Structural Constraints and Alternative Sociopolitical Discourses



In spite of the constraining structural aspects that were mentioned in Chap. 6, we have seen in Chaps. 7 and 8 that within the micro and messo level realms (particularly within face-to-face interactions), transformations took place. However, as was suggested in Chap. 6, at the macro level of social action, there are probably more severe structural limitations on mass mobilization, mass organization, and public articulation of views. This chapter will focus on this realm of action and show how the interaction between charismatic leaders and structural aspects result in unique patterns and modes of expression, articulation, and argumentation of views in public.


Conflict Management Coffee Shop Charismatic Leader Public Articulation Political Commentary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chan, H. C. (1975). Politics in an administrative state: Where has the politics gone? In S. C. Meow (Ed.), Trends in Singapore (pp. 51–68). Singapore: Singapore University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Coser, L. (1974). Greedy institutions: Patterns of undivided commitment (pp. 1–31). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fitzgerald, C. P. (1954). China: A cultural history (p. 252). New York: Frederick Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Freud, S. (1938). Wit and its relations to the unconscious. In A. A. Brill (Ed.), Basic writings of Sigmund Freud (p. 697). New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  7. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures (pp. 6–9). New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  8. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (pp. 73–138). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Moscovici, S. (1992). Minority influence (pp. 233–251). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Ong S. H., & Nirmala G-O. (1996). Metaphor and public communication. Singapore: Graham Brash (Pte) Ltd. 1–37.Google Scholar
  11. Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance (pp. 1–47). New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  12. Seet, K. K. (1992). Cultural untranslatability as dramatic strategy: A speculative look at the different language versions of Kuo Pao Kun’s plays. In K. Thiru, K. Thiru, & K. Thiru (Eds.), Beyond the footlights, new play scripts in Singapore theatre. Singapore: UniPress, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
  13. Sikorski, D. (1991). Resolving the Liberal-Socialist dichotomy: The political economy of prosperity in Singapore. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society., 4(4), 403–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. (Translated by Kurt, H. Wolff). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Wolfram, E. (1960). A history of China (p. 253). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Chan Institute of Social StudiesAp Lei ChauHong Hong

Personalised recommendations