ST RUST UHF-1?. DEFERMINANTS
r 3‘49
EI‘IDWIDUAL EFFECTS
OF
PROTEST BEHAVIOR

‘E’hesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICWGAN STATE UNIVERSH'Y
PETER CRAéG BSSHOP, S. :5.
1971

ABSTRACT

STRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS
AND
INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS
OF
PROTEST BEHAVIOR
By

Peter C. Bishop, S.J.

The late Sixties saw an increase in protest behavior
by many groups along with an increase in the number of
social scientists attempting to explain this behavior.

All types of individual characteristics and structural
effects have been employed in these attempts. Though not
in any way resolving the discussion surrounding student-
initiated collective behavior. this research took advantage
of a unique Opportunity to further the understanding in
this field.

0n the evening of November 14, 1969. ten buses pulled
away from the campus of Michigan State University on their
way to the National Moratorium in Washington. D.C. The
students aboard these buses filled out questionnaires
designed to investigate their motivations, attitudes. and
expectations as they approached this protest activity.
Another questionnaire was administered on the return trip
to test the effects of the demonstration on the previous
variables.

A key variable. entitled "structural blaming. was

Peter C. Bishop, S.J.

used to indicate the politicization of the participant.

It was found that a person's friends had the greatest
effect on this attitude before the demonstration.

Increases in this variable. however. were mainly attributed
to social isolates who became disillusioned with the vast
amount of violence-prone publicity put out by the govern-
ment before the Moratorium. Structural blaming also had

a significant effect on an individual's anticipations of
violence and on his desire to participate in future

protests.

STRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS
AND
INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS
OF
PROTEST BEHAVIOR

By

Peter Craig Bishop, S.J.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Sociology

1971

——To those citizens of this country who have overcome
their fears and frustrations in their efforts

to improve it.

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

When such a task nearrcompletion. the memory of all
those who have helped along the way grows dim. Fellow
graduate students in sociology provided the initial impetus
and structure to undertake this project while many others.
to whom I am deeply indebted. gave the needed encourage-
ment to sustain the effort. The Society of Jesus and the
Department of Sociology provided the latitude for me to
pursue my education in my own way and my own time. And
finally. Dr. Vincent Salvo directed that freedom and
supported that initial direction to bring this work to
a suitable conclusion. I merely hope that someday I may
repay these helpers by helping someone else in his

development.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of Literature . . . . . . . .
Individual EXplanations . . . .
Organizational Explanations . .
Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . .
Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Demographic Information . . . .
Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . .
Non—hypothesized Results. . . .
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of References . . . . . . . . .
General References. . . . . . .

AppCYldiXeeeeeeeeeeeeee

iv

.11
.1h
.18
.22

.22

LIST OF TABLES

Percent of Parents Approving . . . . . . . . . .
Factor Loadings on Restricting Institutions. . .
Structural Blaming Index . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlation Matrix for Hypotheses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.
Coding for Question 1/17 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structural Blaming for Different Groups. . . . .

Differential Effects of Confrontation. . . . . .
(Anticipation of Arrests and Injuries)

Differential Effects of Confrontation. . . . . .
(Structural Blaming)

Correlation Matrix for Determinants in Figure 1.

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Determination of Future Participation. . . . . . .34

vi

INTRODUCTION

A time-worn axiom states that attention is drawn to
movement and things that move. With the increased quantity
of information and education in the sciences. men have
been setting their sights on anything that moves and
flocking to find our where. when, how, and why. The social
sciences are no exception to this phenomenon since they are
particularly concerned with such large scale movements as
the industrial revolution. modernization. and urbanization.
Even on a less grand scale. voting, public opinion. small
group dynamics, and individual behavior of all types have
generated questions for extensive study.

The stirrings of minority groups, students. Blacks.
women, and Chicanos. during the Sixties in contrast to
the dormant atmosphere of the Fifties has gathered its own
entourage of scientists busily observing, recording,
analyzing, and explaining origins and consequences.
Revolutions and social movements, however, are not new
and modern explanations follow well-worn paths previously
trod by observers of society. In addition. each theory
tends to reach the same fork in the road of explanation
and choose one or the other route as "having perhaps the

better claim."

The dilemna that faces the social scientist is the
primacy of the social structure or the individual. though
no more power is derived from either mode of explanation.
The scientist can view the individual through the social
structure and explain how his actions are determined by
the normative constraints which are functional to that
structure. His colleague. on the other hand, can explain
equally well how man molds his social atmosphere to maxi-
mize his advantage. In the first case. the individual's
effect is near zero. and social processes move forward
given any combination of unique individual characteristics.
Conversely. the structure can be taken as relative and
adaptable to individual needs. values, and goals. The
easy way out for the researcher is to hold one or the
other constant in a given analysis. This strategy. howeVer.
tends to lead to less useful conclusions since our objective
is to explain a system in which all aspects are varying

simultaneously.

THE PROBLEM

Such difficulties in analyzing social behavior become
critical when the researcher studies collective behavior.
Though most social scientists have gone far beyond the
charicature of collective behavior as essentially without
form or meaning, relatively low levels of social organization
continue t::the major definitional element of these phe-
nomena (Turner. 1964). In contrast to the study of
bureaucracies. in which the formal organization largely
determines individual behavior. a social movement is
organized at a lower level to the extent that the inde-
pendent actions of individuals and forces unique to that
movement take on more importance and tend to obscure a
general analysis.

The Washington D.C. Mobilization on November 15, 1969
was a unique event in many ways. It was tauted as the cul-
mination. or at least the highest point to date, of the
expanding peace movement in the United States. Never
before had this country been at war for so long; never
before had students ever considered a national movement:
never before had such a group congregated in the nation's
capitol to protest. The events leading up to this demon-

stration also seemed unique in the history of social

movements.

