Below are the contents of the latest issue of\u00a0Mobilization: the\u00a0December special issue on nonviolence and social movements, Sharon Erickson Nepstad, guest editor.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/mobilizationjournal.org\/toc\/maiq\/20\/4<\/a><\/p>\n To submit a paper, European authors should send their blinded manuscript along with a separate cover page with author contact details to Marco Giugni\u00a0marco.giugni@unige.ch<\/a>.<\/p>\n You can read more about\u00a0Mobilization\u00a0here\u00a0https:\/\/mobilizationjournal.org\/<\/a> TABLE OF CONTENTS<\/p>\n NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE RESEARCH DO CONTEMPORANEOUS ARMED CHALLENGES AFFECT THE OUTCOMES OF MASS NONVIOLENT CAMPAIGNS REVOLUTION, NONVIOLENCE, AND THE ARAB UPRISINGS NONVIOLENCE AS A WEAPON OF THE RESOURCEFUL: FROM CLAIMS TO TACTICS IN MOBILIZATION RIGHTFUL RADICAL RESISTANCE: LAND STRUGGLES IN INDIA AND BRAZIL DECOLONIZING CIVIL RESISTANCE
\nVolume 20, No. 4\u00a0 December 2015<\/p>\n
\nSharon Erickson Nepstad:\u00a0nepstad@umn.edu<\/a>
\nStudies of nonviolence give insights to issues that are central to the study of contentious politics.\u00a0 In democracies, most protest movements take nonviolent tactics for granted. In nondemocracies, nonviolent resistance is an effective strategy to challenge the state. Nepstad\u2019s article traces the development of nonviolence research and its often-regretful separation from social movement research. Her thoughtful review of the main findings of nonviolence research, especially regarding the strategy-outcomes relationship, makes this article essential reading.<\/p>\n
\nErica Chenoweth and Kurt Schock; Erica.Chenoweth@du.edu<\/a> kschock@andromeda.rutgers.edu<\/a>
\nIt is common that antiregime resistance movements have violent radical flanks. This important contribution analyzes the effects of armed wings on nonviolent movements using a data on 106 antiregime campaigns. Significantly, it finds that radical flanks reduce the chances of movement success. The authors then closely analyze two paired comparisons: Burma and Philippines, and early and late antiapartheid mobilizations in South Africa. Fine-grained comparisons show complex causal paths, but conclude that violent flanks rarely determine movement success.<\/p>\n
\nGeorge Lawson: g.lawson@lse.ac.uk<\/a>
\nLawson analyzes the Arab Spring protest wave, finding that \u201ctiming is everything\u201d when outcomes are considered within the broad protest cycle. His comparisons further situate movements in their global context by showing that international dynamics were the precipitant causes. As the wave developed, movement organization and use of communication technologies mobilized participants, but also elite control of security forces\u2014the \u201cdeep state\u201d\u2014and its learning curve of effective repressive responses proved to be a counterweight for later movements.<\/p>\n
\nPeter B. White, Dragana Vidovic, Bel\u00e9n Gonz\u00e1lez, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch,
\nand David E. Cunningham: pbwhite@umd.edu<\/a>
\nImpressive in the scope of its comparisons, this article analyzes opposition movements in the national republics of the former USSR. The authors suggest that tactical choices are taken as activists articulate initial antiregime claims in the context of their available resources. They find that violent tactics are associated with structural dimensions of resource availability, such as economic development, urbanization, and state capacity. Nonviolent tactics are more likely in urbanized developed states, which have better prospects for mass mobilization and poor prospects for covert action.<\/p>\n
\nKurt Schock: kschock@andromeda.rutgers.edu<\/a>
\nIn another comparative study, Schock compares the Brazilian MST with the Indian Ekta Parishad movement to show how activists draw upon constitutional principles and laws to pursue civil resistance. This strategy parallels O\u2019Brien\u2019s concept of rightful resistance, except that these movements occur in democracies not authoritarian China. The \u201cradical\u201d elements of this strategy, as indicated in the title, reflect adaptations to entrenched power structures in Brazil and India. Actual tactics vary by culture, geography, and demography in each country.<\/p>\n
\nSean Chabot and Stellan Vinthagen: schabot@ewu.edu<\/a>
\nChabot and Vinthagen argue that civil resistance research often ignores struggles seeking to subvert the liberal world system\u2014as opposed to joining it. They examine two classic decolonizing thinkers (Gandhi and Fanon) and two contemporary decolonizing struggles (the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Abahlali in South Africa). Each case emphasizes coloniality, constructive over contentious resistance, transformations in political subjectivity, and emancipatory visions that go beyond Western ideals.<\/p>\n