Social Movement Theory: Relative Deprivation Theory

This article focuses on relative deprivation theory. It provides an analysis of the history, applications, and strengths and weaknesses of the theory. An overview of the origins and main contributors to relative deprivation theory is included, and the application of relative deprivation theory to social movement formation is discussed. The main criticisms of relative deprivation theory are also explored.

Keywords Brown v. Board of Education; Civil Rights Movement; Collective Identity; Egoistic Deprivation; Fraternal Deprivation; Relative Deprivation Theory; Self-Referenced Relative Deprivation; Social Movement Theory; Society; Sociology

Social Movement Theory: Relative Deprivation Theory

Overview

Understanding the history, applications, and strengths and weaknesses of relative deprivation theory is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of social movements. This article explains relative deprivation theory in three parts:

• An overview of the origins and main contributors to relative deprivation theory.

• A description of how relative deprivation theory is applied to analyze and understand why social movements form.

• A discussion of the main criticisms of relative deprivation theory.

The Basics of Relative Deprivation Theory

Relative deprivation theory refers to the idea that feelings of deprivation and discontent are related to a desired point of reference (i.e., reference groups). Feelings of relative deprivation arise when desires become legitimate expectations and those desires are blocked by society. Social satisfaction is the opposite of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is generally considered to be the central variable in the explanation of social movements and is used to explain the quest for social change that inspires social movements; social movements emerge from collective feelings of relative deprivation (Morrison, 1971).

Relative deprivation theory is applied to sociopolitical, economic, and organizational problems. For example, relative deprivation theory is used to analyze the organizational issues of pay satisfaction and sex-based pay inequities. Relative deprivation theory focuses on feelings and actions. For example, the theory encourages the exploration of an individual's feelings of deprivation that may result from comparing his or her situation with that of a referent person or group as well as the behavioral effects of deprivation feelings. Relative deprivation theory distinguishes between egoistic deprivation and fraternal deprivation.

• Egoistic deprivation refers to a single individual's feeling of comparative deprivation.

• Fraternal deprivation, also called group deprivation, refers to the discontent arising from the status of the entire group as compared to a referent group. Fraternal deprivation may strengthen a group's collective identity (Singer 1992).

Relative deprivation theory has influenced the development of numerous fields in the social sciences including psychology, economics, and sociology. For example, the theory of relative deprivation has influenced psychological theory. In particular, relative deprivation theory is the foundation of multiple theories of social psychology including frustration-aggression theory, equity theory, social comparison theory, and reference group theory. The concept of relative deprivation and its measurement is used in the field of economics (Bossert & D'Ambrosio, 2007). Economics focuses on the measurement and quantification of relative deprivation using multiple summary indices of deprivation including the Gini coefficient, the maximum index, and the coefficient of variation (Chakravarty & Mukherjee, 1999). In the field of sociology, relative deprivation theory is used to explain the root causes of social movements and revolutions (Krahn & Harrison, 1992).

Social Movement Theory

Relative deprivation theory belongs to the larger body of interdisciplinary work called social movement theory. Social movement theory, which began in the late nineteenth century, refers to the study of social mobilization including its social, cultural, and political manifestations and consequences. Social movement scholarship is often motivated by a desire for social change and may integrate scholarship and activism. The interdisciplinary history of social movement theory includes six main areas of study:

• Relative deprivation theory;

• Mass society theory;

• Resource mobilization theory;

• Structural-strain theory;

• Value-added theory;

• New social movement theory.

Social movement theory proposes that social movements are, in many instances, created through the use and manipulation of frames of reference. Social movements influence and control their members through tactics such as mobilizing fear, engaging in frame appropriation, social constructionism, and counterframing (Benford & Snow, 2000).

Social movements born of feelings of relative deprivation are referred to as relative deprivation social movements. Examples include the labor movement and civil rights movement. Ultimately, sociology uses relative deprivation theory to explain how feelings of deprivation over power, money, or status may lead individuals and groups to create social movements and seek social change.

The History of Relative Deprivation Theory

Samuel A. Stouffer

Sociologist Samuel A. Stouffer (1900–1960) is credited with developing relative deprivation theory after World War II. Stouffer first wrote of relative deprivation theory in his study entitled The American Soldier (1949) which is part of a four-volume series entitled Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. The series and its component study was a compilation of the data collected during a five-year wartime project that was funded by Carnegie Corporation and the Social Science Research Council (Heck & Wech, 2003).