In the summer of 1969. a group called the New Mobi-
livation to End the War in Vietnam was organized in Wash-
ington to bring the peace movement together under one
roof. The New Mobe was designed as a broad coalition of
every peace group in the country. regardless of political
ideology. Membership in this organization consisted simply
in a desire to end the war through unified national action.

The New Mobe leaders planned to organize protests
every 15th of the month throughout the school year 1969-70
to stress the nation-wide support for peace. On October
15th. the date for the first planned demonstrations. many
universities and colleges held local rallies and marches.
Michigan State University sponsored the Lansing demon-
stration in which three to four thousand people marched to
the capitol building. Parlaying on that success. the New
Mobe then planned a national protest in Washington D.C. on
November 15 to include all those who had participated
locally the month before and others whose interest had
been aroused by the October action.

When this researcher and nine other graduate students
in the Sociology Department heard that the M.S.U. Student
Mobilization Committee was chartering buses to transport
students to this event. we saw an opportunity to question
students on their way to and from a demonstration, an

extremely difficult proposition under normal conditions.

Though the social situation for such a questionnaire was
not ideal. we considered that any data generated in such
a unique situation would be worth the effort.

The questionnaire which will constitute the substance
of this study (Appendix) was constructed by George Walton
‘ and Richard Omark. Its purpose was. first of all. to pro-
vide demographic information on the students attending the
demonstration from Michigan State along with their previous
political activity. their reasons for going. and their
general political orientation. Secondly. we felt that the
study of movement participation could profit from data of
this type. Movements grow and decay: participants come
and go: leaderships rotate and public interest shifts. The
identification of the variables of participation could lead
to an understanding of these movements within movements.

We also intended to investigate the effects of pre-
demonstration publicity upon the demonstrators themselves.
The last week. in particular. saw publicity focused on the
possibilities of violence involving such a large number of
people. We wished to gauge the effects of these warnings
upon the people who decided to participate in spite of or.
perhaps. because of them. In other words. what were the
participants' expectations the night before the event and
how had these expectations affected their decision to
participate?

In gathering the information for the second question-

naire. we attempted to measure the effects of individual

motivation and expectation as a result of the 36-hour
event. Did such a demonstration strengthen the commitment
of the participants? Or. on the other hand. could the in-
difference of the administration to such a large gathering
disillusion the movement's membership? Were the parti-
cipant's expectations fulfilled by the reality he encoun-
tered? Would the complex effect of differential expectation
and perception lead to a wide range of future expectations
and a different motivation to participate in the next
movement sponsored event?

Though the design of this research left something to
be desired, nevertheless certain conclusions and answers
to these fundamental questions did emerge that may lead
to a bit more knowledge about this area. Before outlining
the conclusions. though. various attempts to explain the
motivations and effects of participation in social movements

might be in order.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Unfortunately. this small research cannot hope to
resolve the structural-psychological dichotomy presented
in the introduction. With an awareness of that problem.
however. we should be able to deal with the specific
interactions between the individual and the structures
around him. We shall. therefore. begin with the individual
participant and the student movement as given and attempt
to describe how they affected each other during the weeks

of November. 1969.

Individual Explanations

The individual-psychological theory of participants
deals almost exclusively with individual variables as
determinants of behavior. Lasswell (1930), Lipset (1959).
and others (Srinton. 1938) have attempted to find psycho-
logical consistencies among participants in social movements
and thus describe a so-called revolutionary type. the com-
ponents of a psychological make-up prone to protest. The
application Of Adorno's F-scale (Rokeach. 1960) to left-
wing radicals is likewise an instance of such psychological
determination. The need for all-inclusive answers and the
incapacity to tolerate ambiguity is posited as the deter-

minant of behavior aimed at building a world consistent

7

with the individual's preconceptions. More recently.
Dollard (1957) hypothesized a critical level of frustration
which must be relieved by some type of acting-out behavior.
usually aggression.

In sum. these approaches claim to explain protest
behavior in terms of its latent functions. Yet they fail
to differentiate the types of behavior manifested. dif-
ferent legitimate targets that movements attack. and the
tactics they use. In concentrating solely on the reduction
of dissonance or frustration. they ignore the manifest
functions of protest and. hence. seem to posit a non-
rational base for such social behavior.

Many theories of participation. however. account for
manifest functions in explaining the reasons for an in-
dividual's participation. A paradigm for deviant behavior.
developed by Merton (19573125) and later elaborated by
Waisanen (1963). deals explicitly with the goals of an
action and the means the individual chooses to effect those
goals. The original leaders of the peace movement would
have been classified as innovators by Merton since they
attempted to implement the expressed goals of the system
through extraordinary means. (Cf. Students for a Demo-
cratic Society. ”Port Huron Statement.") From that point
on. groups of participants split off into rebellion by
advocating complete societal and institutional re-struc-
turing or into a type of ritualism. going through the

motions of protest with little hope of successful outcome.

Another group of theorists attempt to explain individual
participation by employing a disjunction or strain model.

For instance. Smelser's (1963) value-added hypothesis con-
tends that the four elements of the social system (values.
norms. forms of organization. and situational factors) must
be consistent with the individual variables of commitment
(to the values). conformity (to the norms). responsibility
(in fulfilling an organizational rolQ. and confidence (in
the mastery of situational factors). Should the individual
experience a strain on any one of these levels. Smelser
predicts behavior designed to reduce the strain. in many
cases through collective behavior or a social movement.

The ccomplexity of this theory. however. militates against
its practical application as a suitable predictor.

Another type of disjunction. that between expectations
and fact. forms the core of a number of theories dealing
with participation in social movements. Davies (1962) first
utilized such a conception in claiming to predict revolution
when rising expectations were met with economic or social
reversal. On a more individual level. Ted Robert Gurr (1970)
has developed the concept of relative deprivation to describe
the reaction to a blockage on a dimension of achievement
where advancement is legitimately expected. Gurr's thesis
attempts to answer the problem that those who attempt a
re-arrangement of structural conditions are not the most

deprived. but rather those just beginning an expected

10

career of upward mobility. Blockage on such a career then
leads to protest behavior designed to remove the blockage.

