社会运动专题讨论.doc

社會運動專題討論2006 Spring 台灣大學社會學研究所教師：范雲Office Hour: Fri. pm4-5 (請先約定)Phone: (O) 02-33661223 E-mail: .tw這是一門關於社會運動的研究所討論課，主要是帶領同學熟悉關於社會運動的理論以及經驗研究。在課程的設計上，我們將從社會運動的古典討論出發，並介紹主導社會運動的幾大理論典範：資源動員論、政治過程論以及新社會運動理論。待同學熟悉了這些理論流派的核心概念及其當前爭議後，我們將直接討論幾個社會運動研究中具開展性的重要議題。在課程的最後一部份，我們將回歸本土的社會運動研究。探看我們所學習的理論語言及概念，是否有助於理解台灣從日據時期、民主化過程中，以及後威權的全球化時代的社會運動。我們也將試圖耙梳本土社會運動的理論以及其自身的問題意義。這門課的上課形式是以討論為主，我們將針對每一堂課的指定教材，生產出具挑戰性的知識討論。老師的教學目標是創造一個友善的環境讓每一位同學能自在地表達他/她自己的觀點與分析，同時也能適切地質疑作者以及其他課堂參與者的意見與宣稱。最後，這們課的終極理想是引領同學掌握並引用社會運動的理論來發展自己的社會運動研究。課程要求：1.課堂報告、紀錄與參與討論（佔30%）：於上課前閱讀完指定的文章，並積極參與討論。修課的同學須輪流負責口頭報告課程的閱讀材料，以及負責紀錄討論內容。討論紀錄請於下一次上課前email給所有的同學。2.閱讀紀要（佔30）：每堂課上課前一天下午兩點鐘前，必須繳交一份閱讀紀要，請勿超過一頁(請以行距單行格式書寫，請繳交到我辦公室門口的文件盒中)。負責報告與記錄的同學則不需繳交那兩週的閱讀紀要。3.期末報告（佔40）：形式上是一份完整的研究計畫書，以台灣社會運動的現象為研究主題，字數以五千字為原則。報告內容包括研究背景、相關文獻、研究問題、預定採用的研究方法。請於第十二週之前與我碰面一次確定報告主題。期末報告的繳交期限是6月30日。最後，如果你想直接撰寫一篇經驗研究或是某個領域的批判性文獻回顧(critical literature review)，請直接找我討論。課程內容與進度： 2/23W.1 課程介紹Part I主要理論流派3/2W.2 社會運動的古典理論Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Chapter 1.（奧爾森著，董安琪譯，1984，集體行動的邏輯，台北：允晨。第一章及吳乃德的導論）Gurr, Ted Robert. 1970. Why Men Rebel, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, Chapter 2. “Relative Deprivation and the Impetus to Violence.”Gurney, Joan Neff, and Kathleen J. Tierney. 1982. Relative Deprivation and Social Movements: A Critical Look at Twenty Years of Theory and Research, The Sociological Quarterly, 23 (winter): 33-47.參考閱讀：Albert O. Hirschman. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press3/9W.3 The Dominant Paradigm: 資源動員論McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization, Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.（劉上惠譯，1987，美國社會運動的趨勢：專業化與資源動員，中山社會科學譯粹，第二卷第三期，60-80。）McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. Resources Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory, American Journal of Sociology, 82 (6): 1212-1241.Kitschelt, Herbert. 1991. Resource Mobilization Theory: A Critique in Research on Social Movement: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA, edited by Dieter Rucht, Colorado: Westview Press, p.323-347.3/16W.4 The Dominant Paradigm: 政治過程論Tilly, Charles. 1978. The Opportunity to Act Together, in From Mobilization to Revolution, Reading, M. S.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, p. 98-119McAdam, Doug. 1983. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, The Political Process Model, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Chapter 3David S. Meyer, 2004, “Protest and Political Opportunities”, Annual Review of Sociology, 30(August): 125-1453/23W.5 The Dominant Paradigm:新社會運動Alberto Melluci, 1980, “The New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach”, Social Science Information 19:199-226.Claus Offe, 1985, “New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics”, Social Research (52):817-868.Jean Cohen, 1985, “Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements”, Social Research (52):663-716.Alain Touraine, 1988, Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society, University of Minnesota Press. Chapter13. p.140-160.（艾倫.杜漢 著，舒詩偉,許甘霖,蔡宜剛譯，2002，行動者的歸來，台北：麥田，第十三章）3/30W.6 當前理論爭辯與對話Goodwin, Jeff and James M. Jasper, 1999, “Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural Bias of Political Process Theory”, Mini-Symposium on Social Movement, Sociological Forum, 14 (1): p27-55Charles Tilly, 1999, “Wise Quacks”, Sociological Forum 14(1):55-61Francesca Polletta, 1999, “Snarls, Quacks, and Quarrels: Culture and Structure in Political Process Theory”, Sociological Forum 14(1):63-70Sidney Tarrow, 1999, “Paradigm Warriors: Regress and Progress in the Study of Contentious Politics”, Sociological Forum 14(1):71-77David S. Meyer, 1999, “Tending the Vineyard: Cultivating Political Process Research”, Sociological Forum 14(1):79-92 Ruud Koopmans, 1999, “Political, Opportunity, Structure, some Splitting to Balance the Lumping”, Sociological Forum 14(1):93-105Jaswin, 1999, “Trouble in Paradigms”, Sociological Forum 14(1):107-1254/6 春假讀書週Part II. 