Relative deprivation theory is one of the theories of social movements which suggest that certain forms of collective phenomenon can be understood within the prism of relative deprivation.56 It refers to “perceived discrepancy between on one hand, the actual position or state of the actor with respect to some good or value dimension, and on the other hand the level of aspiration or the normative expectations of the actor with respect to the dimension, i.e., what he believes he is justifiably entitled to” (Korpi, 1974: 1521). Narratives vary on the origin of the theory with some going as far back as Aristotle and de Tocquevile (Brush, 1996:
528). Ver der Dennen (2005) also observed that some of the key assumptions of RD theory derived from Dollard and Berkowitz’s frustration-aggression theories.
According to Flynn (2011), the first application of the theory is credited to the work of sociologist Samuel A. Stouffer (1900-1960) in his research on soldiers in America after
56 See Guimond and Dube-Simard (1983).
116
World War II in which he sought to understand how soldiers measured their personal successes by comparing standards attained in their operation units against those of other units in the military operation as opposed to broader standards in the armed forces in general.57 However, the elaborate development of the theory as an approach to understanding broader social behaviour is associated with Ted Gurr’s book ‘Why Do Men Rebel published (1970).
Brush (1996) explains that the theory emerged in the 1960s, as a biological and psychological explanation replaced the then dominant cultural and environmental analysis of social behaviour, with the idea that “nothing more than a fundamental aggressive instinct was needed to account for the prevalence of violence in human and animal species” (Brush, 1996:
527). Hence, Ted Robert Gurr looked towards psychology in his attempt at understanding the contexts in which the occurrence of aggressive behaviour takes place (Gurr, 1968, 1970). In his review of Gurr’s theory, Oberschall (1978: 299-300) sums RD as:
[T]he basic precondition of civil strife, and that the greater the deprivation, the greater the magnitude of strife. Relative deprivation in turn is produced by a discrepancy between what people think they are entitled to and what they are actually getting. As deprivation increases, frustration and anger will ensue. These psychological states will produce aggression. At the level of aggregates, many aggressive acts and tendencies will produce civil strife (Oberschall, 1978: 299).
Relative deprivation theory is often used as a framework for understanding how comparative perception of individuals in regards to the socio-political and economic conditions of others, may engender a sense of deprivation in the subject. This perception of relative deprived in turn, creates a pattern of behaviour often an aggressive one, towards a target. As a system of thought that has the potential to create or strengthen a group's collective identity against another (Singer 1992), relative deprivation provides a theoretical loop from which vulnerability of individuals, groups and communities to the environmental stress can be linked to the emergence of grievance-based actions in affected societies (Flynn, 2011).58 As such, it links an individual’s perception with the society in which he lives as alluded to in Karl Marx’s treatise ‘Wage Labour and Capital’ (1847). Marx notes that "Our desires and pleasures spring from society; we measure them, therefore, by society and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature" (cited in van der Dennen, 2005: n. p).
57 Davis (1959) notes that original conceptualization, of RD occurred in The American Soldier (3) volumes but the theory was never codified in the book described as ‘informal’.
58 According to Flynn, “Social movement theory, which began in the late 19th century, refers to the study of social mobilization including its social, cultural, and political manifestations and consequences.”
117
The framework offers relevant concepts and insights to the study of diverse social phenomenon especially political action at various levels including interpersonal, inter-group and organisational levels. As Flynn (2005) notes, the relative deprivation theory is commonly applied in the study of socio-political, economic, and other problems in explaining issues related to the feelings and actions from individual to group levels since it encourages, for example, the exploration of an individual's feelings of deprivation that are likely to arise from comparing his or her situation with that of a referent person or group as well as the effect in terms of preceptors behaviour, that may result from this feeling of deprivation. It has complementary utility for the analysis of civil movements or group violence when combined with frustration-aggression theory because as they both concern relativities: the first towards a referent object, and the latter towards a target of aggression. More so, as Korpi (1974:
1570) argues, the consideration of relative deprivation is important in understanding the mobilisation of group conflicts “because any theory of conflict that focuses on mobilization of power resources will at least implicitly have to come to grips with motivational concepts like relative deprivation, since motivational factors are generally accorded a central place in theories of mobilization”, especially towards creating a stronger frameworks of analyses that may be derived from incorporating the notion of relative deprivation into other models of conflict in situations where differences in power resources or their mobilization play a crucial role.
3.4.1 Major Postulation of the Theory
According to Guimond and Dube-Simard (1983: 526), the core argument of the relative deprivation theory is that “people protest and rebel against their condition not when they are deprived in an absolute sense but when they “feel” deprived relative to some [object of]
comparison, persons or groups”. In his book Why Men Rebel (1970), Gurr outlines relative deprivation as referring to the perceived discrepancies between the value expectations of people and their value capabilities. Value expectations here refer to those goods and conditions of life that people believe they are rightfully entitled to. On the other hand, value capabilities describe those goods and conditions they believe they are capable of obtaining and keeping. Gurr employs a threefold classification scheme for the types of values including: welfare, power, and interpersonal values, and subdivides interpersonal values into three, namely: status, communality, and ideational coherence. Relative deprivation according
118
to him, are in three patterns, namely: decremental deprivation, aspirational deprivation and progressive deprivation.
