Reinforcing Criticisms of Civil Resistance: A Response to Onken, Shemia-Goeke, and Martin

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11230%2F21%3A10430204" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11230/21:10430204 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=rIHFnImwnz" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=rIHFnImwnz</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08969205211028279" target="_blank" >10.1177/08969205211028279</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Reinforcing Criticisms of Civil Resistance: A Response to Onken, Shemia-Goeke, and Martin

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This article reinforces the criticisms I cast on civil resistance literature in my study &quot;Debunking the Myths Behind Nonviolent Civil Resistance&quot; through addressing issues on how scholars code violence, unarmed violence, and nonviolence. It justifies studying unarmed violence as a sole category and explicates the pathways through which unarmed violence can lead oppositional campaigns toward success. In responding to Onken, Shemia-Goeke, and Martin, the article demonstrates that the dichotomization of nonviolence and violence is not premised on analytical equivalency and should be avoided if the study of resistance strategies is to progress onward and step away from the literature&apos;s intrinsic ideological bias. There is nothing idealistic about seeking to improve how we operationalize concepts to study resistance strategies, but if scholars in the civil resistance literature fail to move away from universalistic assumptions about nonviolence and social change, they will continue to misinterpret historical processes and produce policy suggestions that are neo-colonial in nature.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Reinforcing Criticisms of Civil Resistance: A Response to Onken, Shemia-Goeke, and Martin

Popis výsledku anglicky

This article reinforces the criticisms I cast on civil resistance literature in my study &quot;Debunking the Myths Behind Nonviolent Civil Resistance&quot; through addressing issues on how scholars code violence, unarmed violence, and nonviolence. It justifies studying unarmed violence as a sole category and explicates the pathways through which unarmed violence can lead oppositional campaigns toward success. In responding to Onken, Shemia-Goeke, and Martin, the article demonstrates that the dichotomization of nonviolence and violence is not premised on analytical equivalency and should be avoided if the study of resistance strategies is to progress onward and step away from the literature&apos;s intrinsic ideological bias. There is nothing idealistic about seeking to improve how we operationalize concepts to study resistance strategies, but if scholars in the civil resistance literature fail to move away from universalistic assumptions about nonviolence and social change, they will continue to misinterpret historical processes and produce policy suggestions that are neo-colonial in nature.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50601 - Political science

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Critical Sociology

ISSN

0896-9205

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

47

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

7-8

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

14

Strana od-do

1205-1218

Kód UT WoS článku

000679489600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85111504056