Stouffer developed the relative deprivation theory while conducting research for the US Army during World War II. Stouffer is remembered as a pioneer in the effort to combine theory and empirical research. Stouffer reported that World War II soldiers measured their personal success by standards based on experience in the military units in which they serve as opposed to the standards in the armed forces in general. Stouffer's relative deprivation theory, developed to understand the psychology of soldiers, grew to be an established theory of social science scholarship; as such, he is remembered as a pioneer in the effort to combine theory and empirical research (Adams, 1970).

Stouffer conducted the research upon which the relative deprivation theory is based while serving as the director of the US military's Research Branch. The Research Branch, which was officially established in 1941, was a part of the Morale Division, Special Services Division, and Information and Education Division. The Research Branch was created to provide facts about the attitudes of soldiers to the Army command for use in training and policy matters. Specifically, the Research Branch was created to provide a scientific foundation and rationale for policy making, inducting, training, directing, managing, and demobilizing the armed forces. The staff of the Research Branch was comprised of civilian academic advisors, Samuel Stouffer of the University of Chicago, Rensis Likert of the Department of Agriculture, Quinn McNemar of Stanford, and numerous social scientists at the beginning of their careers. The Branch, led by Stouffer, operated on the notion that applied social science research could contribute in significant ways to pure social science theory and scholarship. Stouffer believed that social science research should have practical applications in industry. As evidenced by his own work with the relative deprivation theory, Stouffer advocated the development of social science theory that was grounded in empirical research (Heck & Wech, 2003).

Stouffer's relative deprivation theory, developed immediately following World War II, was part of the large change in the field of sociology. The US government and Western European corporations adopted sociological tools, theories, and research methods. The main topics of sociological inquiry during this time included the following:

• Sociological study of social movements;

• Marriage and family;

• Social stratification and political sociology;

• Work and organizations; large scale corporations;

• Gender roles and gender relations.

Stouffer undertook his research on the psychology of soldiers, and subsequent theory-making, as an exercise in applied sociology. This focus on applied sociology was representative of mid-twentieth century sociology; an increasingly popular department at colleges and universities with applications in industry, government, and family life. Social ethics for individual and social progress for society were no longer driving forces of sociological research; the focus shifted from studies of urban and rural communities to urban issues such as poverty, race relations, and group identity. Study of minorities decreased following World War II only to begin again in the 1960s with the civil rights movement.

Stouffer used the cutting edge sociological research methods of his day to gather the empirical data upon which he based his relative deprivation theory. He helped to usher in a time when sophisticated quantitative and qualitative methods were developed and when descriptive statistics were replaced by mathematical measurements of relationships. Also during this time, surveys (in home, Internet, and phone) replaced self-administered questionnaires, sampling and ordering questions became more sophisticated, case studies, popular in the first half of the twentieth century, were eclipsed by participant observation, and hypothesis testing replaced scientific empiricism. Sociological theory was also changing during this time. For example, theoretical propositions, statements of how changes in one or more independent variable could affect a dependent variable, replaced concepts. Propositional systems and theoretical models, several propositions linked together on the basis of more abstract conceptions of underlying causal principles, have become popular.

Institutional and financial support for research in sociology changed during the contemporary period. Public funding for social science research grew during postwar period (the 1950s and 1960s), with organizations like the US government, the Carnegie Corporation and the Social Science Research Council funding Stouffer's work on relative deprivation theory. Such funding went towards crime control, criminology (focusing on crime control strategies), and social deviance. Federal support for sociological research waned in 1970s and 1980s.

Stouffer's work on relative deprivation theory is representative of the shift in sociology from a focus on social reform to theory. Relative deprivation theory, while its applications to social movements can supply important data that could be used for social reform, is instead primarily used to gather empirical data. Sociology's relationships with other disciplines also changed in the decades following World War II. Sociology's social reform goal of the early twentieth century facilitated and promoted a close connection with the field of applied social work. Contemporary sociology has separated from social work and is more closely tied to political science, anthropology, history, and psychology (Turner, 1990).

While modern relative deprivation theory developed in the 1940s, the concept of relative deprivation itself has a longer history in the social sciences. The social sciences have long recognized that deprivation relative to some another person or group can influence behavior. For example, in the nineteenth century Toqueville and Marx used the idea of relative deprivation in their respective analyses of the French Revolution and the problems associated with the rise of capitalism and personal property. Stouffer built on the social science concept of relative deprivation to build and cement his formal theory of relative deprivation following World War II (Krahn & Harrison, 1992).

