ASRXXX10.1177/0003122415618991American Sociological ReviewHechter et al. 6189912015 American Sociological Review 1 –25 Grievances and the Genesis © American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/0003122415618991 of Rebellion: Mutiny in the http://asr.sagepub.com Royal Navy, 1740 to 1820 Michael Hechter,a Steven Pfaff,b and Patrick Underwoodb Abstract Rebellious collective action is rare, but it can occur when subordinates are severely discontented and other circumstances are favorable. The possibility of rebellion is a check—sometimes the only check—on authoritarian rule. Although mutinies in which crews seized control of their vessels were rare events, they occurred throughout the Age of Sail. To explain the occurrence of this form of high-risk collective action, this article holds that shipboard grievances were the principal cause of mutiny. However, not all grievances are equal in this respect. We distinguish between structural grievances that flow from incumbency in a subordinate social position and incidental grievances that incumbents have no expectation of suffering. Based on a case- control analysis of incidents of mutiny compared with controls drawn from a unique database of Royal Navy voyages from 1740 to 1820, in addition to a wealth of qualitative evidence, we find that mutiny was most likely to occur when structural grievances were combined with incidental ones. This finding has implications for understanding the causes of rebellion and the attainment of legitimate social order more generally. Keywords social movements, collective action, insurgency, conflict, military authority Since the 1970s, grievances have had a roller grievances that are situational and unlikely to coaster career in studies of insurgency and appear in standard datasets, together with the collective action. Once regarded as prime structural grievances traditionally regarded as causes of conflict, grievances were subse- causes of protest. This conclusion has impor- quently shelved in favor of factors like tant policy implications. resources, political opportunities, and state capacity. This article makes the case that the literature has thrown the baby out with the bath water. Based on an analysis of mutiny in aArizona State University and University of the Royal Navy (hereafter, RN), which averts Copenhagen the selection bias that so often dooms studies bUniversity of Washington of collective action, we reinstate the causal priority of shared grievances in explaining Corresponding Author: Michael Hechter, Arizona State University, insurgency. At the same time, we contend that School of Politics and Global Studies, PO Box the concept of grievances is too capacious. 873902, Tempe, AZ 85287 Insurgency is best explained by incidental E-mail: [email protected] Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com by guest on December 19, 2015 2 American Sociological Review Before 1970, the major perspectives on (Cederman, Gleditsch, and Buhaug 2013). collective action and social movements Grievances cannot generate collective action emphasized grievances as principal causes on their own, however. The immediate impe- (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996; Pinard tus to collective action is cognitive. Successful 2011). Whereas collective behavior was collective action proceeds from a significant regarded as driven by emergent norms and transformation in the collective consciousness values, later research emphasized the ration- of the actors involved (Gamson, Fireman, and ality of participants. Gurr (1970) famously Rytina 1982). Activists use extant grievances argued that individuals who perceived they to construct legitimating accounts—or were disadvantaged relative to some refer- frames—to support their activism (Benford ence group were motivated to take action as a and Snow 2000; cf. Walder 2009). result. He claimed that psychological tension How can shared grievances be measured? was relieved by participation in protest and They can be measured directly in sample sur- argued that survey research could be deployed veys, but most such studies are geographi- to assess the theory. A host of studies tested cally and historically limited and liable to the theory, but it received little empirical sup- suffer from selection bias. Indirect meas- port (Brush 1996). Because individual griev- ures—based on the assumption that griev- ances are idiosyncratic, it is unsurprising that ances can be inferred from individuals’ one’s attitudes about such things as career subordinate positions in a social structure— satisfaction, economic well-being, living con- can be used to study grievances across greater ditions, and children’s welfare do not turn out geographic and temporal space. For example, to be significant determinants of collective one can assume that political and economic action. The focus of ensuing research there- inequalities affecting entire groups are likely fore shifted from social psychological to more to fuel resentment and justify attempts to macro-sociological accounts. fight perceived injustice. Moreover, shared Following Olson (1965), who claimed that grievances likely have an emotional valence grievances were insufficient to motivate col- (Kemper 2001) that makes collective identi- lective action, resource mobilization and ties more salient (Hechter 1978; Østby 2008; political process theorists argued that griev- Stewart 2008). ances essentially were constant and thus If it turns out that such structural variables could not account for variations in collective fail to determine collective action, does this action. Instead, resources and opportunities mean grievances can be ruled out as a cause? available to potential insurgents and their There is no warrant to believe that structural targets were what varied (Collier and Hoeffler variables provide the only measures of griev- 2004; Fearon and Laitin 2003). In this view, ances. Grievances can also emerge from a any small group combining collective identity quite different source. Theorists as diverse as with rudimentary forms of organization can Weber, Durkheim, and Mead all held that potentially mobilize for collective action. incumbency in a social role entails a set of This led to the expectation that prior ties to a behaviors that individuals are obligated to movement member, membership in organiza- enact. For Weber ([1918–21] 1978:227), pat- tions, a history of prior activism, and low rimonial rulers were obliged not to exceed the opportunity costs would foster participation traditional limits to their power. Serfs’ exist- in collective action. ence was grim, but masters also had certain Now the tide is turning once again. The obligations toward serfs—providing access to revival of grievance-based explanations of the commons and sharing food during fam- collective action holds that people who share ines—and any lord who failed to do so grievances due to their subordinate positions courted trouble. Likewise, Durkheim ([1897] in class and political structures are more 1951:249–50) explained that individuals in likely to mobilize to enhance their welfare nineteenth-century European societies had Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com by guest on December 19, 2015 Hechter et al. 3 little expectation that their fortunes could typically skeptical about their collective effi- exceed those of their parents. In consequence, cacy, they are difficult to mobilize: the fear they accepted (with resignation) norms about and shame associated with subordination are their place in the stratification system. Finally, demobilizing. Mead (1934) insisted that social roles make When incidental grievances are severe, individuals act as if they were characters in a they are manifest to all affected. It is thus easy play or athletic contest. Given a set of rules of for victims of these unforeseen events to the game, people’s actions are normally ori- develop a collective identity (Klandermans ented toward that of the other participants in 1997). So long as the group has some shared predictable ways. The failure to honor these conception of fairness, injustice framing is expectations is jarring: shortstops should not relatively straightforward. The simultaneous field a hit and throw it to the right fielder experience of the same threat, injury, or insult rather than the first baseman. improves coordination by providing a com- This classical insight has been elaborated mon focal point among disparate actors, a in recent social psychological research. For substitute for formal organization that is espe- social psychologists, no compelling causal cially powerful in socially dense settings. As account of mobilization can exclude griev- Schelling (1960:90) notes, “The role of ‘inci- ances (Klandermans 1997). But there are at dents’ can thus be seen as a substitute for least two different kinds of grievances. Struc- overt leadership and communication.” For tural grievances derive from a group’s disad- groups that lack many of the resources that vantaged position in a social structure, enable collective action, incidental griev- whereas incidental grievances arise from ances help trigger spontaneous mobilization. wholly unanticipated situations that put groups at risk. Unlike structural grievances, incidental ones—like unexpected disasters, MUTINY IN THE ROYAL NAVY major court decisions, and state repression— We argue that the combination of structural enhance a group’s capacity to coordinate and incidental grievances better explains the (Turner and Killian 1972; Useem 1998; Walsh genesis of insurgent collective action—in this 1981).