
The relative deprivation theory helps to understand the consequences of gaps between expectation and reality. The theory shows why a group which is expecting to benefit a certain amount of privilege and opportunities may revolt if the reality falls short of expectation. For instance, various revolutionary groups in the Niger Delta claimed to be deprived despite being the producer of oil. Refusal of the government to meet up with the expectation was a reason for destroying of oil facilities.
4.0Self-Assessment Exercises(SAEs)