Relative deprivation theory
Relative deprivation theory explores the feelings of discontent that arise when individuals or groups perceive a significant gap between their expectations and their actual social or economic conditions. This theory suggests that deprivation is often not absolute, but rather relative, as individuals typically compare their situations to those of specific peer groups instead of a broader context. As such, the experience of deprivation is subjective and can vary greatly based on personal interpretation and societal comparisons.
Factors contributing to feelings of relative deprivation can include a lack of access to essential services like education, healthcare, and employment opportunities, as well as broader issues like personal freedoms and cultural rights. This perceived disparity may lead to social movements aimed at revitalization or nativism, where leaders often highlight socioeconomic differences to mobilize support. Furthermore, the sense of relative deprivation can result in feelings of alienation or anomie, reflecting the emotional and social consequences of such disparities. This theory thus underscores the importance of perception in understanding social dynamics and individual motivations for change.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Relative deprivation theory
In studies of revitalization and nativistic social movements, in which there is frequently differential social change between various types of ethnic or social groups, David Aberle (1962) contended that an individual or group may perceive a negative discrepancy between a legitimate expectation and the actual occurrence or fulfillment of that need or desire. Though deprivation is seldom absolute, this sense of disillusionment is often based not only on an awareness of extreme discrepancy between expectations and actual physical needs but also on a person’s awareness of being deprived of such things as personal freedom, the right to education, health services, equal employment, religious freedom, and other expressions of social and cultural conditions.
Often groups experiencing relative deprivation compare themselves to specific peer groups rather than the world at large. Relative deprivation is therefore not an objective state of affairs, for actuality varies given a person’s perception or interpretation. In some instances of relative deprivation, the leaders of revitalization movements will emphasize, even dramatize, the disparaging socioeconomic differences that are perceived by the group in comparison with the holdings of a more dominant group within the society. Relative deprivation may eventually result in alienation or anomie.
Bibliography
Aberle, David. "A Note on Relative Deprivation Theory as Applied to Millenarian and Other Cult Movements." Millennial Dreams in Action: Studies in Revolutionary Religious Movements. Ed. Sylvia L. Thrupp. The Hague: Mouton, 1962. 209–14. Print.
Raz, Mical. What's Wrong with the Poor? Psychiatry, Race, and the War on Poverty. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2013. Print.
Schaefer, Richard T. "Discrimination." Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. Ed. Schaefer. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2008. 391–94. Print.
Walker, Iain, and Thomas F. Pettigrew. "Relative Deprivation Theory: An Overview and Conceptual Critique." British Journal of Social Psychology 23.4 (1984): 301–10. Print.
Walker, Iain, and Heather J. Smith, eds. Relative Deprivation: Specification, Development and Integration. New York: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.