2775614.pdf

8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

1/21

8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

2/21

Student olitics nd PoliticalSystems:Towarda TypologyIan Weinberg nd KennethN. Walker'UniversityfToronto

Prevailing nalysesofstudent olitics ocusuponnoninstitutionalizedmodes of political behavior and upon the social-psychologicalt-tributes fparticipants. his approach endsto ignore he mportanceof structuralinks betweenpoliticalsystem,university,nstitution-alized,and noninstitutionalizedtudentpolitics.The majorformsnwhichinstitutionalizedtudentpoliticsappear in differentationsare closely inkedto the attributes f the politicaland educationalsystems feach nation.The majorsystem inkageswhichdeterminethese forms re government ontrolover university tructure ndfinancing,nd recruitmento political areers hrough arty ponsor-ship ofuniversitytudentaspirants.The prevailing orm finstitu-tionalizedstudent politicswhereboth of these linksare present sfactionalcompetition mong politicalparty branches.Where bothare absent,universitytudentgovernment revails.Whererecruit-ment is low and government ontrol s strong,national studentunionspredominatend,where hereverse ondition btains,politicalpartybranches nd clubs.A rationalefor he typologys presented,and its application o four ases. The relativepersistencend effectsof the studentmovement re then discussed n termsof the move-ment'semergencen one or anotherof thefour ituationsdefinednthetypology.

The relatively udden appearanceofstudentactivismon American am-puseshas produced variety fexplanations. omeofthesehave a built-inobsolescence s theobserver inds hateventsovertakehim.The eventsatBerkeleymaynow seem pale inthe ight ftheoutbreak t Columbia.Thestructurefa prominentroup factivists r ofthe entire odymaychangeas the issuesmovefromnonviolencen theSouthto opposition o the ad-ministrationver Vietnam,while heepidemic f tudent iolence weepingEuropedemandsa comparative erspective.s there nythingn commonamong hedemonstratorst SproulHall, thestudentswhotookoverHamil-tonHall, theheartofthecollege t Columbia, he Berkeley ringeurrentlyallyingwiththeBlack Panthersand supportingomeofthem n runningIRevised versionof a paper read at the Sixty-thirdMeetingof theAmericanSociologicalAssociation,August 26-29, 1968, Boston, Massachusetts. We wishto thank the CanadaCouncil and the Humanities and Social Science Research Fund of the UniversityofToronto forfinancial support. We gratefully cknowledge commentsand criticismsbyWilbert E. Moore, Charles Tilly, Charles E. Bidwell, and Mayer Zald, althoughwe areourselvestotally responsibleforour conclusions.We would also like to mention our in-debtedness to Judith Clavir and David Hunter for research assistance, and to MissTeresa Corcoran and her staff ortheirsecretarialaid.

77

This content downloaded from 131.178.127.148 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:08:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

3/21

AmericanJournal f Sociologyfor tateoffice,hestudents t Leeds Universityn Englandwhotrampledthe wifeof a Conservativepartymember fParliament, he Frenchstu-dentswhoprecipitated nationalcrisis, nd the German tudentswhotookparticular im at Axel Springer? y the same token,what are the broaddifferencesetween hese outbreaks?One neednotstophere; we mayalsowonder boutstudent ctivismndeveloping ations nd insemidevelopedLatinAmerica.Studiesof American ctivismfall nto three dentifiable ategories.Thefirstdentifieshe activists nd compares hemwithcontrol roupsof non-activists.Flacks (1967) and Trent and Craise (1967) have arguedthat amajorityof the activiststend to be the brightest nd ablest studentsathigh-qualityniversities,rom bove-average ocioeconomic ackgrounds,andwith wide spectrumfoccupational pportunitiespento them.Theyare nfact he privileged. hose whoare not so bright,ble,privileged,ndactivistaremore iberalthan theirpeerswho did notgo to collegebecause''exposureto and persistencen collegeis associatedwith an increase nintellectual ispositionnd autonomy,while xposure o work lone s asso-ciated witha tendency owardregressionn thesetwopersonality imen-sions (Trentand Craise 1967, p. 45).Flacks (1967,p. 57) arguesthat activistspossessa highdistrust f con-ventional nstitutionalizedoles.... This is most mportantlyxpressednthe almostuniversaldesireamongthe highly nvolvedto avoid institu-tionalized areers.Ourdata suggest hat few tudent ctivists ooktowardcareers n theprofessions,hesciences,ndustry,rpolitics. n an unpub-lishedpaper,Derberand Flacks (1967) haveinvestigatedhe inksbetweenstudentactivists nd theirfamilies, nd find hat theyoriginaten whatthey abel humanist families, haracterized y values such as romanti-cism and intellectualism,uiteat variancewithboth thedominant ultureand familiesn themainstreamftheAmericanuppermiddleclass. Thusour view is that children aisedin humanistic amilies re potentialre-cruits o a wide variety f deviant' student ubcultures,hestudentmove-mentbeingone such subculture.Others ncludeintellectual nd artisticsubculturesnd bohemian' nd drug' ubcultures. he actual choice hat astudentmakes amongthesesubcultures ependsupon a number f situa-tionalfactors, .g.the collegewhichhe attends, hefriends e firstmeets ncollege . . etc. (Derber and Flacks 1967,p. 10).Derber and Flacks (1967,p. 54) further tate that one important actabout the currenttudentmovements that ts core consists fyouthwhoare searching oran alternative o establishedmiddle-class alues. Thisline of argument ules out generational onflict etween humanistic par-ents and theiractivistchildren. urthermore, erber and Flacks believethatthenumber f humanist familiess increasing,lthough heydo notsay why.Keniston (1967a, p. 111) supplements his line of argument ydistinguishingetween he dissenterswhoare alienatedand thosewhoareactivist, continuumhatrunsbetween hesetwo deal-types,lthough hedissentershareroughly he same backgrounds.The alienated who bug78


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

4/21

StudentPoliticsout are psychologically isturbeddue to the interpersonal ynamicsoftheir amilies,nfluenced y thepace of ocialchange Keniston1967b).

