Sean Young
HOME PAGE

 
Home
Personal Opinion
Cory Doctorow: The Little Brother
The 1960s through Doctorow's Eyes
Doctorow: Here and Now!
Another Side to Doctorow

1) Marco G. Giugni. “Was It Worth the Effort? The Outcomes and Consequences of Social Movements.” Published by Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, (1998), pp. 371-393

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Holly J. McCammon, Karen E. Campbell, Ellen M. Granberg and Christine Mowery. “How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and U.S. Women's Suffrage Movements, 1866 to 1919.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Feb., 2001), pp. 49-70

 

 

 

 

 

3) Ravi Bhavnani and Michael Ross. “Announcement, Credibility, and Turnout in Popular Rebellions.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jun., 2003), pp. 340-366

 

 

 

 

 

4) Kenneth T. Andrews, Marshall Ganz, Matthew Baggetta, Hahrie Han and Chaeyoon Lim. “Leadership, Membership, and Voice: Civic Associations That Work.” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 115, No. 4 (January 2010), pp. 1191-1242

 

 

 

 

 

5) Brayden G. King, Keith G. Bentele and Sarah A. Soule. “Protest and Policymaking: Explaining Fluctuation in Congressional Attention to Rights Issues, 1960-1986.” Social Forces, Vol. 86, No. 1 (Sep., 2007), pp. 137-163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6) Frances Fox Piven. “Can Power from below Change the World?” American Sociological Review, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Feb., 2008), pp. 1-14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7) Pamela E. Oliver, Jorge Cadena-Roa and Kelley D. Strawn. “Emerging Trends in the Study of Protests and Social Movements.” Research in Political Sociology, Volume 12 (2003), pg. 213-244

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8) Doctorow, Cory. “Little Brother.” New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 2008. Print.

This article explains the effectiveness of different types of social movements, such as extremely organized movements vs. loosely organized movements, or violent protests vs. peaceful tactical protests. The article seems to point to the idea that people don’t necessarily risk more presently than in the past. The risks are the same and it just depends on how you decide to go with your protesting. Since data has shown that violent protesting is more effective than peaceful, many protests can turn violent if the people truly believe in their cause. The article says that since much of the social movements first happened in the 70s, the risks were potentially higher back then, as we now know the general punishment that would happen, while they (in the past) had no idea of the punishments they would receive for their forms of protesting. Also because we can now see protesting some rights for the greater good was useful, it may slightly decrease some potential risks.

 

 

This review doesn’t have much to do with my topic in general. However, I have learned a few things from it that can be relevant in some ways. This article describes the techniques and ways that most social movements have been won. It also infers that the risks from social movements are not based on the time/generation. The risks are more or less the same, breaking laws equals going to jail or whatever that state law requires.

 

 

 

This article is relevant to my topic because it talks about why/when people do decide to rebel against the government. People will risk for what they believe in usually if the costs outweigh the risks or imprisonment or physical abuse by authorities. At that time, when the costs outweigh the potential risks for many people, a huge movement may be started and is much more likely to succeed. What this article states is that in the modern day, it’s much more frequent that the costs do not outweigh the potential risks.

 

 

This article is very relevant to my topic as it sheds light on what are some differences in risks when people stand up for what they believe in. This article says that people have greater risks if they’re lower in class. People who protest in more favorable civil and political contexts and who have more money/people/leaders to help their cause (higher class) will probably have less risks than someone who’s nobody and has no money or people to help his cause. It also mentions, very briefly, that due to the difference in time gap, societies rules and expectations have changed, thus changing the risks of social movements.

 

 

This journal is very relevant to my topic. It explains that before the 1960s, Congress did not legitimately include rights policies in their jurisdiction of government influence. Thus, the very first rights movements were a pivotal point in history. Also, because it was never done before, the risks were higher and things were much more chaotic in the past. Now in the present, there are much less “big” protests, but also, Congress hears and adjusts to policy rights more frequently. Presently, there are also many small protests all the time, as compared to decades ago. Thus the article infers that the risk of protesting now isn’t that big. It mostly goes unheard, unless people do drastic things. It was a riskier time of protest back when the government wouldn’t truly tolerate it.

 

 

This article also is very crucial to my topic. It says that the future is more than likely going to be filled with some form of turmoil or uncertainty. Some type of war or destruction will have to occur eventually. This is because as time goes on, people want more rights and more things from the government. And since there are many protests, people who take their beliefs seriously will protest in such extreme ways to be noticed (terrorist bombing as an example) amongst the crowd. The risks of rebellious protests for society as a whole have definitely increased as time passed on. Not only that, but because much protest for freedom come from the younger, new generation, they also risk more. They are usually students who, in this day and age, cannot afford to protest and risk the chance of being kicked out of school, as just one example. Yet even then, as the article states, these people will most likely stand up for what they believe in, creating chaos even if it is risky.

 

 

This journal is relevant to my topic because it says that protests have remained the same ever since the 60s; the tool to create democracy, for the less powerful to gain equality. Since then, protests have been used in this manner, and not all are peaceful; many are violent. The thing is, the risks for the protesters will always be the same. The article states that each generation has its own mind-set. The past generations would arrest and abuse certain people who tried to create an uprising. The new generation will do the exact same, except to a different race or in a different situation. The government will continue to take down the new generation’s uprising rebels unless the rebels win. In this sense, the risks of starting a movement will remain the same throughout time.

 

 

Cory’s opinion on my topic seems to be that young people today risk much more for standing up for what they believe in, than the young people of previous generations. He seems to believe that they risk more in terms of getting caught by the law. This is because in his book, he gives examples of police trying to shut down riots during the Free Speech Movement, and during the current storyline. However, one huge difference in protesters in the current storyline that differs from protesters in the past is the fact that present protesters are actually abducted by the government. They are put on an isolated prison island and are interrogated and tortured for months in the book’s scenario. It is inhumane. This over exaggeration of the detainment of rebels shows that Cory thinks the new generation has more to risk when standing up for their beliefs.

 
Linear Version
Annotated Bibliography Review of the Literature Glog