Reference Groups and the Theory of Revolution (Routledge Revivals) by Urry John;

Author:Urry, John; [Urry, John]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2022-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

It should be noted, first, that the explanation here is not of the degree of dissent but of the potential for escalation; and second, that the heightened interdependence of a personal nature will customarily lower and not heighten the escalatory potential. The latter point bears out the observation that close, personal relations between the employer and the worker tend to minimize both dissatisfaction and escalation.42Thus far escalation has been explained in terms of a high degree of impersonality and interdependence; I now want to consider the actor's possible responses. He may escalate his dissent through the application of his intellect and through the practice of dissent; as Lefebvre (1968, p. 63) says: The opaqueness or transparency of society is thus a social, or rather, socio-economic fact. Only revolutionary praxis by articulating the (true) theory and furthering (practical, verifying) modes of action restores the conditions of transparency.’ Of course, most actors most of the time do not realize such innovatory, creative praxis; they live out their lives in terms of what Lefebvre calls repetitive (cyclical repetition of the same acts) and mimetic (in terms of models) modes of praxis. Escalation to a more correct interpretation is highly problematic both through theory and practice. The latter depends on the continuous reproduction of the conditions productive of relative deprivation and dissent. The latter is related to the distribution of intellectual resources. But even if certain actors have escalated their interpretation, is it not likely that they will conclude that since the structure is to blame there is nothing that can be done about it. There is considerable probability that in the face of these man-made phenomena the actor will fail to acknowledge their humanness and hence their changeability. Why some men at some moments of history have not done so is a most significant question. Its answer, I think, lies in two directions; on the one hand, the inexorability of the status quo is upset and questioned; on the other, man does not necessarily stand alone against this world but gains in acting in concert with others.

I will very briefly discuss the second point here. I want to introduce the notion of universalization. This is simply the degree to which it is possible for an actor to generalize his situation of relative deprivation to that of others. Thus Lukacs (1923, p. 211) says:

The individual can never come to be the measure of things, because the individual necessarily confronts objective reality as a complex of inflexible things which he finds ready and unchangeable. … Only the class … can practically, transfor-matively, relate itself to the totality of reality. … For the individual, objectification and thus determinism … are insurmountable;

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.