Wojtek:
> The J-curve theory of social movements. But it goes only as far as
> explaining why people join ANY movement challenging the status quo (i.e. the
> "push-factor").
FWIW, in economics, the J curve refers to the effect of falling exchange rates: first they _hurt_ a country's net exports; eventually they help.
> They do not explain, however, why people join a PARTICULAR
> movement (i.e. the pull-factor). Why did Latin American students were
> attracted to radical Marxism, while Arab students to radical Islamism? Or
> for that matter, why are the frustrated US students attracted to anything
> from Christo-fascism to rap and to anarchism?
an earlier generation of Arab students _were_ attracted to radical and secular nationalism and even to Marxism. The problem is that those movements have almost entirely been beaten or corrupted (by the US, by the USSR, or by getting power). So they are no longer attractive in the MIddle East. (Saddam was a leader of radical and secular nationalism, after all.)
> I think that the resource mobilization approach, which concentrates on the
> supply-side of social movements (i.e. agents whose goal is to mobilize a
> particular constituency) does a better job. Islamism became popular because
> it was popularized by mobilization agents - e.g. Islamic clergy with access
> to Saudi money and Western communication resources.
that plays a role, too. -- Jim Devine "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" -- Richard Feynman