運動中的難題4/13W.7 連結結構、組織與運動策略Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, 1977, Poor Peoples Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, Pantheon Books, Chapter 1, 5.Elisabeth S. Clemens, 1997, The Peoples Lobby: Organizational Innovation and The Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890-1925, Chicago University Press, Chapter 1,2.參考閱讀：Charles Tilly, 2002, “Comment on Young Buried Gold”, American Sociological Review 67: 689-692.Michael P. Young, 2002, “Reply to Tilly”, American Sociological Review 67: 693-695.4/20W.8 運動中的意義與認同建構 I. 情感、意義與認同Sidney Tarrow, 1992, “Mentalities, Political Cultures, and Collective Action Frames: Constructing Meanings through Action”, in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, Yale University Press, p.174-202 Hank Johnston, 1995, “A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive Schema”, in Social Movements and Culture, edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p.217-246.Joshua Gamson, 1995, “Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct? A Queer Dilemma”, Social Problems 42(3): 390-407.Ron Aminzade and Doug McAdam, 2002, “Emotions and Contentious Politics”, Mobilization 7:4/27W.9 運動中的意義與認同的建構 II. Culture and BiographyR. Eyerman and A. Jamison, 1998, Music and Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 5, 7.James M. Jasper, 1997, The Art of Moral Protest, Chicago: Chicago University Press. p.101-151, p.210-228參考閱讀張鐵志，2004，聲音與憤怒：搖滾樂可以改變世界嗎？，台北：商周，p.16-20，p.29-51，p.84-105，p.134-143。R. Eyerman and A. Jamison, 1998, “Music and Social Movements”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.5/4W.10 運動組織中的民主Kim Voss and Rachel Sherman, 2000, “Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revitalization in the American Labor Movement”, American Journal of Sociology 106:303-349.Francesca Polletta, 2002, “Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements”, The University of Chicago Press, Chapter 1, 5, 8.5/11W. 11 社會運動與性別Ferree, Myra Marx and Silke Roth, 1999, “Gender, Class, and the Interaction between Social Movements: A Strike of West Berlin Day Care Worker”, Gender and Society 12(6):626-648.Verta Taylor and Leila J. Rupp, 2002, “The Emotion Culture of Transnational Womens Organizations 1888-1945”, Mobilization 7(2): p.141-158Nancy Whittier, 1997, “Political Generations, Micro-Cohorts, and the Transformation of Social Movements”, American Sociological Review 62(October):760-778范 雲，2004，性別與社會運動，載於檢視社會學教科書：女性主義的觀點，女學學誌，第17期。Part III. How Social Movements Matter5/18W.12 運動的影響：Macro and MicroWilliam A. Gamson, 2003, “Defining Movement Success”, in The Social Movement Reader, Blackwell, p.350-352Paul Burstein, 1999, “Social Movements and Public Policy” in How Social Movements Matter, edited by Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, Charles Tilly, University of Minnesota PressMinkoff, Debra, 1997, Producing Social Capital: National Social Movements and Civil Society, American Behavioral Scientist 40(5): 606-619Marco G. Giugni, 2004, “Personal and Biographical Consequences in Social Movements”, in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, Malden, MA: Blackwell PublishingRon Eyerman and Andrew Jamison, 2003, “Movements and Cultural Change”, in The Social Movement Reader, Blackwell, p.367-369參考閱讀：Nancy Whittier,2004 “The Consequences of Social Movements for Each Other”, in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, Malden, MA: Blackwell PublishingPart IV. 社會運動的台灣經驗5/25W.13 日據時期的社會運動Ming-Cheng M. Lo, 2002, “Doctors within Borders: Profession, Ethnicity, and Modernity in Colonial Taiwan”, University of California Press, Chapter 1, 2, 7. 楊翠，1993，日據時期台灣婦女解放運動以台灣民報為分析場域，19201932，台北：時報。緒論，第一、二、三、五章。6/1W.14 政治民主轉型與社會運動張茂桂，1989，社會運動與政治轉化，臺北:國家政策研究資料中心。何明修，2003，民間社會與民主轉型：環境運動在台灣的興起與持續，兩岸社會運動分析張茂桂、鄭永年主編，台北：新自然主義。鄧丕雲，1993，八年代台灣學生運動史，台北：前衛，第一、五、十二、十七章。范 雲，2003，政治轉型過程中的婦女運動：以運動者及其生命傳記背景為核心的分析取向，台灣社會學，第五期133-194。參考閱讀蕭阿勤，2003，認同、敘事、與行動：台灣1970年代黨外的歷史建構，台灣社會學，第五期：195-250。McAdam, Tarrow, Tilly, 2001, “Contentious Democratization”, “Conclusion”, in