The second mportant ategorydentifieshestudentmovement s yetanotherAmerican ocialprotestmovement, hich sdoomed ofailure. hisis persuasively rguedby Lipset and Altbach (1967). It is bound to failbecause, as Lipset has persistentlyrgued, the basic leftward hrust ofAmerican ociety,with ts iberal deology,makes t difficultormovementstoinnovateunless heyfind hemselves o far o the eft hattheirmpact stherebyessened.This is presumably hepaththathe seesstudent ctivismtaking.To Flacks thedominantAmerican ulture s conservative, hereasto Lipset t is liberal.LipsetandAltbach also point to important rganiza-tional differencesetweenuniversitieswhich account fordifferentiale-cruitmentntotheranksofstudentprotesters.The third mportant ategory s the notionof generationalconflict.This has confused omeinvestigators. erber and Flacks argue that acti-vists re not nvolvedngenerationalonflict ecause their rientationlowsfrom heir amilies forigin. ut a generationalxplanation oes notdependon student ctivists eacting o their wnfamilies-quite thereverse.Thetheory, s advanced by Feuer (1967) to explaintheNew Left, rguesthatactivists hoose ssuesand enemieswhichfunctiono enable themto chan-nel hostility owardoldergenerations n general,ratherthan families nparticular,whether hese be older radical groups,universitydministra-tions,orgovernments.To reject consideration fgenerational xplanations s to ignoreone ofthemostfundamentalf ociological ariables, hatofage. What sparticu-larlysignificantbout generational xplanations s that,in advanced in-dustrial ocieties, dolescence asts longer.Thus generational riteriabe-come ambiguous.2 ccordingly, raduatestudents nd evenfacultymem-bers can still be defined s adolescents nd certainly s members f the re-bellinggeneration.t is possibleto consider alding deologues s memberstoo, especially n theUnitedStates (Berger1960, p. 13). Furthermore,oquote Heberle (1951, p. 125), the differentiationsetweenenerationsrelikely o be greaternperiods frapid social changethan nperiodsofslowand gradualchange. As far s higher ducation s concerned,heuniversitysystems fadvanced ndustrialocietieshavebeen n a stateofrapidchangesince the end ofWorld War II.We do not disagreewiththe microsociological indings oncerninghecorrelates r thestructural actorsnstudent ctivism.But withtheexcep-tion of the social movement nd generational heories, s presentedbyLipset and Altbachand by Feuer,microsociologicalindings o not evenhint hat thenatureofstudent ctivism s connectedwiththepolitical ys-tem.Explanationsforpoliticalbehavior re thereforeeing offered ithinthe imits fthe student ulture rsubsystemtself, nd without nycom-parativeperspective.Both ofthese deficienciesre surprisingecause thestudy ofstudentpoliticalbehavior n thenewnationshas been both con-2Cainreferso this s age status synchronization1964,p. 288).

79


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

5/21

AmericanJournal fSociologycernedwiththe relationship f studentsto the politicalsystem nd withinternationalomparisons.

The approachesto studentpoliticsdiscussed bove have a commonfo-cus,whichhas, however,not been sufficientlyrticulated.3 hey are con-cernedto accountforthe emergence, eterminants,nd characteristicsfnoninstitutionalizedorms fstudentpolitics.Such phenomena harewithothetnoninstitutionalized,ollectivebehavior, he attempt o reconstitutethesocialorder,nterms fa generalized eliefwhich dentifiesnd charac-terizes ome sourceof social strainand proposesa solutionto tL. strain(Smelser1962,pp. 1-22, passim). Thus, studentsprotestingt ColumbiaUniversity erceived erious ontradictionsrstrainsntherelationshipsfthe universityo society, n its roleas property wnerof adjacentghettoneighborhoods,nd itsparticipationn thenation'swarefforthrough heInstituteofDefenseAnalysis.Analysisby studentactivists xpressed hegeneralized elief hattheserelationships ereeviland shouldbe alteredorterminated,nd thatconfrontationhrough tudentoccupationofuniver-sitybuildingswouldforce reconsiderationnd modificationf theserela-tionships,eadingto a more constructiveoleforthe universityn its en-vironing eighborhoodnd in the larger ociety.For ourpurposes, heim-portant eature fsuch studentpolitical ctivitys that tbypassesexistinginstitutionalizedrrangements or aggregating nd articulating tudentinterests. ut wewillarguethattheform, ersistence,nd consequences fsuch issue-oriented rotestmovements re significantlyffected y theexisting tructural elationsbetweenthe universitynd the state and be-tween tudentpolitics nd the environingolitical ystem, t boththe ocalandnational evels.Anunderstandingftheseeffects equires rior nalysisofthe relationship etween hese tructuralrrangementsnd institutional-izedforms f studentpolitics, uch as studentgovernmentr the studentpoliticalparty.Ourstrategy,hen,will be to indicatehowvariationsn theindicated tructuralrrangementsre relatedto variationsn theforms finstitutionalizedtudentpolitics.Followingthis analysis,we will seek toshowtheconsequences f theserelationshipsetween ormal tructuresndinstitutionalizedtudentpolitics ornoninstitutionalizedtudent olitics.Our intentions to suggest:1. The degree nd typeof studentpoliticalbehaviorcan be illuminatedby emphasizingherelationshipsmongthecharacteristicsfthepoliticalsystem fa society, hestudentpoliticsof that society, nd thesystem fhigher ducation.Comparatively,tudentpoliticalbehaviorwilldifferc-cording o formal nd culturaldifferencesetweenpolitical ystems.2. The degreeand typeof studentpoliticalbehaviorwill consequentlybe greatlynfluencedy the linkages etween hepolitical ystem nd thesubsystem fstudentpolitics nd thesystem fhigher ducation.

Thuswhathas beendiscussed n the iteratures student activism weregard s a form fnoninstitutionalizedolitics, onstrainedythedifferentI Flackshas suggestedhe possibilityhatthe studentmovementnthe United tatesmaymove towardnstitutionalizations an expressionfyouth iscontent 1967,pp.73-74). See also Newfield1967,pp. 154-58, assim).80


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

6/21

StudentPoliticslimitswhich ocietiesplace on thiscategory fbehavior.Our approachtothis ategory fpoliticalbehavior mphasizestsrelationshiposystems ndsysteminkages.The independent ariables re thepolitical ystem ndthesystem inkages, nd thedependent ariable s studentpolitics,n both tsinstitutionalizednd noninstitutionalizedorms.The social-psychologicalcorrelates fstudentpoliticalbehavior nd theextent fgenerational on-flict ecome mportantnterveningariables.POLITICAL SYSTEMSIf we consider heformal nd culturalproperties fpoliticalsystems,wemeansuchattributes s:1. Thestabilityndlegitimacyfthe ystem fgovernment.2. Thedifferentiationfthepolitical ystem.3. Whether hepolitical ystem s federal rnonfederal.4. Theformsfparty rganization ithinhepolitical ystem.5. Whether hepolitical ystem s a twoormultipartyystem.6. Thedegree felitismnpolitical ecisionmaking.7. Uniquecultural/politicalalues.8. Wherehepoliticalystemalls long continuumromemocracyototalitarianism.9. The structurefthepolitical ystemn terms fthedivision fpowers mong heexecutive,egislative,nd udicialpartsofthesystem.SYSTEM LINKAGESWe would arguethat the mostimportant ystem inkagesbetweenbothstudentpoliticalbehavior nd the system fhigher ducationare:1. The financialtructurefuniversityducationnrelation othegovernmentrgov-ernmentsf a society, oth as regards tudents nd theindirect undingftheireducation.2. Thedegree fpolitical reedomllowed ostudents.3. Theautonomy funiversitiesntheir egree ffreedomrom oliticalnterference.4. Theextent owhich careernstudent oliticsnvolvesheexpectationndthe an-ticipatoryocialization or careernthepoliticalystemtself.THE ORGANIZATION OF INSTITUTIONALIZED STUDENT POLITICSWe arguethat the social organization f studentpoliticscan be brokendown,orcollapsed, ntothefollowing:1. National tudent nions,which ggregatetudentnterestsight p to the evelofnegotiationsith overnmentsnbasic ssues, uch s scholarships,rovisionfresi-dential acilities,tc.2. Student olitical lubs orbranches fnational olitical arties,ncludingminorityparties, uchas theCommunistartynWesternountries.3. Factionalpolitics,n which tudent ranches fnationalpoliticalparties ompetefor tudentupportnthe truggleo control niversityovernments well s to in-fluence ational olitics.4. Universitytudent overnments,hose ocuss ntramuralndspecificoa particularinstitutionfhigherducation.KEY SYSTEM LINKAGES: THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO STUDENTPOLITICSWe willemphasize wosysteminkages s crucialhere, incethey ppear tobe offundamentalmportancengeneratingheprevailingorms f tudent