Echoing Gurr, Korpi (1974) notes that variations in relative deprivation strongly affect the potential for collective violence and also the magnitude of political violence. As such, increases in relative deprivation will, all things being equal, result in increased incidence of conflict. To Flynn (2011: 100), it refers to the notion that “feelings of deprivation and discontent are related to a desired point of reference (i.e., reference groups).” Flynn points out that relative deprivation, as opposed to social satisfaction, arises when desires which have become legitimate expectations are blocked by society. As such, it is seen generally, as an important force explaining the inspiration for social change, and also, as a central variable to analysing social movements and agitation that often emerge from collective feelings of relative deprivation. Korpi (1974) explains these three forms thus:
Decremental deprivation occurs in a situation where men's expectations remain stable but where they receive less and less. If men's expectations rise while their achievements remain stable, aspirational deprivation is created. The third type is progressive deprivation, which occurs when a relatively steady improvement in men's social and economic conditions generate increasing expectations but is followed by a sharp reversal in the trend of improvement (p. 1575).
Decremental deprivation he explains, results from widening differences in the power resources between actors. Such increases in power resources changes the going rate of exchange between the two actors to the disadvantage of the weaker party, and given that aspiration levels are presumable slow in downward movement, a decrease in achievements is likely to produce decremental deprivation for the weaker actor. However, in such a situation, the likelihood of conflict is likely to decrease because deterioration in the balance of power will lead to a decrease in the success expectancy of the weaker party thereby increasing the expected costs of reaching the goal and a concomitant decrease in the probability of mobilization against the stronger referent party (Korpi, 1974).
Going by the nature of subjects of aggression, two typologies of deprivation are often differentiated. The first, egoistic deprivation refers to feelings of comparative deprivation that is experienced by a single individual; and the second, fraternal or group deprivation describes a collective feeling of discontent shared by a group as a result of its members’ mutual perception of deprivation in regards to the status of own group when compared to some other
119
referent group(s) Guimond and Dube-simond, 1974; Flynn, 2011). There has been series of modifications in the original postulations in view of over-stretched assumptions and exceptions to the claims. However, the import of the theory sufficiently addresses our current purpose.59
3.4.2 Limitations of the Theory
A number of limitations are also highlighted by scholars in the RD theory. It is noted by some critics that aggression does not follow deprivation in some cases. Flynn (2011: 108) notes that “much of the evidence linking social movements to feelings of relative deprivation is indirect”, whereas absolute deprivation obviously leads to a sense of discontent, and ultimately some effort at effecting social change, “feelings of relative deprivation may or may not definitively lead to the creation of social movements and collective identity”. In this regard, Gurr contextual or situational mediators are noteworthy and instructive.
According to Oberschall (1978), the transition from feelings of discontent and the occurrence of strife is mediated by a number of intervening factors which may either facilitate overt conflict or inhibit it. Illustratively, inhibitions may be brought to bear on a potential act of aggression or overt violence by knowledge of the likelihood or certainty of punishment. In broader social context Obeschall notes, “increased size and use of social control agents against regime opponents can be expected to have a deterrent and depressing effect on group conflict.” Such inhibiting factors according to Gurr (1968: 1105), could be from the ‘coercive potential’ of the regime, or what RD theory describes as ‘institutionalization’—the presence of firm and enduring associations and solidarities beyond the primary group level where members have the opportunity to obtain those things which they think they are entitled to.
The presence of such solidarities and associations may thus lower the effects of deprivation, or provide non-violent alternative means of expressing discontent.
Another major limitation is the lack of agreement among researchers as to the general applicability of the theory or how much of its supposition is backed in actual cases. Cases of exceptions are highlighted in a number of studies which have questioned the postulations of the RD theory based on certain forms of aggressive behaviour that were noted to no origin in
59 Flynn (2011) identifies some of the areas addressed in latter models to include: (1) the revolution of rising expectations in which social expectations and aspirations rise at a much faster rate than capabilities; (2) the so-called J-curve situation when capabilities increase and keep pace with rising expectations for a short period and then suddenly suffer a sharp decline; (3) the serious crisis or malaise that causes a reduction in capabilities while expectations remain constant; and (4) situations in which expectations and aspirations increase while value capabilities remain constant.
120
deprivation, including racial riots and student protest events in which the participants were neither the most disadvantaged nor deprived in their groups (Guimond and Dube-simond, 1974). Many scholars highlight these contradictions and contend that discontent as argued by the RD theory is not always a major factor to explaining militant attitudes and protest behaviours (McPhail, 1971; Oberschall, 1978; Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland-Olson, 1980).
Despite these criticisms however, the theory remains relevant in understanding the origin of some cases aggression and social disorder. Crosby (1976) concludes after an extensive review of the literature, that "most of the empirical data coming from over 95 different investigations supports the theory" (p. 109).