Lenski's (1954) thesis of status inconsistency also
speaks of strain on a status dimension. but he observes an
individual succeeding on an achievement dimension while
being clocked on an ascriptive one which produces dif-
ferential role expectations and reward structures. Incon-
sistency then motivates him to reduce such strain. though
his target would be cultural norms rather than structural
arrangements since the latter have allowed sufficient
achievement while the former perpetuate low status
ascription.

Kenniston (1968) and Flacks (1967) are two disjunction
theorists who deal specifically with the student movement.
Kenniston's analysis of Vietnam Summer in 1967 produces the
evidence that the leaders of the incipient peace movement
had strong ties with their families through the value system
they acquired at home. His point is that the rebellion from
familial values predicted by those concerned with the latent
functions of participation, in fact. not the case. On the
contrary. Kenniston argues that student activists are trying
to implement familial values in a broader structural context.
Flacks also speaks of student idealism faced with the dis-
illusioning realities of the educational and occupational
orders. Having been brought up in professionally oriented
and particularistic environments. the increasing rational-

ization of education. for instance. produces a strain

11

which some attempt to resolve through action.

The theorists. then. who propose a rational explanation
for activism have attempted to adopt a set of hypotheses
that deal with the interaction of the individual and his
situation. Though many begin with psychological or cultural
factors as pre-conditions. all include some structural
characteristic of the society as a parcipitant or deter-
minant of the individual's attitudes. values, and motivations.
Only through such interaction can a true picture of the

social reality be drawn.

Organizational Explanations

Thus far we have been dealing with theorists who
focused on individual behavior. A social movement. however.
has a definite organizational component. no matter how
minimal. which also affects individual participation. In
fact. social movements are generally credited with maturing
into full-grown formal organizations such as the national
Farmer's Organization. the AFL-CIO. or the NAACP (Blumer.
l9h6; Morrison. 1971). Therefore. increasing organization
seems to be a necessary criterion for the movement's
survival.

Some theorists will discount any organizational base
for social movements. though this approach is becoming
rare. Early explanations of collective behavior, for
instance. conceived of the interaction and communication

among members in a problematic situation as sufficient to

12

increase the level of motivation for action (Turner. 1964).
This conception was deve10ped from early literature on
crowd behavior in which it was hypothesized that the social
situation increased a participant's suggestibility (Le Bon.
1913: cf. Couch. 1968).

Even granting an organizational base. many theorists
will still adopt a non-rational model for its operations
and effects. Fishman and Solomon (1964) speak of the
organization as providing a value base for the individual
distinct from that of his family. Besides being in direct
contradiction to Kenniston's findings. such a latent function
analysis ignores the intended effect of social movements.
that of structural re-arrangement. Arguing from a mass
society concept of the social structure. Gusfield (1962)
finds that the social movements are comprised of individuals
insulated from the mass institutions of the society.
Membership. then. functions as a means of reducing such
isolation and consequent alienation from society.

Both of these theories may apply to participation-
oriented movements as described by Killian (1964) but
hardly to predominately power-oriented ones. A social
movement that seeks structural re-arrangement must. of
necessity. be in search of power to accomplish its ends.

Although a latent desire to reduce alienat1on may be an

explanation for some individual behavior, it would hardly

be sufficient to sustain the objectives of the movement.

13

Most theorists dealing specifically with power move-
ments will characterize the organizational role as an
amplification or facilitation of the members' grievances.
For example. Pinard (1968) supports such a mobilizing effect
since the organization provides broader vision and support
for the member through increased communication and interaction
with others in the same situation.

The common difficulty of all such theories. however,
is the inactive role of the organization. Whether oriented
to participation or power. the movement merely collects the
individual problems under one roof in an additive fasion
without providing any new element to the situation. The
basis for focusing on the social organization of a collec—
tivity. however. is precisely that the whole is more than
the sum of its parts and that the whole can produce effects
that none of the parts is capable of in an unorganized
fashion. None of these theorists speaks of an active
organization. established by individuals, yet assuming an
independence that supersedes the actions of its members.
Hepefully. the approach used in this research will circum-
vent these and other problems with existent theories of

protest behavior.

THEORY

A power-oriented social movement is that type of
collective behavior which consists of a group of individuals
organized to restrict or promote structural change. In
order to supplement the few theories taking a rational
structural approach to social movements. we shall concen-
trate on the active role of the organization in the re-
cruitment and eventual participation of demonstrators.

The main thrust of this paper will be. then. that the
social organization of a power-oriented movement com-
municates a structural perspective to the individual member
and. in turn. provides a vehicle for the member to act upon
the structure. The structural analysis advocated by the
movement makes structural re-arrangment a possible and
intended consequence of the individual's action. Such an
approach views the individual and the movement's organization
in a complex interactive model in which the movement not
only mobilizes original individual discontent, but it may
also serve to determine and focus that discontent itself.

In the previous sections. we discussed the disjunction
model as a possible source of discontent. The difficulty
with such a conception. however. is that its utility is

weakened by its generality. In other words. it would be

14

15

a truism to say that everyone has difficulties.“ The

point at issue. that which determines whether an individual
will participate in protest or not. is how the individual
handles the difficulties he has. Furthermore. his response
to problems will be determined by the extent of his know-
ledge about their source and availability of legitimate
means to effect their remedy.

In analysing the problems of homicide and suicide.
Henry and Short (1954) develhped the concepts of self-
blame and structural-blame. In one case, one's difficulties
may be thought to originate within oneself. In its extreme
form. this analysis leads to the destruction of the self
in suicide. More common self-blaming explanations. however.
refer to the individual as unworthy or unfit to receive
the rewards of the society because of race. sex. age.
under-achievement and other individual characteristics.