81


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

7/21

AmericanJournal f Sociologypoliticsunder various conditions. hese are the processofpolitical careerrecruitments this relates to the university,nd the degreeof centraliza-tion of government ontrol ver university inancing.We initially ame to thistypology hroughn emphasis n the notion fthepolitical areer. he political areer s a system inkagemechanismnd,we consider, ne ofthe most mportant. et it isextraordinaryow much thas been neglected.We came to it by our readingof Cloward and Ohlin'sDelinquencyndOpportunity1960). To puttheir rgumentnsimple erms,they tate that there re threekinds fdelinquentubcultures: hecriminal,the conflict,nd the retreatist. he first nvolvesan integration f agelevels and values between he adult and adolescentworld, hevisibility frole models, and an available career within criminalorganizations.Thelinks o organized rime re notavailableto members fconflictndretreat-ist gangs. t is temptingo transpose heir ntire ypologyntothe conceptof a student olitical areerfor tsexplanatory alue. Thus theprofessionalstudentpolitician as in England) finds n integration etweenhisworldand that of adult politicians, hat is, a ladderofmobility. n the UnitedStates thisdoesnotoccur, o thatstudent ctivists end to be conflict ri-ented while the alienatedare theretreatists.The availabilityof political careers to students s a function f thecharacter f thepoliticalparty ystem nd itsrelationshipo higher duca-tion.Wherepoliticalparties rehighly rganized nd centralized t thena-tional evel,and are thus able to sponsormobilityntoprofessional oliticalcareers, heyare likely o turnto universitiess sourcesofable, well-edu-catedcandidates.This in turn eads to the development fstudentpoliticalclubsor branches fnationalpoliticalparties nuniversity ampuses,whereaspiringpoliticosmay become socializedand provetheirmettle to partyrecruiting gents. Where parties are relativelydecentralized nd looselyorganized, he structural onditions or ponsoredmobilitywithinuniver-sities re weak. Thus, political lubs or partybranches s recruitingentersarelikely obe absentorpoorlydeveloped. tudentpolitical lubs thus inkstudentpoliticsto the political system hrough he mediumofindividualcareers.The second system linkage concernsthe interestsof students as aclass, at leastinthe sense ofsharing common oncern orthecharacteroftheir ducation nd its outcomes.This is significantlyetermined ytherelationship f governmento the financingnd control f higher ducation.Wherea government gencychannels ll or mostofthefundsto financehigher ducation, nd where the same agency plays an important ole ininstitutingewuniversities,oursesofstudy, xamination rocedures,ndthe ike, hiscentralizationfauthoritys likely ohaveitscounterpartn astrong, entralized rganization fstudents t the national evel thena-tionalstudentunion.Whereneitherof these features ppears-centralized party organiza-tions able to recruit artycareerists hrough ponsorship fpromising tu-dentaspirants, r the centralization f financing nd structuringfhighereducationby government-the salient formof institutionalized tudent82


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

8/21

StudentPoliticspolitics s likelyto be university tudentgovernment. nder these condi-tions, he concerns f students s a class becomedecentralized,argely o-cused upon student oncerns ormanaging hatpartoftheir ives forwhichthe individualuniversity llocates authority o studentrepresentatives,such as housing, thletics, nd other extracurricularoncerns.Studentsmay seek to extend heir uthoritynto thearena ofacademic and adminis-trativedecisionmaking, utin either ase thisis likely o take theform frelativelydisconnected ctivities of student governments n individualcampuses.Recruitment o studentgovernmenteadership olesmay have alatent recruitmentunction, ut this s more ikelyto lead initially o ca-reers n the economic han the political ystem, ince n important unctionof studentgovernmentss the management f largesums ofmoney andnumerous mployeeswithin tudentunionestablishments.Wherebothof theseconditions btain centralizationfpolitical ead-ership recruitment,nd government inancing nd structural ontrol ofuniversities we may expectthe existence f bothnational tudentunionsand political lubs or partybranches.This implies he mergingfthe politi-cal recruitmentrocesswith hat oftheprocess f ggregatingndarticulat-ing student lass interests. nder these conditions, e might xpectto findthe campaignsforofficen nationalstudentunionsconductedby the stu-dent branches of national political parties. Thus, aspirantsto politicalcareersmay learn political skills and demonstrate olitical competencethrough eadership n university overnmentnd in nationalstudentun-ions. The latter wo organizationsre ikely o be closely inkedunder heseconditions, nd national studentunionexecutives re likelyto be chosenfrom xperienced fficeholdersn universitytudentgovernment.But the uxtaposition f bothofthesestructuralinks s likely o have afurther,ualitative onsequence or heform f tudent olitics.The linkingofstudent lass interests hrough tudentpoliticalpartybranches s likelyto generate nd sustaina strong oncern mongstudentsfor nfluencenthe nationalpolitical rena,and this s liable tobe reciprocated ythepub-lic and by politicalparty eaders,whowatchthe outcomes fstudent am-paignsas an indication f thepresentpolitical entiments ffuture lites.Thus we would expect the emergence f studentpolitical factionsunderconditions f ntense ompetitionor upport,nfluence,nd careerbenefits.Nothing n the above discussion s meantto suggest hatall four ypesofstudentpoliticsmaynotcoexistwithin nyone system.Rather,we areemphasizing he ong-term ersistencefthesevarious ypesunderrelative-ly sustained onditions.n fact,we might o so faras to assert hatthere-cent and present utburst fstudentrevolts, rnoninstitutionalizedormsof tudent olitics,whilehighly ignificantnthemselves, illmostprobablygive rise to persisting tudentmovements nderthe conditionsdiscussedimmediatelybove, but will diminish,fnot wither way, whereone orboth of these conditions re absent.Table 1 presents schematicversionof themajordeterminantsf theforms finstitutionalizedtudentpoliticsand theiroutcomesforthe pre-dominantnd persistingormswithin ationalpolitical ducational ystems.

83


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

9/21

AmericanJournal f SociologyThe followingiscussion rovides n application fthetypology o concretecases.UNIVERSITY STUDENT GOVERNMENTIn a decentralized olitical ystem uch as the UnitedStates,which s feder-al, highly emocratic, nd inwhich hedivision fpowers nvolves he con-stitutional evelopment fa strong xecutive, he system inkages nvolvea decentralizedfundingof highereducation,political interference ithuniversityutonomy, nd no expectation hat a career n studentpoliticsleads to a careerwithin hepolitical ystem tself.Consequently,national studentunionsare nonexistent r weak,as arestudent branches of the nationalpoliticalparties.The former re weakTABLE 1

INSTITUTIONALIZED FORMSOF STUDENT POLITICSGOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER UNIVERSITY

RECRUITMENT TO POLITICAL CAREERS STRUCTURE AND FINANCINGTHROUGH PARTY SPONSORSHIP OFUNIVERSITY STUDENT ASPIRANTS Strong Weak

