Sociological Forum 

About: Sociological Forum is an academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & Social movement. It has an ISSN identifier of 0884-8971. Over the lifetime, 1769 publications have been published receiving 52487 citations. The journal is also known as: SF.

The Two Meanings of Social Capital1

Abstract: The popularity of the concept of social capital has been accompanied by increasing controversy about its actual meaning and effects. I consider here the alternative applications of the concept as an attribute of individuals vs. collectivities and discuss the extent to which causal propositions formulated at each level are logically sound. I present some empirical evidence illustrating the possibility that, despite the current popularity of the concept, much of its alleged benefits may be spurious after controlling for other factors. Implications of this analysis and results for theory and policy are discussed.

The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions In and Around Social Movements

Abstract: The recent explosion of cultural work on social movements has been highly cognitive in its orientation, as though researchers were still reluctant to admit that strong emotions accompany protest. But such emotions do not render protestors irrational; emotions accompany all social action, providing both motivation and goals. Social movements are affected by transitory, context-specific emotions, usually reactions to information and events, as well as by more stable affective bonds and loyalties. Some emotions exist or arise in individuals before they join protest groups; others are formed or reinforced in collective action itself. The latter type can be further divided into shared and reciprocal emotions, the latter being feelings that protestors have toward each other.

Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural Bias of Political Process Theory

Abstract: The study of social movements has recently been energized by an explosion of work that emphasizes “political opportunities”—a concept meant to come to grips with the complex environments that movements face. In the excitement over this new metaphor, there has been a tendency to stretch it to cover a wide variety of empirical phenomena and causal mechanisms. A strong structural bias is also apparent in the way that political opportunities are understood and in the selection of cases for study. Even those factors adduced to correct some of the problems of the political opportunity approach—such as “mobilizing structures” and “cultural framing”—are subject to the same structural distortions. We recommend social movement analysis that rejects invariant modeling, is wary of conceptual stretching, and recognizes the diverse ways that culture and agency, including emotions and strategizing, shape collective action.

Predatory, developmental, and other apparatuses: A comparative political economy perspective on the Third World state

Abstract: Disappointment over the contributions of Third World state apparatuses to industrial transformation and the increasing intellectual dominance of “neoutiliarian” paradigms in the social science has made if fashionable to castigate the Third World state as “predatory” and “rent seeking.” This paper argues for a more differentiated view, one that connects differences in performance to differences in state structure. The “incoherent absolutist domination” of the “klepto-patrimonial” Zairian state are contrasted to the “embedded autonomy” of the East Asian developmental state. Then the internal structure and external ties of an intermediate state — Brazil — are analyzed in relation to both polar types. The comparative evidence suggests that the efficacy of the developmental state depends on a meritocratic bureaucracy with a strong sense of corporate identity and a dense set of institutionalized links to private elites.