The on-going structure of society will always use such a
rationale in blaming either the individual or some outside
group for difficulties in order to deflect the blame from
itself.

On the other pole. Henry and Short speak of an other-
directed blame as the basis for homicide. Taken on a

societal level. an individual will fault the structure for

 

*James Davies related a private conversation he had
with the Brazilian Secretary of State before the latest
coup d'etat in which the Secretary was complaining that
wages had increased so much that he could not afford to
maintain two cars any longer.

l6

perpetuating or. at least. not alleviating his difficulties.
Such structural blaming is an essential element of a power-
oriented social movement since the movement's purpose is
expressly the re-arrangement of structural conditions as a
remedy to social. political. or economic ills.

An individual. then. must identify the source of his
difficulty before he can act to alleviate it. but no indi-
vidual can decide for himself between these two sources.
First of all. the data necessary to achieve structural
blaming is much beyond the scope of any one person's power
to accumulate. More importantly. early childhood is always
a period of self-blaming since the child's parents. the
structure he is exposed to during that period. can do no
wrong. With the downfall of parental stereotypes and the
intrusion of a wider structure in his life. the individual
moves to some point on the continuum away from self-blame
toward some sort of structural blame. During this critical
transfer stage, contact with groups which espouse a high
degree of structural blaming can influence the individual's
level of structural blame regardless of the absolute value
of the difficulty or strain he experiences himself.

For such a conversion to take place, however. some
type of reality-testing seems to be called for. An 11-
lustration from Becker's (1961) Bgy§’;n_flhitg offers a
cogent example of such a conversion process. Because of
initial exposure to different groups. neshman medical

students acquired a differential understanding of the norms

17

of medical school. One group adOpted a cynical perspective
which resulted in work and study designed to "get by” while
others retained an idealistic conception of medical educ-
cation and training. When the idealistic group nearly washed
out of school after the first major examination. all students
adOpted a mode of behavior that was consistent with the
cynical group's interpretation of their situation.

A similar hypothesis is employed by the leaders of
many social movements and is best articulated in the "li-
beration hypothesis" of those in movementSwho advocate
violent action. Their recruiting tactics include the in-
volvement of as many individuals as possible in violent
action with the intention that the experience of Oppression
and attack will provide evidence for the structural analysis
they preach. The impression of the researchers who went
to Washington for this study was that. since Washington
contained many potential converts to a radical movement.
the attack on the Justice Department was planned. in part.
to involve them in a confrontation with the police.
Chants of "Who are you with. the people or the pigs?"
were sung throughout the early parts of the demonstration
for the benefit of the bystanders.

Forsaking self-blame for some degree of structural
blame, then. involves adopting the perspective and orien-
tation of another group. Although Pinard argues for the

mobilizing function of social movements as opposed to the

18

reference group function, conversion to a social movement
seems to illustrate a classic case of a shift in reference
groups since the person now accepts new values (the res-
ponsibility for difficulties) and norms ( the legitimate
means to remedy those difficulties) from a different

group (Eisenstadt. 1954). If this analysis is accurate.
the individual would not merely join the movement with a
pre-determined level of experienced strain which the move-
ment would then articulate and facilitate. but rather the
movement may itself determine the level of strain and the

blame the individual assigns for that strain.

flypotheses

Consistent with the analysis presented above. we must
deal with structural blaming as a chracteristic of those
involved in a power-oriented social movement. As might
be expected. individuals participated in the Washington
Mobilization for a variety of reasons--some. in fact. for

purely personal reasons with no reference to the peace

movement at all. To determine how important structural
blame was to those directly involved in the movement, we
shall test the following three hypotheses:

An individual with a high degree of structural
blaming would tend to...

1.1 judge himself on the liberal-radical end of the
political continuum (1/12).*

 

* (1712) refers to Questionnaire No. 1. Question
No. 12.

19
1.2 give specifically political reasons for par-
ticipation (1/17).

1.3 have participated in more previous demonstrations

(1/13).

Secondly, we shall look at the conversion process
itself. The ideal methodolOgy for determing a shift in
reference groups would be to determine the reference groups
before and after the demonstration and the relative degrees
of structural blaming communicated by each.

Certain variables that usually correlate with an indi-
vidual's reference group are contained in the questionnaire.
such as past political participation. type of magazines and
newspapers read. and amount of overall media contact. The
causal direction of the relationship. however, is indeter-
minate. Although reference groups usually endorse certain
activities and certain sources of information. the converse
is also possible: an individual could trust certain sources
of information and participate in certain activities inde-
pendent of any group. Thus. these indicators seem insuf-
ficient to establish a definite reference group orientation
because there is no necessary relationship between the
concept and the behavior.

In lieu of differential group participation. then.
we must fall back on the fact that everyone in this study
had contact with the peace movement itself. Most of those
who were traveling to Washington for political reasons had

presumably been in contact with the peace movement before.

20

For those with primarily personal motivation. however. that
weekend could have produced a significant increase in

such contact. This latter group. therefore. would con-
stitute potential candidates for conversion. Increased
structural blame was used as an indication for this con-
version in constructing the following hypothesis:

1.“ Those individuals who participated for predo-
minately personal reasons should show more
increase in structural blame than those with
predominately political motivation.

It should be noted that. were this hypothesis borne
out. it would establish only a sufficient connection between
reference groups and structural blaming. The necessary
connection could only be established by denying the hypo-
thesis that an individual could arrive at a structural
explanation for difficulties independent of his reference
group. Unfortunately. this questionnaire does not contain
the data necessary to test this latter hypothesis.

Finally. in order to study the conversion process
more precisely. we shall make use of a quasi-experimental
situation that arose on the return trip of one of the
buses. referred to here as Bus 10. The students on this
bus did not take the follow-up questionnaire until after
they had made their first stop. During the rest period.

a Black woman was refused service in the restaurant. The
owner was quite beligerent: the students reacted: and the
owner called the police after a fight broke out. The

students in Bus 10 filled out the questionniare immediately

21

after leaving the restaurant.