High........................ Factionalcompetition Politicalpartyamongpolitical arty branches,lubsbranchesLow ........................ National tudent nions Universitystudentgov-ernment

because there s no centralized uthorityntrustedwithnationalcontrol fhigher ducationwithwhich obargain.The latter re weakbecause recruit-ment opolitical areers s nottied to highvisibility fperformancen stu-dent branchesofnationalpoliticalparties.The antipathy o elitism s apolitical ystem ttributewould militate gainstsuch recruitment. mostimportant onsequence s that, before ndergraduates eriously onsiderpoliticalcareer, heyare olderthansomeoftheirpeers n other ountries,and theyoftendevelop political ambitions s graduate students n lawschoolsor at certain evels withinbusiness rganizations. ndeed,constitu-tionally, here s an age limitbelow which a politicianmaynot enter heSenate. The comparative lderliness f politiciansthus providesfuel forgenerationalonflicts y contrast o theyouthofundergraduates.4The important ypesof studentpoliticalorganizations, herefore,reuniversitytudent overnments, hichnegotiatewith dministrationsverbasic studentfacilities nd are generallynonpolitical.University tudentgovernments ayemulatethe tacticsof ssuemovements, ut there eemsto be a structural bstaclepreventing heprogressiono extremism. his4Recruitment to political candidacy in the United States for ocal, state, and nationaloffices s essentially a process under local control (see Herbert Jacob 1962; Lester G.Seligman 1961; Seymour M. Lipset 1963, p. 362; Heinz Eulau et al. 1961; and DwaineMarvick and Charles R. Nixon 1961).84


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

10/21

StudentPoliticsobstaclemaybe thatstudent overnmentsreconstantlynvolved nnego-tiationwith administrations,nd threaten o use extremist actics onlywhen crises rise,not within hecountry utwithin herestrictedocale ofthe campus.Membersofstudentgovernmentsrobablydo not maintaininformal r evenformal ocial contact with deologicalgroups,who oftenregardthemas havingbeen co-optedby the administration.ssue move-ments end tobecome nvolvedwithcampusaffairsnlywhentheirbehav-ior, externally riented,runsup against administration ostility.Whencampusmatters nd crises, uch as theplightoftheNegroes n theurbanghetto, onverge, hen ssuemovements ake theuniversitydministrationas their arget. tudentpolitics re then aught nthe nevitable rogressionto extremism,s occurred t Columbia,where heuniversity'selationshipwithHarlem was a focalpointof thedisturbances.We cannot cite evidence for this, althoughit probably exists-thatmembers funiversitytudentgovernmentsn the UnitedStates are ex-periencingnticipatoryocializationforadult politicalcareers.5 he rela-tionships fstudent epresentativeso theuniversity residents analogoustothe roleof tate ornational egislatorsntheir elations otheir espectiveexecutives. t wouldbe interestingo knowhowmanyofthesemen wereprominentn universitytudentgovernment, enton to careers n law orbusiness, nd thenentered dultpoliticalcareers.NATIONAL STUDENT UNIONFranceand GreatBritainoffer differentombination fvariables n thetypology.n France,thepolitical ystemsunstable,nonfederal,ndelitist,withfrequentntervals f ntidemocraticaternalist overnment.he civilservice s particularly litist nd difficulto enter. There is a multipartysystem.The universitiesre totallydependenton governmentalubsidy,and decisions nhigher ducation rehighly entralizednthegovernmentand its civil service.6As in the United States, recruitmento politicalcandidacy is a locally controlledprocess. French legislatorsare oftenelectedonthe basisofholding local office, hich heyretainwhileholdingtheirnationalofficeLa Ponce 1961,p. 234;MAIacRae967,p. 54,table35).7The result s a powerful ational tudentunion, he Unionnationaledesetudiants rangaiseUNEF), which ndulges nwhat amounts o collective

I Studies dealing with the political socialization of state and national legislators n theUnited States suggestthat involvement n school politics or studentgovernmentplaysa relativelyminor role (see Allan Kornberg and Norman Thomas 1965; and HeinzEulau et al. 1959, p. 308).6 For the historical circumstances eading to this situation,see Theodore Zeldin (1967),and, for the present structure, ee F. Ridley (1963).7 On the otherhand, the university as been,for long time,themost mportantnurseryofpolitical men, according to Mattei Doggan (1961, pp. 77-79). His evidence suggeststhat theuniversityhas a politicizing ffect,mpartingpolitical skills,but does not revealthe inkbetween studentpoliticalparty branchesand political careerswe find orEnglandand Latin American countries.Jean-PierreWorms states that student political leader-ship is not linked to adult political careers n France (personal communication).

85


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

11/21

AmericanJournal f Sociologybargainingwiththe government ver matters affecting tudents Fields1967; Pinner1964, 1968; Worms1967). The results f a breakdown n bar-gaining re analagous to what happens n the economy-strikes nd sharpindustrial trife,which s oftenvery violent when student demands arefrustrated. ut French students are from upper-socioeconomic roups,whencomparedwith the social composition f university tudentsfromother dvancedindustrial ocieties, s table 2 demonstrates.The consequence s that the UNEF is strong nd stable, except whenfrustrated,s, for nstance, y the contemporaryentral overnmentalllo-cationofresourcesotheforce efrappe nd theneglect fhigher ducation.Why, hen,does theUNEF occasionally ecomewrackedby nternal oliti-cal dissension nd transformednto an issue movement? he answer eemsto be historic, hat is, cultural and structural.Historically, he nationalstudentunion has failedto take a political stand, especially n avoidingalliance withthe resistance o Germanoccupation duringWorld War II.

TABLE 2PERCENTAGE OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS FROMWORKING-CLASS FAMILIES

Country Year %United tates.................. Early1950s 31.0GreatBritain.................. 1961-62 25.0Norway....................... 1961 25.0Austria........................ 1958-59 8.0France ........................ 1961-62 5.5

SOURCE.-A. Belden Fields 1967, p. 30.This was in linewith ts limitedgoals. But a groupwithin t, the minori-taires, eganto functions an issuemovement,s during heAlgerianwarand against Gaullist policies. They are resistedby the majoritaires. utstructurally,ecauseofthecentralizationfgovernmentontrol verhighereducationand the consequent mportance fthe UNEF, the minoritairesdesire o radicalize he UNEF rather hanoperate s a minority roupout-sideof t. Tacticallythis s mosteffectiveecausethegovernmentnd themajoritairesannot gnore hem,due to thesystem fcollective argaining.The minoritairesre oftennarodnikn orientation ut are notwelcomedbythe aborunions,whoperceive hem s members fthehautebougeoisie.They turn nward, o theoretical bstraction, o Marxism, nd to the con-sistent ttempt o radicalize heUNEF. Thisrarely ucceeds, o theFrenchstudentmovements not a movement t all. It is a formal rganization,recognized y the government ithwhich t negotiates,which pasmodical-ly endures hepressure f ssuesbrought p by theminoritaires,efore tresumes ts normal xistence s a national studentunion.The minoritairesuse its salience to bring pecific nd general ssues before he society.Thegreatrecent uccessofthe militantswas based on the fact hat studentmat-86


