Contemporary Conflict A~1ysi.S in Perspective 39
63 Nicholson, op cit, particularly Chapten 3 to 7.
64 lhid. pp 104-105. Jabri also questions the rationality assumption in her application
of structuration theory to the phenomena of violent conflict. She specifically
assumes that "our understanding of violent human behaviour cannot simply be
based on insuumental rationality but must situate the agent, or aning subjecl, in
relation to the structural properties which render war a continuity in social
systems". Jabri., op cit, p 3.
65 C Tilly, From mobilisation to revolution, Reading Mass. Addison-Wesley. 1978. As
Collier et al, albeit 20 years earlier, Tilly also conceptualised violent political
action as a matter of tactical and strategic choice, dependent on cost-efficiency
calculations by groups intended on pursuing violent tactics in the achievement of
their goals.
66 Nicholson, op cit. p 227.
67 lbid, p 228.
68 J Davies, Toward a theory of revolution, American Sociological Review, 27, 1962,
pp 5-19. See also J C Davies, Aggression, violence, revolution and war, Handbook
of political psychology: Contemporary problems and issues, J N Knutson (ed),
Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. 1973.
69 T Gun, Why men rebel, Princeton. N.J., Princeton University Press, 1970. See
also A.R Oberschall. Rising expectations and political turmoil. Journal of
Development Studies, 1969, pp 5-23. For a case study application, D Birrel,
Relative deprivation as a factor in conflict in Northern Ireland, Sociological
Review, 1972, pp 317-343.
70 Relative deprivation implies that people become dissatisfied if they feel they have
less then they should and could have. There are many different ways this can hap
pen: members of a society or organisation have decreasing amounts of what they
previously possessed; improving conditions which then deteriorate; rising expecta-
tions, where people raise their expectations about what they could and should have.
Furthermore it should also be pointed out that relative deprivation theories do not
only refer to economic deprivation. Crucially, several political scientists \wiling of
relative deprivation locate it at the political level. Among them VilfIedo Pareto
places deprivation at the political level: a sort of political relative deprivation based
on the insufficient co-optation of competing members of the non-elite, ultimately
causing the decline of status quo elites. Gaetano Mosca and Emile Durkheim also
tackled the problem of relative deprivation situated at the political level. Samuel
Huntington, for example, locates violent political action and revolution at the level
of the political sphere: within a context of rapid socio-economic modernisation.
people are mobilised and induced to enter the political arena, and if their demands
are not properly channelled, aggressive modes of behaviour may be taken.
71 Gum, Why men rebel, op cit, p 24. Gurr states that "the greater the deprivation an
individual perceives relative to his expectations the greater his discontent; the
more widespread and intense is discontent among the members of a sociely, the
more likely and severe is civil strife:
72 According to Dennis J D Sandole, James Davies modifies the 'hierarchy of needs'
developed by Abraham Maslow considering that it is the frustration of substantive
(physical, social-affectional, self-esteem and self-actualisation) or implemental