You are on page 1of 5

Eunice Del Rosario ZSC111/4M

Prof. Violeta Sioson March 17, 2014

1.

What are the characteristics, conditions, type of collective behavior? - The crowd Scholars differ about what classes of social events fall under the rubric of collective behavior. In fact, the only class of events which all authors include is crowds. Clark McPhail is one of those who treats crowds and collective behavior as synonyms. Although some consider McPhail's work overly simplistic (Locher 2002), his important contribution is to have gone beyond the speculations of others to carry out pioneering empirical studies of crowds. He finds them to form an elaborate set of types. The classic treatment of crowds is Gustave LeBon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1896), in which the author interpreted the crowds of the French Revolution as irrational reversions to animal emotion, and inferred from this that such reversion is characteristic of crowds in general. LeBon believed that crowds somehow induced people to lose their ability to think rationally and to somehow recover this ability once they had left the crowd. He speculated, but could not explain how this might occur. Freud expressed a similar view inGroup Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1922). Such authors have thought that their ideas were confirmed by various kinds of crowds, one of these being the economic bubble. In Holland, during the tulip mania (1637), the prices of tulip bulbs rose to astronomical heights. An array of such crazes and other historical oddities is narrated in Charles MacKay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841). A number of authors modify the common-sense notion of the crowd to include episodes during which the participants are not assembled in one place but are dispersed over a large area. Turner and Killian refer to such episodes as diffuse crowds, examples being Billy Graham's revivals, panics about sexual perils, witch hunts and Red scares. Their expanded definition of the crowd is justified if propositions which hold true among compact crowds do so for diffuse crowds as well. Some psychologists have claimed that there are three fundamental human emotions: fear, joy, and anger. Neil Smelser, John Lofland, and others have proposed three corresponding forms of the crowd: the panic (an expression of fear), the craze (an expression of joy), and the hostile outburst (an expression of anger). Each of the three emotions can characterize either a compact or a diffuse crowd, the result being a scheme of six types of crowds. Lofland has offered the most explicit discussion of these types. - The public Park distinguishes the crowd, which expresses a common emotion, from a public, which discusses a single issue. Thus, a public is not equivalent to all of the members of a society. Obviously, this is not the usual use of the word, "public." To Park and Blumer, there are as many publics as there are issues. A public comes into being when discussion of an issue begins, and ceases to be when it reaches a decision on it. - The mass To the crowd and the public Blumer adds a third form of collective behavior, the mass. It differs from both the crowd and the public in that it is defined not by a form of interaction but by the efforts of those who use the mass media to address an audience. The first mass medium was printing.

Eunice Del Rosario ZSC111/4M

Prof. Violeta Sioson March 17, 2014

- The social movement We change intellectual gears when we confront Blumer's final form of collective behavior, the social movement. He identifies several types of these, among which are active social movements such as the French Revolution and expressive ones such as Alcoholics Anonymous. An active movement tries to change society; an expressive one tries to change its own members. The social movement is the form of collective behavior which satisfies least well the first definition of it which was offered at the beginning of this article. These episodes are less fluid than the other forms, and do not changes as often as other forms do. Furthermore, as can be seen in the history of the labor movement and many religious sects, a social movement may begin as collective behavior but over time become firmly established as a social institution. For this reason, social movements are often considered a separate field of sociology. The books and articles about them are far more numerous than the sum of studies of all the other forms of collective behavior put together. Social movements are considered in many Wikipedia articles, and an article on the field of social movements as a whole would be much longer than this essay. The study of collective behavior spun its wheels for many years, but began to make progress with the appearance of Turner and Killian's "Collective Behavior" (1957) and Smelser's Theory of Collective Behavior (1962). Both books pushed the topic of collective behavior back into the consciousness of American sociologists and both theories contributed immensely to our understanding of collective behavior (Locher 2002, Miller 2000). Social disturbances in the U. S. and elsewhere in the late '60s and early '70s inspired another surge of interest in crowds and social movements. These studies presented a number of challenges to the armchair sociology of earlier students of collective behavior. Why people can be mobilized to join social movements?

2.

Many discussions have been generated recently on the topic of social networking and the effect it may play on the formation and mobilization of social movement. For example, the emergence of the Coffee Party first appeared on the social networking site,Facebook. The party has continued to gather membership and support through that site and file sharing sites, such as Flickr. The20092010 Iranian election protests also demonstrated how social networking sites are making the mobilization of large numbers of people quicker and easier. Iranians were able to organize and speak out against the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by using sites such as Twitter and Facebook. This in turn prompted widespread government censorship of the web and social networking sites. The sociological study of social movements is quite new. The traditional view of movements often perceived them as chaotic and disorganized, treating activism as a threat to the social order. The activism experienced in the 1960s and 1970s shuffled in a new world opinion about the subject. Models were now introduced to understand the organizational and structural powers embedded in social movements.

Eunice Del Rosario ZSC111/4M 3. Discuss the different and result of edsa I, II, III

Prof. Violeta Sioson March 17, 2014

There was an EDSA I and an EDSA II. Some say there was an EDSA Tres , although Pres. Arroyo mentioned that the world will not forgive an EDSA 3. Some say that the real People Power happened in EDSA I, and that EDSA II was a far cry from its predecessor. However, lets not go into that debate now, and instead focus on the legal distinction between People Power I and II. According to the Supreme Court, EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. The Aquino government was the result of a successful revolution (although a peaceful one) by the sovereign people. No less than the Freedom Constitution (Proclamation No. 3) declared that the Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended. EDSA I is extra-constitutional.

On the other hand, EDSA II is an exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. Estrada resigned and, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution, Vice-President Arroyo succeeded as President. Hence, the Arroyo government (the first one) is not revolutionary in character. EDSA II is intra-constitutional. As a nation, we need to define a much larger space that is beyond the pale of politics. Politics has consumed the energies and passions of two generations of Filipinos. It is too costly to go on like this. Surely there are more productive things that require energy and passion. The Edsa Revolution has been diminished in the popular imagination. That is the inevitable toll of historical time. An event so long ago, no matter how glorious, cannot yield the moral reference for all the questions we need to deal with. That is the reason why the personalities associated with this event have, like seeds thrown to the wind, dispersed in all directions and might today seem to be in contrary positions. That is the reason, too, why many who were on the side of tyranny when the revolution happened might now appear to be claiming the mantle of that event. The Edsa Revolution has no priesthood to conserve a one-dimensional dogma about that event. It cannot have one. As a historical event, the revolution was multi-dimensional. The event itself resists dogmatism. There is, however, consensus about the necessity for the Edsa Revolution. It was the only way a dictatorship could be overthrown. There is no similar consensus about Edsa Dos, unfortunately. The Edsa Revolution was an uprising against a tyrannical political order. Edsa Dos was an uprising against a democraticallyinstalled government. Lito Atienza is among those most outspoken about the difference. So was the late Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma. Both have impeccable records as advocates of democracy and constitutionalism. Atienza is a survivor of 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing that nearly wiped out the senatorial slate of the Liberal Party (LP). Through the long years of dictatorship, he worked to keep the LP whole. On the eve of the Edsa Revolution, he was forced into hiding when tipped off as one of the targets of Oplan Mad Dog, a sinister plot to kill anti-Marcos leaders to cause chaos and set the premise for the re-imposition of martial rule. He worked closely with the assassinated

Eunice Del Rosario ZSC111/4M

Prof. Violeta Sioson March 17, 2014

Evelio Javier. When he served as mayor of Manila, Atienza put a plaque to recall the Plaza Miranda bombing and a poignant monument to Javier. He was mayor of Manila when Edsa Dos happened. Putting primary consideration on the rule of law, he stood by the duly-elected president until was forced to move out of the Palace. When his tenure as mayor was ended by term limits, he chose to serve the then duly elected presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. In 2005, in the face of a conspiracy to overthrow the Arroyo government hinged on the resignation of the so-called Hyatt 10, Atienza again stood by constitutional dictate. He supported the elected government and opposed those who were then commandeering the LP to the side of the conspiracy. That faction of the LP involved in the conspiracy was headed by a personality identified with a prominent pro-Marcos law firm during the dictatorship. Estranged from the party he loved and served courageously, Atienza is seeking to reclaim leadership of the city of Manila under the banner of Joseph Estradas party. His main rival is Alfredo Lim, incumbent mayor of the city. Lim, rather ironically, is running under the LP banner. He has wrapped the whole city in yellow bunting to solidify his newfound identity as ardent supporter of the martyrs son. But the historical record must be restated in this case. When the Edsa Revolution began to unfold, Lim stood by Marcos side to the end. As chief of the Northern Police District, he ordered then Quezon City police chief Jose Dawis to disperse the crowd at Edsa by whatever means necessary. I was at the barricades Dawis was ordered to attack. When Dawis expressed reluctance at attacking unarmed civilians, Lim berated him before his men, relieved him of his post and condemned his career as police officer to oblivion. When Marcos was evacuated by US helicopters, Lim quickly shifted loyalties. Ironically, he defected to Ramos aide Jose Almonte. When Almonte headed the anti-smuggling unit during the Marcos government, he was nearly killed when he tried to stop a shipment of smuggled goods being escorted out of the port by Lim and his policemen. When the Mendiola Massacre happened early in the Aquino presidency, Lim was in charge of the police units on the scene. He was never asked to explain his role in the deaths of peasants on the streets of Manila. Lim defected once again when Edsa Dos happened. In the waning days of the Estrada presidency, Lim was DILG secretary. As such, he was supposed to be the last man to abandon his president. Yet, when the political tide began to turn, he slipped out of the Palace and quickly appeared at the Edsa Shrine there to be jeered and pelted by the angry crowd. Politics, we know, is always a swirling tide. But that is not an excuse for the banners of the Edsa Revolution now being waved by unworthy hands. Little wonder the Edsa Revolution is appearing less and less impressive in the minds of young Filipinos. 4. Differentiate the planned from unplanned socio cultural

Sociocultural evolution, sociocultural evolutionism or cultural evolution are terms for theories of cultural and social evolution that describe how cultures and societies change over time. Whereas sociocultural development traces processes that tend to increase the complexity of a society or culture, sociocultural evolution also considers process that can lead to decreases in complexity (degeneration) or that can produce variation or

Eunice Del Rosario ZSC111/4M

Prof. Violeta Sioson March 17, 2014

proliferation without any seemingly significant changes in complexity (cladogenesis). Sociocultural evolution can be defined as "the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form." Most 19th-century and some 20th-century approaches to socioculture aimed to provide models for the evolution of humankind as a whole, arguing that different societies are at different stages of social development. The most comprehensive attempt to develop a general theory of social evolution centering on the development of socio-cultural systems was done by Talcott Parsons on a scale which included a theory of world-history. Another attempt both on a less systematic scale was attempted by World System approach. More recent approaches focus on changes specific to individual societies and reject the idea of social progress, of an overall direction to change. Most archaeologists and cultural anthropologistswork within the framework of modern theories of sociocultural evolution. Modern approaches to sociocultural evolution include neoevolutionism, sociobiology, modernization theory and the theory of postindustrial society. Anthropologists and sociologists often assume that human beings have natural social tendencies and that particular human social behaviours have non-genetic causes and dynamics (i.e. they are learned in a social environment and through social interaction). Societies exist in complex social environments (i.e. with natural resources and constraints) and adapt themselves to these environments. It is thus inevitable that all societies change. Specific theories of social or cultural evolution often attempt to explain differences between coeval societies, by positing that different societies have reached different stages of development. Although such theories typically provide models for understanding the relationship between technologies, social structure or the values of a society, they vary as to the extent to which they describe specific mechanisms of variation and change. Early sociocultural evolution theories the theories of Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Lewis Henry Morgan developed simultaneously with, but independently of, Charles Darwin's works and were popular from the late 19th century to the end of World War I. These 19th-century unilineal evolution theories claimed that societies start out in a primitive state and gradually become more civilizedover time, and equated the culture and technology of Western civilization with progress. Some forms of early sociocultural evolution theories (mainly unilineal ones) have led to much criticised theories like social Darwinism and scientific racism, used in the past to justify existing policies of colonialism and slavery and to justify new policies such as eugenics. Most 19th-century and some 20th-century approaches aimed to provide models for the evolution of humankind as a single entity. However, most 20th-century approaches, such as multilineal evolution, focused on changes specific to individual societies. Moreover, they rejected directional change (i.e. orthogenetic, teleological or progressive change). Most archaeologists work within the framework of multilineal evolution. Other contemporary approaches to social change include neoevolutionism, sociobiology, dual inheritance theory, modernisation theory and postindustrial theory. In his seminal 1976 book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins wrote that "there are some examples of cultural evolution in birds and monkeys, but ... it is our own species that really shows what cultural evolution can do".