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

12/21

StudentPoliticsters,usuallynegotiable,weregiven owpriority y theregimebecause ofinvestmentnpolicieswhich heminoritairesejected.The confluencef tu-dentdissatisfactionnd anti-Gaullism as for timeallowed thenationalstudentuniontodrawuponthatdissatisfactionnd tobring oththatandGaullistpoliciesbefore henation n a dramaticfashion.POLITICAL PARTY BRANCHESBritainhas a stable and legitimate ystemofgovernment, hich s non-federal nd elitist.There are strong nd permanent artyorganizationsincontrast otheUnitedStates),built roundparties, ather hanmen,whichexistand function etweenelections. n termsofthe system inkages, lluniversitiesrecentrally unded y a bodycomposed f enior ivil ervantsand the heads of universities-theUniversityGrants Committee. Theresults thattheuniversitiesavevirtual utonomyntheir inancialffairsdespitecentralfundingBowen 1964). Students are allowed considerablepoliticalfreedom; nd, perhaps n thissocietymore than in any other,career n studentpolitics nvolves the expectation nd the anticipatorysocialization or career n thepolitical ystemtself.This developsfromuniquesituation nwhichOxfordndCambridge rovide hegreatmajorityofmembers fParliament.This used to be less true ofthe Labour party,but the argeproportionfthesons ofmanualworkerst eventheseuniver-sities-in Oxford t least 70 percentofthe studentbodyis subsidized yscholarshipsnd loans-means that theLabourparty oo has beenrecruit-ingOxoniansand Cantabrigiansnlargenumbers incethewar, n prefer-enceto older abor union eadersand partyworkersRanney1965,p. 202,table 7.5; Rose 1964,p. 72; Guttsman1965,pp. 156-58).The UniversityfLondon,despite ts size andpositionnthemetropolis,s badlyrepresentedand has beena training roundfor heleaders ofnewnationsrather hanfor the top politicalpositions n the mother ountry.8 he Conservativeparty spredominantlyrawnfrom hepublicschools i.e., prep),especiallyfromEton and Harrowas well as fromOxford nd Cambridge. n theseschools,politicalsentimentsre overwhelmingly onservative Weinberg1967, p. 118,table 12).The unique position of Oxford nd Cambridgemay reflect culturalvalue of thepoliticalsystem.But the combination fpoliticalsystem t-tributes nd system inkagesmeansthatstudentsmayenter heseuniver-sitieswith the intention fmakingpoliticsa career.The form fstudentpoliticalorganizationwhichresults s the studentpoliticalclub affiliatedwithnationalpoliticalparties.The latterusetheclubs as recruitingroundsforfuturemembers f Parliamentas well as for the partyorganization.There s intense ompetitionorhigh fficenthese lubs, specially etweentheirrespective ight nd leftwings.Both face each other n the Oxfordand CambridgeUnions, whichare modeledon the House of Commons.Political activiststend toward careers n law, journalism, elevision, nd

8Edward Shils (1960, p. 337) writesthat the London School ofEconomics inparticularhas probably contributedmuch more to the excitation ofnationalistic sentiment thanany othereducational institution n the world.87


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

13/21

AmericanJournal fSociologycollegeteaching, o waitfor heir pportunityo enter heHouse ofCom-mons.The intensityfsysteminkage endsto resultn thesocialization fboth Labourites nd Conservatives owardthepoliticalcenter, or pecificissues are hammered utwithin nd between hepoliticalclubs.This situationweakens the spontaneousappearance of protest move-ments-such as theCampaignforNuclearDisarmament-whichareforcedto filter heirpolicies hroughheclubs,whichfunctions a damperon theprogression owardextremism. he National Union of Studentsis alsoweakenedbecause oftheinteraction fpolitical ystem ttributes nd sys-temlinkages nd is mainly serviceorganization or tudents n termsofarranging acationtrips broad,etc.The National Union ofStudents an-notgainsupport t Oxford nd Cambridge nd, unlike ts Frenchequiva-lent, does not bargainwiththegovernment,ue to thedecentralizationffunding. he socialorganizationf tudentsmaynowbe changing.n 1967,a Radical StudentAlliance RSA) was founded, ringingogetherctivistsconcernedwithspecific ssues and studentsdissatisfiedwithmoredirectgovernmental ontrol nd with facilities t the new universitiesHalseyandMarks1968). In the olderuniversitieshe RSA is strong t institutionssuch as Hull and the LondonSchool ofEconomics,wherefacilities re con-sideredpoorandovercrowdings common.Wemay predict hat, fthecom-bination fpolitical ystem ttributes nd systeminkages s altering,hena politicized ational tudentunionmay emerge, ut,as yet, t is too earlyto judge.But thisdemonstrateshata change nan element fthetypologycanforewarnf a change n thesocialorganizationf tudentpolitics.FACTIONAL COMPETITION AMONG POLITICAL PARTY BRANCHESLatinAmericawillbe treatedhereas a singlecase, despite thevariationsamongthetwenty-some ations.But ourgeneralizations illbe based pri-marilyon thosenations whichhave attainedmoderate to high evels ofeconomic nd politicaldevelopment,uch as Chile,Argentina,Uruguay,Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico, andCuba. As political ystems,hese ocieties refrequentlynterruptedormaldemocracies, haracterizedby highlycentralizedexecutiveauthority frelativelyweak egitimacy.n contrast o the other ocieties iscussedhere-tofore, he institutions f the church nd the militaryhave played inor-dinately mportant oliticalrolesboth in influencend in actual politicalleadership. his statementpplies east to Chile,Uruguay,Costa Rica, andMexico. Partysystems aryfrom ne-party ominant ystems, s inMexi-co, tomultipartyystems, s inArgentina.Withrespect o systeminkages o higher ducation, hecentralgovern-mentprovides hepredominant ourceoffunds Scherz-Garcia 967). For-mally utonomous,heuniversities aveexperiencedrequentnterventionsintotheir nternal ffairs y variousgovernments,speciallyduringdicta-torialregimeswhichhavesuspended utonomy nd have notrespected henormof the inviolability f the university. he universities ace seriousproblemsdue to inadequate financing, hichresults n poor libraries,n-88


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

14/21

StudentPoliticssufficientesearchfacilities nd study space, part-time rofessors,nade-quate housing ccommodations, vercrowdedecturehalls, and a host ofotherdifficultiesScott 1968).Most universities re highlypoliticizeddue to a combination f attri-butes.The most mportants perhapsthatstudentpolitical eadershiphasoften ed moreor less directly o politicalcareers, itherthrough ecruit-ment of activists ntopoliticalcareersor the organization f newpartiesamonguniversitytudentswhichbecome mportant ational parties, omeof them coming o powerthrough he electoralprocessor by meansof acoup or revolutionMartz 1966,pp. 17-48; Alexander1965, pp. 120-26;Dix 1967,pp. 345-46;Walters1968,p. 198;Canton1966,pp. 96-97). Politi-cal connections re highly elevant o career uccess nnonpolitical areersas well, onstitutingfurthermpetus o political ctivity.The consequenceis that, n most of these societies,university ranchesof national partiesplay an important ole n universityffairs,eeking o win universitylec-tions and oftengainingdirect upportfrom heirparentparties,who per-ceive university tudentsas important onstituents nd as a significantsourceof future eadership Patch 1961).Governmentontrol funiversity inancing nd the structure fhighereducationhas its counterpartn strong niversitytudentorganizationstthe universityndnational evel, n the formfnational tudent nions ndtheiruniversityffiliatesBonilla 1959, 1960; Walters 1968). The impor-tanceofthesefororganizingtudentopposition s recognized y dictator-ships,whichoften brogate themon comingto power. n societiesdom-inatedby elites, s theseare, students re often he onlygroup n societycapable ofand willing o express he nterests fthe inarticulatemasses.This adds to theirnationalprestige nd to their hreat o unrepresentativegovernmentsSilvert1964).The phenomena f politicalpartybranches nd nationalstudentunionsare closelyrelatedto the LatinAmerican tudentmovement. he Univer-sityReformmovements datedfrom 918 nArgentina, here tsmost ig-nificant uccesseswere chieved,but imited gitation oruniversityeformoccurred arlier n otherLatinAmerican ountries. he majorsignificanceofthis movement rom urperspectives that t institutionalizedco-gobi-erno, or the conceptof directparticipationn university overnment ystudent nd faculty epresentatives.his has meantthat,where he move-mentwas successful, hich t was to a greater r esserdegreenmostoftheLatin American epublics,tudent epresentativesunfor ositions n bothuniversitynd schoolor facultydecision-makingodies.In Argentina,heReformaUniversitariaarty, ncludingmostpoliticalgroups nthe eft ndsomeofthecenter,won mostelections or he governingouncil f theuni-versity ntil recentlyWalters1968,pp. 168-72). Elsewhere, tudents unforoffice nder the bannerof nationalpoliticalparties, s in Peru, Chile,Colombia, and Venezuela.Whennewmovements rpartieshave emerged,thesehave tended to be incorporatedntothe university oliticalsubcul-tures,presentinglates ofcandidatesand seekingto dominateuniversitygovernments theircounterpartseek to dominatethe nationalgovern-ment. 89