Three hypotheses were constructed to test the effects
of this incident as an example of the reality-testing
dimension of the conversion process.

An individual,after engaging in confrontation or
violence. will...

2.1 be more ready to participate next time (2/28).

2.2 anticipate more arrests and injuries at the
next demonstration (1/33.3H3 2/30.31).

2.3 tend to rank the police. the instruments of the
felt repression, higher on the scale of
restricting institutions (1/23: 2/33).

RESULTS

Demographic Information

Certain demographic data were collected about the
participants who traveled to Washington by bus along with
the attitude questions included in the questionnaire.

The distributions of the questions relating to sex. age.
marital status. and educational level were compared with
the whole University population (Michigan State University.
1969) and all were found to be non-representative (p(.005),
yet the absolute values of the differences were slight.
Generally the sample had a larger proportion of males
(60% vs. 58.2%); they were slightly older (20.68 vs. 20.25
yrs.): and there was a small proportion of married students
than are found in the whole University (11.8% vs. 17.1%).
The distribution of respondents on educational level also
showed a significantly lower educational attainment
(x2=27.933. ares. p<.005>. This fact is reflected in the
finding that over half the student demonstrators (55.6%)
were freshmen or sophmores whereas the University as a
whole has only h2.h% of its students registered at these
levels. All of these differences. however, are subject to
the criticism that the bus population may not be represen-
tative of all demonstrators since many journeyed to Wash-
ington by car that weekend.

22

 

23

The family incomes of the demonstrators assumed a
bimodal distribution with the two medians falling in the
$10,000-12,h99 and $20,000 or more categories. Unfortunately.
statistics are not available for the whole University. but
we can say with certainty that most students would not be
considered lower class (16.9% less than #7500). The res-
ponse to father's occupation seemed to uphold Kenniston's
(1968) and Flacks' (1967) contention that demonstrators
usually come from professionally oriented homes since
36.4% of our sample were found to lie in this category.
The next highest group was 22.2% whose father's were white
collar workers. Although these groups are probably over-
represented in the University. the proportions still seem
quite large.

The data on the respondents themselves showed h9.6%
considering themselves liberal on the self-estimation
scale (1/12), 40.1% with no religious preference (1/2h),
and only 6.2% having served in the Armed Forces (1/25).
Another question which supported the theory that parti-
cipation arose out of the disjunction between familial
and educational value systems was "Would (or do) your
parents agree with your decision to go?" (1/31). The

results from this question are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Percent of Parents Approving
Yes (1) yes (2) 7 (3) no (4) N0 (5)
20.nfi 25.51 22.0% 17.5% 1n.6%
mean = 2.803. =.01

2“

In view of the theories concerning the latent functions
of the protest movement with regard to the generation gap
(Fishman. 1964), even this slight agreement seems to be a

significant finding.

Igstg g; Hypotheses

Before listing the results of the various tests of F_1
hypotheses, one of the crucial measures in this study must
be explained. The structural perspective which leads a

person to blame the institutions in the society for his 1‘]

 

‘i‘fiu

difficulties is central to the theory presented above. In
order to measure this degree of structural blaming for each
individual. identical questions were asked on the first and
second questionnaires: "Which of the following place the
greatest restrictions on people's lives?" (1/231 2/33).
Following this question was a list of nine institutions
(family. police. church. federal government. shcools.
employers. defense industry, one's friends. and military
obligations) which the respondent was asked to rank from
most to least restrictive. These responses were then factor
analyzed on one dimension to determine any pattern among
these institutions. Table 2 shows the factor loadings of
these nine items for both questionnaires respectively.

The positive loadings on this dimension indicated
micro-institutions which directly affected the individual
while the national institutions loaded negatively. Each

individual's rank for the macro-structural institutions I

25

Table 2: Factor Loadings for Restricting Institutions

Institution Questionnaire #1 Questionnaire #2
Family .6u52 .6398
Friends .6373 .6168
SChOOlS e 3872 .4178
Church .2 94 .3622
Employers .2 10 .0652
Police -.4909 -.6033
Military Obligation -.6556 -.62 4
Federal Government -.7672 -.8h36
Defense Industry” -.7936 -.7290

was then summed. The resulting sum was used as an index
of structural blaming with a low positive score indicating
a structural perspective since the smaller numzerical
scores (1. 2. 3, etc.). scores of most restriction. would
have led to a low overall score. Likewise. should an indi-
vidual consider the structural elements of the society
least restrictive. he would have received a high positive
score.

The advisability of factor analyzing rank data are
definitely omen to question. For instance. when all in-
stitutions are ranked. only eight degrees of fieedom remain
since the last is determined by the previous choices. The
advantage. however. is being able to characterize each
institution with respect to one dimension. i.e. structural
blame. The factor scores may be viewed as the projection
of individual vectors on a one-dimensional coordinate
system. Those that loaded on the negative end of this
dimension were taken as the most important for this

research.

26

Table 3: Structural Blaming Index

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev.
Questionnaire #1 10 30 17.3 5.90
Questionnaire #2 10 30 17.5 6.12
Change in S.B. -1U 17 0.38 2.87

The positive shift for the change in structural blaming
(p<.1) is difficult to explain since it would contradict the
hypothesis that the demonstration should lead to a greater
degree of structural blaming. Though the opposite proved
to be the case. we shall see that one group experienced
the expected effect.

The first three hypotheses stated were constructed to
study the correlates of structural blaming. They were as
follows:

An individual with a high degree of structural blaming
would tend to...

1.1 Judge himself on the liberal-radical end of the
political continuum (1/12).

1.2 give specifically olitical reasons for par-
ticipation (1/l7§.

1.3 have/participated in more previous demonstrations
l 13 .

