Monday, July 15, 2013
Difficult RC
The autonomous movements’ relationship with the state is one such point of ambiguity. Most social movement theory makes the state central to its analysis, viewing movements as chiefly concerned with making claims “on public authorities, other holders of power, competitors, enemies, and objects of popular disapproval,” as Charles Tilly has it. Sitrin rightly wants to explain the movements in front of her, some of which, at least initially, don’t follow this pattern, preferring instead to “build a new society in the shell of the old.” She furthermore wants to judge success from the perspective of the movements themselves: if the “new subjects” see themselves as successful, then who is some observer social scientist to tell them otherwise? But then when the movements silently defect from the scholarly dictate of “autonomy” and engage the state, however partially, the theory shows its rigidity: it can neither sufficiently account for defections from the ideal nor describe them in any terms that would reflect badly on the movement. Caught between the twin aims of studying the movements and exalting them, Sitrin habitually defers to the latter.
1. What can be inferred about Sitrin from the
passage?
A.
Followed the theory of most social movements at
least in some concerns
B.
Wanted to construct new society
C.
Wanted to build old society
2. The author mentions the phrase “however partially” to
1. support the argument of social movement theory
2. show some drawback of the view of Sitrin
3.concede that the theory is somewhat inflexible
4.mention what Sitrin defers
5.to acknowledge the Sitrin was morally wrong