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

15/21

AmericanJournal fSociologyIMPLICATIONS OF THE TYPOLOGY FOR NONINSTITUTIONALIZEDSTUDENT POLITICSWe will nowconsider he mplications f thetypology ornoninstitutional-ized student olitics.Whilewe cannot ttempt oaccountfor heemergence,frequency, r ntensity f tudent rotestnterms fourscheme fanalysis,we can suggest omeaspectsof theform, ersistence,nd directionwhichstudentprotests relikely o takeunder hedifferingonditionset forthnthe typology.Our focushere is on those forms f studentpoliticswhichutilizemeans outside those available in thevarious nstitutionalizedormsdiscussed bove,andwhich eekgoalsbeyondthose delimited ytheexist-ing arrangements orexpressing tudent nterests.Our major concernwillbe to suggest heextent o whichvariousforms fnoninstitutionalizedtu-dent activism re likely o be incorporated ith,orotherwiseinked o, n-institutionalizedormsof activism,perhapsmodifyinghe latterin theprocessofadaptation.We have touchedbrieflyn thefate ofprotestmovementsntheFrenchand Britishcases; thus we will concentrate n the Americanand LatinAmerican ases in thefollowing iscussion.These provide, n terms f ourtypology, he situations n which our two major variablesare weak andabsent, ntheAmerican ase,and strongndpresent,ntheLatinAmericancase. As a generalhypothesis, ewouldargue that, n theformer,tudentprotest s least likelyto become ncorporated nto the streamofnationalpolitics nd to affectnstitutionalized orms fstudentpolitics,due to theweaknessof structuralinksbetweenuniversitytudent nd nationalpoli-tics. n the atter ase,becauseof trongtructuralinksbetween niversitystudent nd nationalpolitics,noninstitutionalizedrotest s most ikely oaffect ationalpolitics nd to become nstitutionalized,n the form fnewstudentpoliticalgroupsor branchesofnew nationalparties, oining thecompetitionor tudentvotesand national nfluence.omesupport or hishypothesiss offeredelow.NONINSTITUTIONALIZED STUDENT POLITICS IN THEUNITED STATESIn Americanuniversities, ecruits o protestmovements re brought o-gethernthebetter niversities ue to theirhighgrade-pointverage, heirintellectual nd aesthetic rientations erivedfrom heirfamilies f origin,and theirpoliticalawareness. As Flacks (1967,p. 57) says, theyhave nointerestn politicalcareers s such.Anynationalcrisiswill cause this con-catenationof a politically ctivenminority,ut,giventhe structure fthepoliticalsystem, nd its specific ombination f attributes, heiractualpoliticalbehaviorwill tendtowardthe noninstitutionalizedorms fpro-test.Theymayresort o ideological bstraction nd variousforms fcivildisobedience rom iolenceto nonviolence. he comparative lderliness fpoliticiansnthepolitical ystemntensifiesheir enerational ostility,ndthey ook forallies,notwithin he politicalsystem tself, ut amongthedowntrodden roups n society,which eads to a narodnik rientation,r90


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

16/21

StudentPoliticsamong imilar roups t otheruniversities, hich esultsn a quasi-Leninistform felitism.

In short, heyare caught n the inevitablepush towardextremism e-cause they arenot constrained ythe limits f the political ystem, ue tothe absenceof inks opolitical areers nd thehighdegree ffreedom hatthe political ystem llows to students.The progression owardextremismresults n the fractionationnto ideologicalgroups,which come to argueamong themselves t the most abstract evels, but whose social base islimited y thefactthat some students o not wishtogo as far, r resist hetrend oward xtreme ositions.Thus fractionationesultsn the prolifera-tion ofsmall and quite varied groups.The latent function f Trotskyistsfighting aoistsor Leninists s to ensure he relative owerlessnessfAmer-ican studentmovements.When theybecome inked onationalcrises, uchas the problems f Negroes r thewar nVietnam, ndworkwith heirgen-erational lderswithin he political ystem, he progressionowardextrem-ism s halted, nd their mpact on the political ystem an be considerable.But immersedn their undergraduate tudent politicalsubculture, hesegroups re nsulatedfrom he political ystem Lipsetand Altbach 1967).Their membersdefine heir futures utside of the political systembyrejecting areers n law and business,which would give them the oppor-tunity o enterconventional oliticsat a later date. A societal factorhasits nfluence ereas well. Because themedia n America re defined s busi-nesses, heydonot tend to attractntellectuals. hosewho enter he mediabecome professionalized,o that careers n the television r newspapern-dustry o notprovide he waitingperiodfor ater entrancento a politicalcareerfor heformermembers f ssuemovements. s thesemembers endto congregate t the betteruniversitiesnd to be above-average tudents,imbuedwith hevalue of ntellectualism, proportionmay take up careerswithin he academy tself.This provides heranksofgraduate tudents nthe arts and sciences with politically ctive recruits, rid eventually, heprofessoriatetself.t is partly or hisreasonthat theAmerican ntelligent-sia is oriented owardthe university, or t provides career nd security,yet its latentfunctions to furthernsulatethe formermembers f issuemovements rom he political ystem.Role conflictften evelopsbetweentheexpectedprofessionalismftheacademicand hispolitical nterests,s-pecially fhisprofessionalxpertises soughtby egislatorsnd others per-atingwithin political ystem o whichhehas fundamentalbjections.9NONINSTITUTIONALIZED STUDENT POLITICS IN LATIN AMERICAAt present heres an absenceofdata for atinAmericadirectly omparableto thoseavailableforAmerican tudents, odistinguishetween he activ-ist and nonactivist tudent.The data that existsuggestthat activiststudentsare more likelyto attend largenationaluniversitiesocated innational capitols,to come from eligiouslyess devout, ower-middle-classfamilies, hich remore ikely osupport arties fthecenter r eft, atherthan theright.I Forexample,ee Harry . Hall (1956). 91


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

17/21

AmericanJournal f SociologyIn terms f careerorientations nd fields f study, hey re more ikelyto be enrolled n thehumanities,aw, or social sciences han in otherpro-

fessional ields uch as engineering r medicine Lipset 1967, 1968; Silvert1964: Hennessy1967; Walker1968; Glazer 1968). But whilethe analysisofthe characteristicsf the activist student n North America s essentiallyfocused n those who are involved n noninstitutionalizedorms f studentpolitics, he boundarybetweenthese and institutionalizedorms, nd be-tween tudents ngagedntheone or theother,s lesssharp n LatinAmeri-ca. Highly institutionalized tudent organizations requently ngage inprotestmarcheswhicherupt nviolence,whenpoliceorcounterdemonstra-tors eek to thwart heir ttempts o influencehepopulaceand thegovern-ment Bonilla 1959,pp. 229-30, passim; Walters1968,pp. 160-65,passim).The most radical studentgroups, such as Communists,Fidelistas, andothers requently in universitylections s legitimate tudentpartiesforseatsonuniversity overningouncils.The goalsof eftist s well as centristand conservative tudentgroupsare likelyto be similarlydiffuse-theattempt to influence niversity ecisions, hroughdirectparticipationnco-gobierno, o influencehetrend fnationalpolitics hroughonfronta-tionwithpolice n streetdemonstrationsrthrough onsultationwithgov-ernmenteaders, nd,for ome student eaders,to fashion oliticalcareersforthemselves y demonstratingheirorganizational nd oratorical killsbefore n audienceof nterested oliticalprofessionals.