Table 4: Correlation Matrix for Hypotheses 1.1. 1.2. 1.3.

Self-Est. -

Reasons .107 -

Past Part. .217 .072 '

Struc. B1. .111 .015 .052 ‘

Self-Est. Reasons Past Part. Struc. Bl.

.. 'F-Lr

 

27

The first part of these hypotheses proved to bear out
the connection between structural blaming and political
orientation. though the correlation was weak (P<§l). The
other two hypotheses. however. failed to prove significant.
With regard to Hypothesis 1.2. the reasons for participation

was asked as an open-ended question and was coded as follows:

Table 5: Coding for Question 1/17

Category Examples
1. Specifically Personal ”To get out of East Lansing"
"To see Washington”
2. Personal-Moral "To fulfill my obligation
as a citizen"
3. Events Impinging on ”My son is in Vietnam”
one's life
u. Generally Political ”To st0p war“

"To put an end to killing"

5. Specifically Political "To force the Nixon Admini-~
stration to leave Vietnam
now"

"To communicate to the people
of the country how bad the
war is"

6. Radical "To fight pigs"

Because of the quantity of data. the responses were coded

by a team of six raters with little assurance of relia-

bility. Thus on this analysis and other analyses where
personal motivation should have been important. the

reasons for participation failed to show significance.

I would suspect that this question was poorly worded

and coded.

Those showing a high degree of structural blaming

should also have participated in many previous demonstrations.

28

but the correlation failed to show this relation. The
correlation of the attitudes and behaviors of an individual
oftentimes shows less than ideal consistency (Fairweather.
1964). Such may be the case in this relation. The dif-
ficulties in obtaining the structural blaming index. however.
might also have reduced what may have been a sharp agreement.
Typothesis 1.b was stated as follows:
1.U Those individuals who participated for predomi-
nately personal reasons should show more
increase in structural blame than those with
predominately political motivation.

The data used to test the differences between these two

groups is presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Structual Blame for Different Groups
Mean Std. Dev. Unmatched Signif.

Structural Blame #1

Group A 16.60 6.2M 0.07 -
Group B 16.67 5-54

Structural Blame #2
Group A 17081 6ol¥2 _o 72 _
Group B 16.97 6.1% '

Change in Struc. 81.

Group A 0.86 3.11 -0 58
Group B 0.53 2.83 '

Group A = Personally Motivated Group B = Politically
Motivated
Again the weakness of Question 1/17 (reasons for
participation) may be the cause for the lack of a signi-

ficant difference between the means. The intent of this

29

hypothesis. however. was to show the reference group medi-
ating the structural condtions which could lead to more
structural blame. Other results reported in the next
section may partially confirm this notion.

Three hypotheses were constructed to study the effects
of the incident on the return trip involving Bus 10.

An individual, after engaging in confrontation or
violence will...

2.1 be more ready to participate next time (2/28).

2.2 anticipate more arrests and injuries at the
next demonstration (1/33,3h; 2/30.31).

2.3 tend to rank the police. the instruments of
the felt repression. higher on the scale of
restricting institutions (1/2332/33).
Only Hypothesis 2.2 (anticipation of future violence)
showed a significant difference between the means from

the first to the second questionnaire on these variables

for the two groups.

Table 7: Differential Effects of Confrontation

Mean T of Mean Sign. of Mean
Change

Ant. of Arrests

Group A -o.272* ~3.65 (.001

Group B 0.333 1.32 (.1
Ant. of Injuries

Group A -Ool71 '2013 (a 025

Group B 0.560 2.28 4.025
Diff. in Mean

Arrests 0.605 2.65 (.005

Injuries 0.731 3.04 (.005

Control Group *Negative scores indicate

U3?

Experimental Group less anticipation

30

The mean difference for ranking police in the control
group was 0.078 and for the experimental group. -0.083,
indicating a direction toward perceiving the police as more
restrictive. yet this difference did not achieve significance
at the .1 level. The intention to participate. however.
showed a slight negative tendency. but was Judged essentially
unchanged by the t-test (t=0.292).

Though not included in the hypotheses. the overall
structural blaming for the experimental group did rise
while the control group experienced the same decrase on

that index.

Table 8: Differential Effects of Confrontation

Mean T of Mean Sign. of Unmatched Sign.
Change Mean t-stat.
Group A 0.507 2.27 ~025 ( 02
Group B -00L"17 “0057 " 2.15 .

The interpretation of these figures. however. is
actually something less than ideal. The experimental
group did not have a significant shift in the absolute
value of their structural blaming index. but rather they
simply do not demonstrate the decrease that the rest of
the participants did. Relative to the control group.
the confrontation did increase the structural blame
through the reality testing process: yet no clear con-

clusions can be drawn since the results are mixed.

31

Non-hypothesized Results

One of the purposes for this study was to examine
the effects of the pre-demonstration publicity concerning
the possibilities of violence that weekend. To this end.
we included two questions to determine the sources of in-
formation from which the demonstrators formed their
expectations. Question 1/22 asked the respondents to rate
the importance of television. radio. and friends in pro-
viding information about the demonstration. Television and
radio were generally rated "somewhat important" while
friends seemed significantly closer to ”very important."
Though we have no way of determining the kind of information
that was communicated by these friends. I think it safe
to assume that the respondent's friends acted as the re-
ference groups we have been discussing, namely encouraging
participation and communcating their perspective as moti-
vation. Had an individual's friends been salient and yet
held the Opposite position. his participation would have
been inconsistent. The importance placed on friends over
other forms of communication is our first indication of
the centrality of the reference group for this type of
behavior.

