Disorganization and the New Mexico Prison Riot of 1980 Author(S): Bert Useem Source: American Sociological Review, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Disorganization and the New Mexico Prison Riot of 1980 Author(s): Bert Useem Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 50, No. 5 (Oct., 1985), pp. 677-688 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095381 Accessed: 07/06/2009 17:45 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org DISORGANIZATION AND THE NEW MEXICO PRISON RIOT OF 1980* BERT USEEM Universityof Illinois at Chicago "Breakdown" theorists postulate that collective action results from social disorganization and increased levels of discontent. Data on the 1980 New Mexico prison riot provide support for certain aspects of this model. From 1970 to 1975, the State Penitentiary provided inmates with employment opportunities and recreational programs. These integrating activities were sharply curtailed after 1975. As a consequence, inmates experienced strong feelings of deprivation, and inter-inmate violence increased. The 1980 riot reflected the disintegration of the previous five years. No one element was in control of the riot, and the level of brutality surpassed that of any other U.S. prison riot. Few researchers now defend a "breakdown" mechanismsthat inhere in social organization. or "disorganization"model of collective ac- Urbanizationand migration,for example, up- tion, even though it dominated the field just root individuals from their social, political, two decades ago (Kornhauser,1959; Smelser, and recreationalactivities, producinga mass of 1962; Davies, 1962). According to the model, isolated, anomic individuals. These marginal collective action arises from a breakdown in individuals are then readily "available" for the structures of solidarity-church, family, mobilization (Kornhauser, 1959; Smelser, work, and voluntary organizations-that nor- 1962). mally channel people into conventional be- Second, disorganizationincreases "discon- havior. tent" withina population.The isolated, anomic The fact that the "breakdown" model is individual develops new, unpredictable, and called what it is-rather than the "crisis" or potentiallyunfulfillable desires; he develops ir- "shock" model, say-reflects an underlying rationalbeliefs about how they can be fulfilled; presumption that in normal times social he seeks to escape and overcome his isolation structures exist which keep people from and discontent through collective action mobilizing for conflict. Two complementary (Smelser, 1962; Davies, 1962, 1969). facets of the breakdownmodel emphasize dif- The second, more economically-oriented ferent sets of these controlling structures. facet of the breakdownmodel emphasizes so- A Durkheimian(and Parsonian) facet em- ciety's ability in normaltimes to meet people's phasizes control over the individual's emo- needs, needs that are considered as given and tions, thoughts,and appetites. In normaltimes, somewhat stable. Thus, the effect of unem- the individual is integrated into the social ployment on the individual is traded through whole; he feels a sense of commonality with his empty pockets ratherthan throughhis iso- other sectors of the society; his appetites are lated condition. Withoutthe rewardsof work, restrainedto a manageablelevel. Accordingto discontent results, followed by protest (Piven this view, then, disorganizationproduces col- and Cloward, 1977). lective action for two reasons. First, disorgani- Of course, discontent need not be concep- zation frees individuals from the regulatory tualized as the result of "breakdown." Theorists of "pure" deprivation and relative De- deprivationemphasize the effect of discontent *Direct all correspondenceto: Bert Useem, it to partmentof Sociology, University of Illinois, Box on protest without necessarily attributing 4348, Chicago, IL 60680. the failureof pre-existingcontrol mechanisms. This materialis based upon work supportedby the Increasedperceived deprivation, however, can National Science Foundation under Grant SES- be treatedas the expression of "breakdown"if 8240024.Earlier phases of the work were funded by one adopts the assumption that a stable order the National Instituteof Justiceand the Universityof normallyhas the mechanisms, culturalor eco- Illinois at Chicago's Office of Social Science Re- nomic, to ensure stable levels of contentment search, Research Board, and Departmentof Sociol- for all its constituents. ogy. I would like to thank Hellen Gaussoin, of the with the New Mexico Departmentof Corrections,for her as- The breakdownmodel is consistent sistance in arrangingthe inmate interviews, and idea that protest occurs in periods of high rates Peter Kimballfor his help in conductingthem. This of personal pathology and antisocial behavior, paper benefitted from comments by Peter Kimball, such as suicide, dissolution of families, alco- Jack Bloom, PatriciaDavies, and Dennis Roncek. holism, vagrancy, and crime. Protest and high American Sociological Review, 1985, Vol. 50 (October:677-688) 677 678 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW rates of pathologycovary, accordingto break- cial conditions in the cities, such as percent of down theory, because both are productseither dilapidatedhousing as a measureof social dis- of the dissolving of social controls or of in- organization,did not have an impact on riot creased deprivation. propensity (once controls are introducedfor The most ardent critics of breakdown ap- region and percent of nonwhite population) proach are researchers working within the (Spilerman, 1970; 1976). The Tillys sum up ,,resource-mobilization" tradition: "Break- their interpretationof the evidence: down of collective action and collec- theories As the dust settled and evidence accumu- tive violence," the Tillys (1975:290) state, to see the discrepancies and lated, people began "suffer from irreparablelogic empirical between what happenedin Watts, Detroit,or major arguments difficulties." There are four elsewhere and theories which emphasized against the breakdown model. First, the explosion of accumulateddiscontent.... resource-mobilization theorists claim that [The evidence] dispels] the idea that the grievancesare sufficientlywidespread through participants came disproportionatelyfrom all times as a constant,they all societies at that, the ghetto's marginal, depressed, disorga- explain little of the variationin collective ac- nized populations(Tilly et al., 1975:293). tion. Althoughresource-mobilization theorists would agree with the propositionthat individu- These argumentshave convinced most re- als who engage in collective action are dis- searchers in the discipline. Even those re- satisfied with the existing order, they assert searchers otherwise critical of the resource- that this propositionhas no predictive power mobilization approach have sided with its (Jenkins and Perrow, 1977; Oberschall, stand against the breakdown model (Pinard, 1978:298;McCarthy and Zald, 1977:1214-15; 1983). Social movement/collective behavior Snyderand Tilly, 1972).Second, they maintain textbooks now routinely report that break- that the barrierto insurgencyis the access to down model has, as Miller recently put it, resources, and that disorganized groups are "yieldedfew explanationsof social movements least likely to have the requisite resources. that have withstood the probings of critics" Disorganizedpopulations will tend to be pow- (Miller, 1985:319; see also, Wood and Jackson, erless and unable to launch an insurgency. 1982:63-77;Washburn, 1982:201-203). Third, the resource-mobilization theorists Despite the general oppositionto the break- argue that collective action flows out of strug- down model, there is still research claiming gles among well-definedgroups. They find im- supportfor it. One example is Piven and Clo- plausiblethe idea that collective action occurs ward's (1977)work on the conditions that give when groups becomes less organized, rather rise to "poor" people's movements. They than more organized. argue that "profound dislocations," such as Finally, resource-mobilizationtheorists rest massive unemploymentor large scale migra- much of their charge against the breakdown tion, are needed "to virtually destroy the model on the purportedlynegative evidence structures and routines of daily life" before they and others have collected. Collective ac- protest can occur (1977:10).A second excep- tion does not covary with indicators of per- tion