In contrastto the Americansituation,the political activistis muchmore ikely o be interestedn a political career, ither s a full-time ro-fessional olitician r else as a publicistor otherwise ngaged ntellectual,whooften ombines career s universityecturer, ractitionerf a profes-sion, and commentator ponand activist npolitical ife.This suggests helowerdegree fdifferentiationnLatin American rofessionalifencontrastto that of NorthAmericaand, to some extent,Europe. Thus, the LatinAmerican ctivist s likely ofind moreopen environmentor he practiceofpolitics ollowing raduation, nd is thus ess likely o eschew politicalcareer s an aspectofhis commitmento studentpolitical ctivity Ellison1964; Gillin1960, p. 42; Goldrich1966, p. 117, Table B-2; Walters 1968,p. 12).These features f Latin Americanpolitical ife,bothwithin heuniver-sityand in the environing ociety uggestthat politicalactivitymay beeasily integratedwith other professional ommitments,erhaps in partbecause the latter are likely o be weaker,but also because the structurallinksbetween niversityndgovernmentnd between tudent nd adultpolitical areers remore loselyntegrated. he limitingase would ncludethose studentsforwhom none of the legitimate artiesappears to offersolution o their deological ommitments,nd who choose to join a revolu-tionary uerillamovement,s have some students nVenezuela,Colombia,Peru, and even ArgentinaPetras 1968; Harding 1968,pp. 25-27). But thesuccessofuniversitytudent-foundedolitical arties iketheAccionDemo-craticain Venezuela, whichdeveloped as a revolutionarymovementbutbecame an institutionalized,overning arty after he overthrow f Perez92


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

18/21

StudentPoliticsJimenez, nd the success of the 26thofJulyMovement n Cuba, inwhichstudents articipated nd wererewardedwithpositionsn therevolutionarygovernment,uggest hat eventhosewhochoose the alternative fviolentopposition re not foregoing oliticalcareersbut, rather, re seeking hemby other, f morerisky,means.To conclude,what is oftenreferredo as theLatin American tudentmovement endsto be an amalgamofrelativelytableparties ndideologi-cal tendencies nd groups, upportedby a well-structuredolitical ubsys-tem inking niversitiesnd thenational nd nternationalolitical nviron-ment, ctingthrough articipationn university overnment nd moreex-pressive ctivities uch as demonstrationsirected t thenational govern-ment, pposing imperialism, rsupporting orkers rfellow tudents ndco-believers lsewhere. he movements frequently egenerated y coupswhich bolish ts formal tructurend stimulate heformationfoppositionmovements o restore he time-honoredrinciples funiversity eform,rby new politicalgroups r protestmovementswhich eek tofurther adical-ize the movement, n the model of the Cuban Revolutionor the Vietnamwarfor iberation. hus new movements end to be added to the existingpolitical radition nd structurenthe form f a modificationfthe deolog-ical stream nd new parties r politicalgroups eeking oliticalpowerwhichlook to the universities or recruits nd general support Spencer 1965a,1963b;Walker 1967). In contrast, tudentpoliticalmovementsn the otherthree ituationsdefined y our typology end to diminish nd eventuallydie out, since they lack stronguniversity tudent government, ationalstudentunions, or party-recruitmenthannelsto whichthey could linkthemselves.Typically, such movements re essentiallygenerational he-nomena, nd disappearoften n a radically hort ime, s supporters f themovement raduateand move ntononpolitical areers.CONCLUSIONSWe have attemptedto provide a framework or the comparative naly-sisof nstitutionalizedtudent olitics y emphasizing he inksbetween helargerpolitical environment nd the university olitical setting.This ap-proachhelpsto accountfor he persistencefpredominantorms f tudentpolitical activity n various national settings.Further,by defining hecharacteristicsnd boundaries f such institutionalized orms,we are ableto accountfor ome characteristicsf noninstitutionalizedtudentpoliticsin these differentettings.One major hypothesiswhichouranalysis suggests s that,where he n-stitutionalized ormsof student politics are closely inked to universitygovernment nd adult political career recruitment,s in Latin America,studentdemandsformajor changes n society remoreeasily ncorporatedand expressedwithin he existing, legitimate studentorganizations,spartoftheir nstitutionalized oles. n theUnitedStates,and to someex-tent nBritain,demandsformajorsocietalchangeare ofnecessity eyondthepurview f the ocalized and relativelynsularuniversitytudentpoliti-

93


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

19/21

AmericanJournal fSociologycal organizations. his means thatstudentprotestersn the latter ettingstend to recruit hosewithout pecificpolitical careergoals, and seek tocreatenovel,ad hocorganizations o carry ut their ctivities.The lack ofstructuralinks to universitytudentgovernmentr to nationalpoliticalparties f uchorganizations eakens heirmpact nd fails oconstrainheirtendencies owardextremism.n theLatinAmerican nd,to someextent,in the Frenchcases, the stronger tructuralinkagesbetweenuniversityand/ornationalpolitics rovide strongerasis for heorganizationfpro-test, nd increase heprobabilityftheprotestmovement's artial uccess,or else its incorporationnto and thusideologicalmoderation y existingpoliticalorganizations.REFERENCESAlexander, obertJ.1965.Latin Americanolitics ndGovernment.ewYork:Harper& Row.Berger, ennettM. 1960. How Long Is a Generation? ritishJournal fSociology11:10-23.Bonilla,Frank.1959. StudentsnPolitics:ThreeGenerationsfPoliticalActionn aLatinAmerican niversity. h.D. dissertation,arvardUniversity.. 1960. The Student ederationfChile:Fifty earsofPoliticalAction. Jour-nal of nter-Americantudies :311-34.Bowen,WilliamG. 1964.Economic spects fEducation. rinceton, .J.: ndustrial e-lations ection, rinceton niversity.Cain,LeonardD., Jr. 964. LifeCourse ndSocialStructure. n HandbookfModernSociology,ditedbyRobertE. L. Faris.Chicago:Rand McNally.Canton,Dario. 1966.El Parlamento rgentinonepocasde ambio: 890,1916y1946.BuenosAires:Editorial el Instituto orcuatoDi Tella.Cloward, ichardA.,andLloydE. Ohlin.1960.DelinquencyndOpportunity:TheoryofDelinquent angs.NewYork:FreePress.Derber,Charles, nd RichardFlacks. 1967. An Exploration fRadical StudentAc-tivists nd TheirParents. Paperdelivered t theannualmeetingsftheAmericanSociological ssn., an Francisco, ugust 8-31.Mimeographed.Dix, RobertH. 1967.Columbia: hePoliticalDimensionsfChange.NewYork:YaleUniversityress.Doggan,Mattei. 1961. PoliticalAscent n a Class Society:FrenchDeputies,1870-