Everyone did not derive their information from the
group. however. Another question (1/20) asked how many
stories or news articles about the demonstration had been

read the previous week. The negative correlation between

32

these two sources of information. friends vs. reading
materials (r=-0.118. p<.l). seems to indicate that either
one or the other was held to be most important by some.
Those who indicated a large amount of newspaper reading
also expected more arrests (r=0.263. p(.01) and more
injuries (r=0.187. p<.l) during the demonstration. Finally.
the amount read produced the strongest correlation with

the shift toward structural blame (r=0.161. p<.05). Let

us investigate these relationships and attempt to put them
into some meaningful context in conjunction with the theory
presented above.

The articles from most papers and magazines the week
preceding the Mobilization contained accounts of the troop
build-up in Washington. the bargaining over the parade
route. and the warnings from government officials about the
possibility of violence. The reality which the group
anticipating violence was confronted with. however. was
vastly different. During the peace march and rally. this
odd assortment of 300.000 people were decidedly non-violent.
Incidents of marchers obeying the marshalls' orders un-
questioningly and policemen flashing peace buttons from
under lapels were by far the order of the day. Uppermost
in everyone's mind was the avoidance of anything that even
approximated a confrontation. though the temptation of
marching within a few hundred yards of the White House

was significant for some. Violence did spring up in

33

Washington that weekend. as has been mentioned, but the
first battle was early the previous evening before the
Michigan buses arrived and the attack on the Justice
Department after the rally was witnessed by only seven
resnondents to our survey.

The reality-testing that this experience represented
seemed to alter the perspective of many. The newspaper
predictions the week before had been the respondent's
contact with the political structure of the society. From
these accounts. the respondent had been led to anticipate
arrests and injuries that weekend. Though showing no
relation with any degree of structural blame on the trip
down. the individual tended to alter his perspective after
this large. peaceful demonstration. Having seen that the
actual situation was best predicted by the spokesmen for
the movement the week before. the movement and its per-
Spectives in other areas took on more siaience.

The relationship between the variables Just discussed
and Question 2/28 concerning future participation presents
an interesting picture of the socialization process
(Figure 1). Using an individual's intention for future
behavior as an indication of what he will actually do is
tenuous at best since many other variables may intervene to
change that intention. Likewise. the other relationships
indicated were derived from this research. but they are

stated as one of many alternative paths found in the

3h

Figure 1: Determinants of Future Participation
STRUCTURAL BLAME (1/23)

FRIENDg’TI;ggg::;‘_—‘—_‘~““—::::::T‘FU URE
T

PARTICIPATION

’//,/’ (2/28)

READ (1/20) CHANGE IN
STRUCTURAL BLAME

 

Table 9: Correlation Matrix for Determinants in Figure 1

Structural Blame 0.222 . -

Read -O.118 -o.007 —

Change in 5.3. -0.003 - 0.161 -
Future Partic. 0.1b0 0.176 0.076 0.138

Friends Struc. Bl. Read Change
in SOB.

35

literature that lead to participation. A follow-up study.
though impractical in these circumstances. could have led
to more rigorous conclusions.

Figure 1 shows that future participation is directly
related only to the importance the individual places on
his friends' opinions and his degree of structural blaming.
Those. however. who relied on what they read about the
Mobilization were also indirectly influenced to want to
participate again since the reality-testing explained above
increased their degree of structural blame. Such results
support the working hypothesis of the peace movement that.
aside from whatever political effect a demonstration may
have. involving as many people as possible in the action
increases their chances for recruitment.

The motivation that encouraged those without a political
reference group to participate in the first place is dif-
ficult to determine. It has been mentioned. however. that
those who relied on newspapers for their information did
anticipate more arrests and more injuries. Therefore. the
fears of the administration were heard through the media
that week: yet if their strategy was to dissuade students
from participating in the demonstration. they seemed to
have failed in that. not only did 300.000 eventually attend.
but also their predictions of increased violence made those
expecting such behavior more distrustful of the official
position and more prone to accept the movement's perspec-

tive as valid. In finding themselves more in agreement with

36

the movement on this item. those without the movement as a
reference group became converted to an overall structural

perspective and to a significant increase in structural

blame e

CONCLUSION

We began this analysis with a brief discussion of
the central problem for social science. the individual- ?“
structural dichotomy. Restricting our vision in order to E
explicate something more understandable. we asked specific '

questions about the roles of individual and organization

 

in the playing out of a Specific social event. The thinking

I."

about these questions has been accomplished. the data has

been analyzed and the conclusions drawn. The result of

this whole process? As usual. a mixed bag of hypotheses

confirmed and rejected. unanticipated findings emerging.

and. most of all. a whole new set of questions to be asked.
Generally. and I trust not over optimistically. many

of the lines of development that were hypothesized from

the theory surrounding this research were upheld. Structural

blaming did prove to be a significant characteristic of

those who viewed themselves as part of this social movement.

Those who tested this perspective in a confrontation with

police held or slightly increased their view that the macro-

institutions in our society are restrictive to people's

lives. Another group. those who were surprised that the

atmosphere and events that took place were not as advertised.

also tended to blame the discrepancies on the establishment

37

38

sources of information.

As was said. individuals participated in this demon-
stration for a multitude of reasons. Some anticipated high
levels of violence. and wanted to part of this historic
occasion. Others felt that their presence would lead to
a speedier conclusion to an unwanted war. As in most cases.

however. the effects were unanticipated. The system was

"”"fii

not repressive nor were the demonstrators beligerent. The

peace movement seemed to flow through that weekend as

 

easily as did the hundreds of thousands down Pennsylvania

l'I—J' r; ,-

Avenue.

The dire predictions of the administration were in
sharp contrast to the peacefulness of the day. Those for
whom the predictions were intended and who participated
despite them returned with a new cynicism regarding the
establishment and a desire to participate again. The
core participants. on the other hand. had preached peace—
fulness: and for them. the day held no surprises. They
returned without haqulearned or developed. and somewhat
disappointed that the enemy could not be found on a cold

winter day.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Becker. Howard 8.. 23 El,
1961 Boys in White. Chicago: Chicago University
Press.

