Minding the Protest: Attitudes towards different forms of protest action in contemporary South Africa

IF 0.2 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ Pub Date : 2017-12-13 DOI:10.17159/2413-3108/2017/V0N62A3041
N. Bohler-Muller, B. Roberts, J. Struwig, S. Gordon, T. Radebe, P. Alexander
{"title":"Minding the Protest: Attitudes towards different forms of protest action in contemporary South Africa","authors":"N. Bohler-Muller, B. Roberts, J. Struwig, S. Gordon, T. Radebe, P. Alexander","doi":"10.17159/2413-3108/2017/V0N62A3041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on providing new insights into the nature of public opinion about protest action in South Africa. Since the mid-2000s the country has experienced one of the world’s highest levels of popular protest and strike action, combined with the recent resurgence of an active student protest movement. Sociological research into these protests has suggested that they represent distinct phenomena and that local protests have assumed plural forms that cut across simple violent/non-violent and orderly/disorderly binary distinctions. Despite the rapid growth of literature on South African protests, surprisingly little is known about public opinion relating to various forms of protest. Consequently, this article aims to examine differences with regard to the acceptability, perceived effectiveness and participation in respect of three categories of protest action, namely orderly, disruptive and violent protests. The article uses data from a protest module included as part of the 2016 round of the South African Social Attitudes Survey, a nationally representative series conducted annually by the Human Sciences Research Council. Apart from determining the nature and extent of variation in opinion regarding the three types of protest action on aggregate, the article explores patterns of similarity and differentiation across societal groups, based on class, age, race, gender and geography. Finally, we analyse how and for whom perspectives on the three forms of protest have changed over the course of a generation by drawing on functionally equivalent data collected in 1995. The article concludes by reflecting on whether the evidence supports key hypotheses regarding the ‘rebellion of the poor’1 in the country.","PeriodicalId":54100,"journal":{"name":"South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2017/V0N62A3041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article focuses on providing new insights into the nature of public opinion about protest action in South Africa. Since the mid-2000s the country has experienced one of the world’s highest levels of popular protest and strike action, combined with the recent resurgence of an active student protest movement. Sociological research into these protests has suggested that they represent distinct phenomena and that local protests have assumed plural forms that cut across simple violent/non-violent and orderly/disorderly binary distinctions. Despite the rapid growth of literature on South African protests, surprisingly little is known about public opinion relating to various forms of protest. Consequently, this article aims to examine differences with regard to the acceptability, perceived effectiveness and participation in respect of three categories of protest action, namely orderly, disruptive and violent protests. The article uses data from a protest module included as part of the 2016 round of the South African Social Attitudes Survey, a nationally representative series conducted annually by the Human Sciences Research Council. Apart from determining the nature and extent of variation in opinion regarding the three types of protest action on aggregate, the article explores patterns of similarity and differentiation across societal groups, based on class, age, race, gender and geography. Finally, we analyse how and for whom perspectives on the three forms of protest have changed over the course of a generation by drawing on functionally equivalent data collected in 1995. The article concludes by reflecting on whether the evidence supports key hypotheses regarding the ‘rebellion of the poor’1 in the country.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关注抗议:当代南非对不同形式抗议行动的态度
这篇文章的重点是对南非抗议行动的舆论性质提供新的见解。自2000年代中期以来,该国经历了世界上最高级别的民众抗议和罢工行动之一,加上最近活跃的学生抗议运动死灰复燃。对这些抗议活动的社会学研究表明,它们代表了不同的现象,地方抗议活动呈现出多种形式,跨越了简单的暴力/非暴力和有序/无序的二元区别。尽管关于南非抗议活动的文献迅速增长,但令人惊讶的是,人们对与各种形式的抗议活动有关的公众舆论知之甚少。因此,本文旨在考察三类抗议行动,即有序抗议、破坏性抗议和暴力抗议,在可接受性、感知有效性和参与性方面的差异。这篇文章使用了一个抗议模块的数据,该模块是2016年南非社会态度调查的一部分,这是一个由人类科学研究委员会每年进行的具有全国代表性的系列调查。除了确定关于三种类型的抗议行动的意见总体上的差异性质和程度外,文章还探讨了基于阶级、年龄、种族、性别和地理的社会群体之间的相似性和差异模式。最后,我们利用1995年收集的功能等效的数据,分析了在一代人的时间里,对三种抗议形式的看法是如何以及对谁的看法发生了变化的。文章最后反思了证据是否支持关于该国“穷人叛乱”的关键假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ
South African Crime Quarterly-SACQ CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
自引率
20.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Progressive or regressive rape case law? Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2020 2 SACR 38 CC Combatting violence against African foreign nationals: A criminological approach towards community safety in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa Keeping them out of prison: A restorative justice education intervention with prison inmates in Lesotho ‘Bad, sad and angry’: Responses of the SAPS leadership to the dangers of policing Understanding crime using GIS and the context of COVID-19: the case of Saldanha Bay Municipality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1