1958. In PoliticalDecision-Makers,ditedbyDwaineMarvick.Glencoe,ll.: FreePress.Ellison, red P. 1964. TheWriter. n ContinuityndChangen LatinAmerica,ditedbyJohnJ.Johnson.tanford,alif.:Stanford niversityress.Eulau,Heinz,et al. 1959. The Political ocialization fAmericantateLegislators.In Legislativeehavior,ditedbyJohnC. Wahlke nd HeinzEulau. Glencoe, ll.:FreePress.. 1961. CareerPerspectivesfAmerican tateLegislators. n Political ecision-Makers, ditedbyDwaineMarvick.Glencoe, ll.: FreePress.Feuer,LewisS. 1967. TheStudent eft ntheU.S.A., Survey 2 (January):90-103.Fields,A. Belden.1967. The French tudentUnion. Paperpresentedt ConferenceonStudentsndPolitics, an Juan,March27-31.Mimeographed.Flacks,Richard. 967. TheLiberatedGeneration: nExplorationftheRoots ofStu-dentProtest. Journal fSocial ssues23 (July):52-75.Gillin,John . 1960. SomeSignposts orPolicy. n Social Change n LatinAmericaToday, ditedbyRichardAdams t al. NewYork:VintageBooks.Glazer,Myron. 968. Student oliticsn a ChileanUniversity. aedalus97 (Winter):99-115.94


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

20/21

Student oliticsGoldrich,Daniel. 1966. Sons oftheEstablishment. hicago: Rand McNally.Guttsman, W. L. 1965. The British Political Elite. London: MacGibbon & Kee.Hall, Harry S. 1956. Scientists and Politicians. BulletinoftheAtomic cientists 2 (Feb-ruary):46-52. Reprinted in Professwonalization,dited by Howard M. Vollmer andDonald L. Mills. 1966. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Halsey, A. H., and Steven Marks. 1968. British Student Politics. Daedalus 97 (Win-ter): 116-36.Harding, Timothy. 1968. The University, olitics and Developmentn Contemporary atinAmerica. Latin American Research Program,Research Seminar series no. 3. River-side: Universityof California.Heberle, Rudolf. 1951. The Problem of Political Generations. In Social Movements.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Hennessy, Alistair. 1967. University Students in National Politics. In The Politics ofConformityn Latin America, edited by Claudio Veliz. London: OxfordUniversityPress.Jacob, Herbert. 1962. Initial RecruitmentofElected Officials n the U.S.-a Model.JournalofPolitics 24:703-16.Keniston, Kenneth. 1967a. The Sources of Student Dissent. Journal of Social Issues23 (July): 108-37.1967b. The Uncommitted:Altenated Youth in American Society. New York:Delta.Kornberg,Allan, and Norman Thomas. 1965. The Political Socialization of NationalLegislative Elites in the United States and Canada. Journal ofPolitics 27:761-75.La Ponce, J. A. 1961. The Governmentf theFifthFrenchRepublic. Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1963. Political Man. New York: AnchorBooks.. 1967. University Students and Politics in Underdeveloped Countries. In Stu-

dentPolitics, edited by Seymour Martin Lipset. New York: Basic Books.. 1968. Students and Politics in Comparative Perspective. Daedalus 97 (Win-ter):1-20.Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Philip G. Altbach. 1967. Student Politics and HigherEducation in the United States. In StudentPolitics, edited by Seymour Martin Lip-set. New York: Basic Books.MacRae, Duncan, Jr. 1967. Parliament,Parties and Society n France, 1946-1958. NewYork: St. Martin's.Martz, John D. 1966. Accion Democratica.Princeton,N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress.Marvick, Dwaine, and Charles R. Nixon. 1961. RecruitmentContrasts in Rival Cam-paign Groups. In Political Decision-Makers, edited by Dwaine Marvick. Glencoe,Ill.: Free Press.Newfield,Jack. 1967. A PropheticMinority.Toronto: New AmericanLibrary.Patch, Richard W. 1961. Fidelismo in Peruvian Universities. Amerwan UniversitiesField StaffReports.West Coast South America Series,vol. 8 (Januaryand February).Petras, James. 1968. Revolution and Guerilla Movements in Latin America: Venezuela,Guatemala, Colombia and Peru. In Latin America: Reform rRevolution? dited byJames Petras and Maurice Zeitlin. Greenwich,Conn.: Fawcett.Pinner, Frank A. 1964. Student Trade-Unionism in France, Belgium and Holland:Anticipatory ocialization and Role-seeking. Sociology fEducation 37 (Spring): 1-23.. 1968. Tradition and Transgression:WesternEuropean Students in the Post-war World. Daedalus 97 (Winter): 137-55.Ranney, Austin. 1965. Pathways to Parliament. Madison: UniversityofWisconsin Press.Ridley, F. 1963. The French Educational System: Policy and AdministrativeAspects.Political Studies 11 (June): 178-202.Rose, Richard. 1964. Politics in England. Boston: Little, Brown.Scherz-Garcia, Luis. 1967. Relations between Public and Private Universities. InElites in Latin America, edited by Seymour M. Lipset and Aldo Solari. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Scott, Robert E. 1968. Political Activism in Latin America. Daedalus 97 (Winter):70-98.

95


8/14/2019 2775614.pdf

21/21

American ournal fSociologySeligman, esterG. 1961. PoliticalRecruitmentndParty tructure: Case Study.Western oliticalQuarterly5:77-86.Shils, dward.1960. The IntellectualsnthePolitical evelopmentf heNewStates.World olitics 2 (April): 29-68.Silvert, alman H. 1964. TheUniversitytudent. n ContinuityndChangenLatinAmerica, ditedby JohnJ. Johnson.tanford,alif.:Stanford niversityress.Smelser, eil. 1962.Theory fCollectiveehavior. ewYork:FreePress.Spencer, avid. 1965a. The Impact ofthe CubanRevolution n LatinAmericantu-dentPolitics. n Student olitics n LatinAmerica,dited yDavid Spencer.UnitedStates NationalStudentAssn.. 1965b. The Role ofYouthand StudentGroups n Latin American oliticalParties. nStudent olitics n LatinAmerica,dited yDavid Spencer. nited tatesNationalStudentAssn.Trent,JamesW., and Judith . Craise. 1967. Commitmentnd Conformityn theAmerican ollege. Journal f ocial Issues 23 (July): 4-51.Walker,KennethN. 1967. A Comparison ftheUniversity eformMovementsnArgentinandColombia. n Studentolitics, dited ySeymourMartin ipset.NewYork: BasicBooks.. 1968. Familyand Universitynfluencesn StudentPoliticalOrientations.Mimeographed.Walters, ichardJ.1968. tudent olitics nArgentina.ewYork:BasicBooks.Weinberg,an. 1967. TheEnglish ublic chools:TheSociology fEliteEducation.NewYork: Atherton.Worms, ean-Pierre.967. The French tudentMovement. n Studentolitics,ditedby SeymourMartin ipset.NewYork:Basic Books.Zeldin,Theodore.1967. HigherEducation n France, 1848-1940. Journal fCon-temporaryistory (3):53-80.

96

2775614.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 2775614.pdf