 

Blumer. H.
1946 ”Collective Behavior." in A. M. Lee (ed.).

New Outline 2; the Principles of Sociology
New York: Barnes Noble.

Brinton. Crane
1938 The Anatomy of Revolution. New York: Norton.

Couch. Carl
1968 "Collective Behavior." Social Problems. 15
(Winter). 310-322.

Davies. James C.
1962 "Towards a Theory of Revolution." ASH, 27
(February). 1-19.

Dollard.John
1957 Caste and Class in a Southern Town. New

York: Anchor Books. Doubleday & Co.

Eisenstadt. S. N.
l95h "Studies in Reference Group Behaviors I.
Reference Norms and the Social Structure."
Human Relations. 7. 191-216.

Fairweather. George w.
1964 Methods for Experimental Social Innovation.

New York: John Wiley.

Fishman. Jacob. and Frederic Solomon
196M "Youth and Social Action: An Introduction.”
Journal of Social Issues. 20 (October). 1-29.

Flacks. Richard
1967 "The Liberated Generations An Exploration of

Student Protest.” J, 22 Social Issues. 23. 52-75.

Gusfield. Joseph
1962 "Mass Society and Extremist Politics." ASR,

279 19‘30-
39

HO

Gurr, Ted Robert
1970 Why Men Rebel. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Henry. Andrew F.. and James F. Short
1954 Suicide and Homicigga Some Economic.
Sociological. and Psychological Aspects g;
Aggression. Glencoe. Ill.: The Free Press.

Kenniston. Kenneth
1968 Young Radicals: Notes 2g Committed Youth.

New York: Harcourt. Brace. and World.

Killian, Lewis
196a "Social Movements.” in R. E. Faris (ed.).
Handbook g: Modern Sociology. Chicago:
Rand-McNally. HEB-#52.

Lasswell. Herbert

1930 Psychoggthology and Politics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Le Bon. Gustave
1913 The PsycholOgy 9; Revolution. New York:
G. P. Putnam 5 Sons.

Lenski. Gerhard E.
1954 "Status Crystallization: A Non-vertical
Dimension of Social Status." ASR. 19
(August). 405-u13.

Lipset. Seymour Martin
1959 "Social Stratification and Right-wing
Extremism." British Journal 2; Sociology.
10, 3u6-382.

Merton. Robert K.
1957 Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe.
111.: Free Press.

Michigan State University
1969 Enrollment Report. Office of the Registrar.
Fall term.

Morrison. Denton E.
1971 "Some Notes Toward Theory on Relative
Deprivation. Social Movements. and Social
Change." American Behavioral Scientist.
forthcoming. March.

41

Pinard. Maurice
1968 "Mass Society and Political Movements:
A New Formulation.” AJS. 73 (May). 682-690.

Rokeach. Milton
1960 The Qpeg_and Closed Hind. New York: Basic
Books. Inc.

Smelser. Neil

1963 collective Behavior. Glencoe. 111.: Free
Press.

Turner. Ralph
1964 "Collective Behavior.” in R. E. Faris (ed.).
Handbook 2; Modern Sociology. Chicago:
Rand-McNally.

Waisanen. Frederick E.
1963 "Some Convergencies in the Social Psychology
of Alienation." presented at the Congress
of the Interamerican Society for Psychology.
Mar del Plata. Argentina.

 

GENERAL REFERENCES

Adorno. T. w.. 22. a1,
1950 The Authoritarian Personality. New York:
Harper.

Davies. James C.
1969 "The J-Curve of Rising and Declining
Satisfactions as a Cause of Some Great
Revolutions and Contained Rehilion. in
Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr (eds.).
Violence i3 America. New York: Signet Books.

Eisenberg. L.
1970 "Student Unrest: Sources and Consequences."
Science. 167 (27 March). 1688-1692.

Fendrich. James
1967 "A Study of the Association Among Verbal

Attitudes. Commitment and Overt Behavior
in Different Exnerimental Situations.”
Social Forces. 45 (March). 347-355.

Heider. Fritz

1959 pp Perception. Event Structure. and Psychological
Environment: Siected Papers. New York:

International Universities Press.

1958 The Psychology 23 Interpersonal Relations.
New York: Wiley.

Jenkins. Robin
1967 "Who are These Marchers?” Journal 2; Peace

Research. 46-60.

Lemmert. Edwin
1962 ”Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion."

Sociometry. 25 (March). 2-20.
Middleton. Russel
1961 "Rebellion. Conformity and Parental Religious
Ideology." Sociometr . 24 (June). 125-135.

42

 

“3

................. , and Snell Putney
1963 ”Student Rebellions Against Parental Political
Beliegs." Public Opinion Quarterly. 41 (May).
377-3 30

Olsen. Marvin
1968 ”Perceived Legitimacy of Social Protest
Action." Social Problems. 15 (Winter).
297-310.

Portes. Alejandro
1970 "Radicalism in the Slum: A Study of
Political Attitudes in the Chilean Lower-
Class Settlement." (unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Wisconsin).

Turner. Ralph. and Lewis Killian
1957 Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs.
NQJO' PTODtiCC‘Hallo

Westly. David. and Richard Braungart
1966 "Class and Politics in the Family Backgrounds
of Student Political Activists." ASR. 31.
(October). 690-692.

APPENDIX

 

November 12, 1969
To: Participants in the Washington Peace Moratorium

From: William A. Faunce, Chairman, Department of Sociology,
Michigan State University

Subject: Peace Moratorium Research Project

Research dealing with mass social movements provides important
insights regarding the nature of contemporary American society and events
like the Peace Moratorium offer a unique opportunity to do research in
this area. Under a grant from the James R. Hundley Memorial Research
Fund, graduate students in the Department of Sociology are conducting a
study of the November 15 Moratorium. They are interested particularly

in patterns of student involvement in this social movement.

 

You are the only persons who have the information needed to conduct
this study. