Critique of Schneider and Yashar According to Tarrows Political Process Model - Essay Example

Insert Your Insert Your [Insert Your [Insert Your [Insert Deadline for Critique of Schneider and Yashar According to Tarrow’s Political Process Model Dynamism is central to all polities. In light of such a view, political processes are in a state of perpetual development. Contention can, consequently, be regarded as a phase in a democratically developing polity. One significant contribution to interpretation of political processes, especially social movements in given polities, is Tarrow’s. Contrary to traditional interpretations of protests, social movements, and revolutions, cycles of jockeying for power between state and non-state actors can be seen in light of “contentious politics”. According to Tarrow’s Political Process Model (PPM), [C]ontentious politics is produced when political opportunities broaden, when they demonstrate the potential for alliances, and when they reveal the opponents’ vulnerability. Contention crystallizes into a social movement when it taps embedded social networks and connective structures and produces collective action frames and supportive identities able to sustain contention with powerful opponents. By mounting familiar forms of contention, movements become focal points that transform external opportunities into resources. Repertoires of contention, social networks, and cultural frames lower the costs of brining people into collective action, induce confidence that [Insert Your Last Name] 2 they are not alone, and give broader meaning to their claims. Together, these factors trigger the dynamic processes that have social movements historically central to political and social change. (23) Thus, contentious politics is deeply rooted in history and culture and is, more importantly, a catalyst for contagious cycles of contention, social movements, and, sustainability provided, actual political and social change. Accordingly, present paper examines Schneider’s and Yashar’s propositions on contentious politics in Chile’s Pinochet’s and Latin America based on Tarrow’s PPM. Pinochet’s Chile. Schneider’s analysis of political struggle in Chile under Pinochet is, in terms of paradigm, modeled upon Tarrow’s PPM but, in terms of outcome – i.e. contention leading up to social movement and ultimately to social and political change – fails, in author’s opinion, to justify final defeat of Pinochet’s regime as a result of contentious politics in Chile. In terms of paradigm, Schneider’s 1982 “economic crisis” suggests an interpretation of a political opportunity which, presumably, broadens spaces for contention and dissent (261). Further, Schneider’s opportunity seems to trigger cycles of contention spread within and across poblaciones (urban slums and shanty towns) all over Chile. Framing struggle against Pinochet’s authoritarian regime, according to Schneider’s analysis, is largely shaped by Communist Party – leading political force in Chile – in which frame communalism and a collective sense of solidarity run deep across all local neighborhood councils which serve as incubators of political activists particularly in sporadically combative and combative poblaciones such as Sara Gajardo (266), La Victoria (268) and La Herminda de Victoria (269). Interestingly, local histories of resistance before Pinochet’s coup in poblaciones such as La Herminda de Victoria in which [Insert Your Last Name] 3 residents “illegally” control land and later negotiate ownership rights with state seem to refer to repertoires of contention, social networks, and cultural frames which act as springboards of, if not models for, resistance according to Tarrow’s model. That a political opportunity – such as Schneider’s economic crisis – opens for historically powerless constituencies to engage in contentious politics is at surface convenient for analysis but hardly justifies sustainability of Chile’s contentious politics, if any, under Pinochet. Indeed, according to Schneider’s own analysis instead of triggering further collective action leading ultimately to regime change, 1982’s economic crisis seems to have led into an unsustainable form of social movement, according to Tarrow’s movement. That is, in final analysis, regime change in Chile under Pinochet was brought about not by a cumulative and sustained collective action via which formerly disfranchised constituencies continued to pick up support and spread contention nationwide but rather via political realignments making use of same political opportunity (a resource allies and opponents alike Tarrow points out to) for grass-root constituencies. Schneider’s framing of Pinochet’s Chile is, ultimately, an unsuccessful reproduction of Tarrow’s model. After all, Pinochet’s Chile’s contentions are, unlike Schneider’s proposition that Chilean protests follow similar protest patterns in Western democracies (275), but like Schneider’s own emphasis, “business as usual”. Democracy, Indigenous Movements and Postcolonial Challenge in Latin America. Less clearly, Yashar’s critique of political processes in Latin America since mid-twentieth century and into early twenty-first century recalls Tarrow’s PPM but in a more open ended fashion and successfully as compared to Schneider. That is, where Schneider examines Pinochet’s Chile based on existing institutions (Catholic Church, Communist Party, neighborhood councils, etc) [Insert Your Last Name] 4 as a priori, Yashar chooses to examine developments in Latin American political processes in an attempt to explain, presumably, politics of contention between states and indigenous populations. Yashar sets out to clear ground for analysis first laying out developments in Latin American political processes from corporatist citizenship regimes, in which state has more control, civil and political rights limited but social rights guaranteed from 1950’s to early 1980’s (81), to neoliberal citizenships regimes, in which state has less control over local political representations, civil and political rights increased but social rights subject to neoliberal market ideals from early 1980’s to late twentieth century (84). According to Yashar, indigenous populations – largely Indians – managed during neoliberal citizenships regime period to engage successfully with state actors in contentious politics such as to secure local (Indian) political, social and cultural authority over state-recognized territories particularly in and around Amazon area (93). This remarkable shift from corporatist citizenship regimes into neoliberal citizenship regimes constitutes a political opportunity according to Tarrow’s model via which Indians, initially framed by states as “national peasants”, has reframed – and continue to reframe – a uniquely indigenous Indian identity beyond state control as far as territorial boundaries and local administrative authority are concerned. Further, in order to gain state’s recognition for pluralism, multiethnicity and multiculturalism, indigenous groups in Latin America recalled as a collective repertoire, international norms, conventions, and laws – e.g. International Labor Organization Convention 169 (90) – meant as resource for resistance of states’ attempts to individualize and homogenize indigenous communities for further state control and emphasis on unity. [Insert Your Last Name] 5 Interestingly still in Yashar’s analysis is how “postliberal” period during which indigenous groups seem to engage in more aggressive forms of contentious politics. This is particularly significant since, following Tarrow’s PPM, calls for broader political and social rights for indigenous groups – initiated during neoliberal period along ethnic boundaries – seem to build up sustainably into social movements across all Latin America. Given precedents of communal solidarity and, no less, successes realized at local, national, and international levels as regards indigenous rights, contention cycles are more likely to spread across Latin American states. Perhaps, Yashar argues, rather than an institutional approach to political developments in Latin American countries, “scholars [Schneider?] should pay closer attention to how the sequencing [political opportunity → collective action], pace [contention cycles], and institutionalization [sustainability] of democratic [contentious] reforms [politics] actually affects the depth and scope of democratic politics [ultimately leading to political and social change]” (103). [Insert Your Last Name] 6 Works Cited Schneider, Cathy. “Radical Opposition Parties and Squatters Movements in Pinochet’s Chile.” The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy, and Democracy. Eds. Arturo Escobar and Sonia Alvarez. California: Westview Press, 1992. 260-275. Print. Tarrow, Sidney. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print. Yashar, Deborah. “Democracy, Indigenous Movements, and the Postliberal Challenge in Latin America.” World Politics 52.1 (1999): 76-104. Print. Read More