Customer Reviews

Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Piven and Cloward's work will always be useful in the study of social movements. I enjoyed this book and think others will as well. I don't believe this book should ONLY be read by students and academics but ALSO anyone that is trying to organize and motivate individuals to take political action. The authors explain why some movements fail and how movements change over time which is interesting for both activists and academics. Although, a great deal of the theoretical discussion has been advanced since this book was written, the book still offers relevant agruements and incites. A similar book would include Tarrow's - Power in Movement. Yet, Piven and Cloward offer more historical background that would compliment Tarrow's newer theoretical work. Last, the topics in this book vary from chapters on social unrest during the Depression to the Civil Rights Movement. The book can be read by anyone because the authors give historical background on all topics.

I read this book for an undergraduate Sociology class. Piven & Cloward offer a very sophisticated analysis on what makes social movements successful. They offer a critique of resource mobilization theory which states that ties with elites and formal organization in movements enable success. Instead they argue that movements are successful based on their power to disrupt the social structure, how important the success of the movement is to elites, there is public support for the movement, public support for elites decreases, and that activists have something to concede (ie. an unemployed worker can't protest against unfair/unjust salary, but an employed person can by ceasing their acquiescence -- and disrupting the larger social structure by rallying other employees to strike) They are strongly critical of formal organizations and see them as being detrimental to a movement, because for Piven & Cloward organizations are susceptible to bureaucracy and use the life blood of the movement to protest in legitimate ways that do not demand immediate change (ie. voting or lobbying one's Congress person rather than having a boycott)

Although, their analysis is very insightful, I think their critique of formal organizations as detrimental to a movement is overly simplistic. Formal organizations do not necessarily mean bureaucracy or less disruption to a social structure. They fail to realize that interactions between different organizations expand movement goals and different organizations can frame movements differently to make them more likely to succeed.

A great book on how formal organizations work for movement success is Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco, 1950-1994 by Elizabeth Armstrong. Her analysis of how organizational diversity within the Gay Rights Movement enabled it survive the decline of the New Left and the AIDS Epidemic is especially insightful -- and serves as a direct contrast to Piven and Cloward's thesis that formal organizations are detrimental to movement success.

As both a heady intellectual and a pragmatic field organizer, I have throughly enjoyed this book. Don't be thrown off by the dry (yet incisive) introduction on the cycles of social movements. The chapters that follow provide journalistic historical narrative on the civil rights, labor, welfare rights movements and illustrate their theory. I would highly recommend it.

Good view on a theory of protests and social Change, just make sure to read some of Dennis Chong's theory to have a balanced approach.

Poor People's Movement is an excellent and an informative source regarding poor people and how they are regulated by our system when they are not educated on this issue.

if that is what you are looking for. Doesnt really draw any conclusions as to what is to be done next

I have not yet read this book. For some reason there were two sent. It was too much trouble to box it up and pay for the second one to be returned, so I just kept them both. But, will be more cautious next time