Applications

Sociologists use relative deprivation theory to explain the origins of social movements. Social movements refer to a deliberate voluntary effort to organize individuals who act in concert to achieve group influence and make or block changes. Social movements are power-oriented groups rather than participation-oriented movements. This distinction means that the group actions of social movements are not necessarily of primary benefit to individual members but instead serve the groups' larger goals. Coordinated group actions are undertaken to make changes in the larger sociopolitical context. Social movements tend to be most successful in open, democratic societies in which social mobility and social change are accepted concepts. Norm-oriented social movements are more common than value-oriented social movements.

• Norm-oriented movements refer to groups that attempt changes within the system.

• Value-oriented movements refer to groups that attempt to change the basic goals of a system.

When applying relative deprivation theory to social movements, sociologists look to see what structural conditions exist within the society to foster feelings of relative deprivation and lead to the creation of specific social movements (Morrison, 1971).

Sociologists use relative deprivation theory to explain the origins of the labor and civil rights movements in the United States. The early American civil rights movement, which occurred in the 1950s and early 1960s, grew to include a wide range of groups united by a belief in equality and equal access to resources. Civil rights activists framed their demands in the language of relative deprivation, democratic rights and Christian universalism. The narrative of the civil rights movement highlights the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, famous public protests, as well as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Morisson, 1971). The early civil rights movement was born from African Americans' feelings of deprivation in relation to Caucasian segments of society. Access to a public education was a defining issue of the civil rights movement. In the 1950s, racial segregation in public schools was pervasive throughout the United States. At this time, the schools educating African American students were inferior, as judged by limited resources and teacher quality, to schools educating Caucasian students.

In 1951, an African American child, third-grader Linda Brown, became representative of the deprivation that African American school children faced as compared to Caucasian school children. Linda Brown was denied access to the "white" elementary school nearer to her home and was forced to walk a longer distance, across dangerous railroad tracks, to the "black" elementary school. This situation gave rise to the lawsuit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that challenged segregation in public schools. The court case, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, requested an injunction to forbid the segregation of public schools in Topeka, Kansas.

In 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and found that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. The Supreme Court found that racial segregation was a violation of the United States Constitution. Ultimately, Linda Brown's feelings of relative deprivation concerning access to schools and the resulting court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka served as one of the many sparks that ignited the civil rights movement. Students' civil rights and civil liberties were expanded and clarified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act has the following goals:

• To enforce the constitutional right to vote.

• To confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations.

• To authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education.

• To empower the Commission on Civil Rights.

• To prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs.

• To establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity.

The influence of the early civil rights movement's effort to desegregate public schools continues to influence the direction and running of public schools today. Public schools are overseen by both state and federal governments in an effort to insure equality in education for all students regardless of race or class. The US Department of Education was established in 1980 under the Department of Education Organization Act. Prior to Department of Education Organization Act, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services were united in one agency called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The US Department of Education oversees funding and education law. Today, public education is decentralized and the domain of both state and federal governments.

Issues

Critics debate and question numerous aspects of relative deprivation theory. Namely, critics question the link between feelings of deprivation and the rise of social movements and argue that studies of relative deprivation must recognize egoistic deprivation, fraternal deprivation, and self-referenced relative deprivation.

Since the development of relative deprivation theory in the 1950s, sociologists have used relative deprivation theory to explain the origin of social movements. The central idea of relative deprivation theory suggests that individuals or groups feel deprived when their current circumstances are negatively compared to the situation of others. Scholars have questioned the link between relative deprivation and social movements. Much of the evidence linking social movements to feelings of relative deprivation is indirect. While absolute deprivation clearly leads to feelings of discontent and ultimately efforts to effect social change, feelings of relative deprivation may or may not definitively lead to the creation of social movements and collective identity (Morrison, 1971).

The second serious criticism of relative deprivation theory concerns a lack of focus on the individual. Critics assert that sociologists using relative deprivation theory tend to examine individual and collective relative deprivation but ignore self-referenced relative deprivation. Relative deprivation theory distinguishes between egoistic deprivation and fraternal deprivation. Egoistic deprivation refers to a single individual's feeling of comparative deprivation. Fraternal deprivation, also called group deprivation, refers to the discontent arising from the status of the entire group as compared to a referent group (Singer, 1992).

The importance of self-referenced relative deprivation is little recognized. Self-referenced relative deprivation results from comparisons with one's own previous or anticipated future situation rather than with the situation of others. Sociologists who dismiss self-referenced relative deprivation believe that self-referenced relative deprivation may have more impact on the efforts that individuals make to change their individual situations rather than on group-level political or social action. Sociologists who support further research into self-referenced relative deprivation believe that self-referenced relative deprivation may serve as a catalyst to examine one's beliefs about the fairness and justice in society. In this scenario, self-referenced relative deprivation influences economic beliefs, political attitudes, and voting behavior and ultimately can influence and lead to social action (Krahn & Harrison, 1992).

