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
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Bernadette Devlin, ‘The Price of My Soul’ (London, 1969) pp. 120 and 206.
R. S. Rudner, ‘Philosophy of Social Science’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1966) p. 10
A. Stinchcombe, ‘Constructing Social Theory’ (New York, 1968) pp. 16–32
E. Nagel, ‘The Structure of Science’ (London, 1961) pp. 90–7.
Cf. N. J. Smelser, ‘Essays in Sociological Explanation’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1968) pp. 57–8;
G. Willer, ‘Scientific Sociology’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1966) pp. 9–21.
Cf. R. Dubin, ‘Theory Building’ (New York, 1969) pp. 18–23.
H. H. Eckstein (ed.), ‘Internal War’ (New York, 1964) pp. 8–16.
L. Stone, ‘Theories of Revolution’, in ‘World Politics’, xviii (1966) 159–76 (quotation from p. 164).
Ibid.; for further illustration and criticism, see A. Cobban, ‘The Social Interpretation of the French Revolution’ (London, 1964)
C. Tilly, ‘The Analysis of a Counter-Revolution’, in ‘History and Theory’, iii (1963) 30–58.
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.
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.
Cf. T. Gurr, ‘Why Men Rebel’ (Princeton, 1970) pp. 16–8.
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.
See, for example, S. P. Huntington, ‘Political Order in Changing Societies’ (New Haven, 1968) p. 264;
C. Johnson, ‘Revolution and the Social System’ (Stanford, 1964) p. 4
H. Arendt, ‘On Revolution’ (New York, 1963) pp. 13–52 and especially 27–8.
R. Tanter and M. Midlarsky, ‘A Theory of Revolution’, in ‘Journal of Conflict Resolution’, xi (1967) 265;
R. A. Humphreys, ‘Latin America: the Caudillo Tradition’, in ‘Soldiers and Governments’, ed. M. Howard (London, 1959) p. 153;
P. Calvert, ‘Revolution’ (London, 1970) p. 141.
See, for example, C. Brinton, ‘Anatomy of Revolution’ (Anchor Edition, New York, 1957) p. 4.
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.
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.
The classic study of such processes is R. Michels, ‘Political Parties’ (New York, 1959 ed.);
P. Selznick, ‘TVA and the Grass Roots’ (Berkeley, 1953).
E. Bittner, ‘Radicalism and the Organisation of Radical Movements’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxviii (1963) 928–40, discusses solutions to these problems.
For a detailed discussion, see N. J. Smelser, ‘Theory of Collective Behaviour’ (London, 1962) pp. 319–33.
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. 40–60
D. Matza, ‘Becoming Deviant’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1969) pp. 143–97.
C. J. Johnson, ‘Revolutionary Change’ (London, 1969 ed.) pp. 94–8;
C. Leiden and K. M. Schmidt, ‘The Politics of Violence’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1968) pp. 46–52.
See, for example, K. Chorley, ‘Armies and the Art of Revolution’ (London, 1943);
E. Luttwak, ‘Coup D’Etat’ (London, 1968);
M. Janowitz, ‘The Military in the Political Development of the New States’ (Chicago, 1964);
S. E. Finer, ‘The Man on Horseback’ (London, 1962).
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).
Cf. H. Stretton, ‘The Political Sciences’ (London, 1969) pp. 161–95;
J. Seeley, ‘Some Probative Problems in Social Science’, in ‘Sociology on Trial’, ed. M. Stein and A. Vidich (Englewood Cliffs, 1963) pp. 53–65;
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.
Cf. L. Sklar, ‘Moral Progress and Social Theory’, in ‘Ethics’, lxxix (1969) 229–34.
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).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1972 Robert Douglas Jessop
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jessop, B. (1972). The Problem of Order. In: Social Order, Reform and Revolution. New Perspectives in Sociology. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00967-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00967-1_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-00969-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-00967-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)