Terms & Concepts

Brown v. Board of Education: The 1954 Supreme Court case ending racial segregation in the public schools.

Civil Rights Movement: A social movement, most active in the 1950s and 1960s, that worked to achieve equal rights and access for all regardless of race.

Collective Identity: The tendency of social movements to form a self-image for individual participants.

Egoistic Deprivation: A single individual's feeling of comparative deprivation.

Fraternal Deprivation: The discontent arising from the status of the entire group as compared to a referent group.

Relative Deprivation Theory: The idea that feelings of deprivation and discontent are related to a desired point of reference (i.e. reference groups).

Self-Referenced Relative Deprivation: Feelings of deprivation that result from comparisons with one's own previous or anticipated future situation rather than with the situation of others.

Social Movement Theory: The study of social mobilization including its social, cultural, and political manifestations and consequences.

Society: A group of individuals united by values, norms, culture, or organizational affiliation.

Sociology: The scientific study of human social behavior, human association, and the results of social activities.

Bibliography

Adams, W. (1970). Academic self-image as a strong determinant of college entrance and adult prospects: relative deprivation theory applied to high school curriculum choice. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 29 , 199-220. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=4515201&site=ehost-live

Bellani, L., & D'Ambrosio, C. (2011). Deprivation, social exclusion and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 104, 67-86. Retrieved October 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65082383

Benford, R. & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 , 611-639. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3780387&site=ehost-live

Walter B & D'Ambrosio, C. (2007). Dynamic measures of individual deprivation. Social Choice and Welfare, 28 , 77-88.

Chakravarty, S. & Mukherjee. D. (1999). Measures of deprivation and their meaning in terms of social satisfaction. Theory and Decision, 47 , 89-100.

Czaika, M. (2012). Internal versus international migration and the role of multiple deprivation. Asian Population Studies, 8, 125-149. Retrieved October 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=76142914

Grant, P. & Brown R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protests: Responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 , 195-212. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9510300316&site=ehost-live

Heck, A. & Wech, B. (2003). Samuel A. Stouffer and The American Soldier: The serendipitous discovery of relative deprivation and its contribution to management thought. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8 , 52-67.

Imedio-Olmedo, L., Parrado-Gallardo, E., & Bárcena-Martín, E. (2012). Income inequality indices interpreted as measures of relative deprivation/satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 109, 471-491. Retrieved October 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82732801

Krahn, H. & Harrison, T. (1971). 'Self-referenced' relative deprivation and economic beliefs: The effects of the recession in Alberta. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 29 , 191-209. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9209072178&site=ehost-live

Martinson, D. (2000). A school responds to controversial student speech. Clearing House, 73 , 145-150. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2681678&site=ehost-live

Morrison, D. (1971). Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social change. The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986), 14 , 675.

Park, H. &Mason, T. (1986). The developmental parameters of relative deprivation theory. Studies in Comparative Development, 21 , 85-118. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6969245&site=ehost-live

Sablonnière, R., Tougas, F., Sablonnière, É., & Debrosse, R. (2012). Profound organizational change, psychological distress and burnout symptoms: The mediator role of collective relative deprivation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 776-790. Retrieved October 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83002334

Singer, M. (1992). The application of relative deprivation theory to justice perception of preferential selection. Current Psychology, 11 , 128-145. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9603062262&site=ehost-live

Taylor, M. (1982). Improved conditions, rising expectations, and dissatisfaction: A test of the past/present relative deprivation hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45 , 24-33. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13576551&site=ehost-live

Turner, R. (1990). The many faces of American sociology: a discipline in search of identity. The American Behavioral Scientist, 33 , 662.

Suggested Reading

Flippen, C. (2013). Relative deprivation and internal migration in the United States: a comparison of black and white men. American Journal Of Sociology, 118, 1161-1198. Retrieved October 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87500355

Jackson, L. (1989). Relative deprivation and the gender wage gap. Journal of Social Issues, 45 , 117-133. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16407340&site=ehost-live

Steinberg, M. (1992). Recent social movement theory: Moving from the theoretical margins to Main Street? Sociological Forum, 7 , 551-556. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10797731&site=ehost-live

Turley, R. (2002). Is relative deprivation beneficial? The effects of richer and poorer neighbors on children's outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 30 , 671-686. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11771887&site=ehost-live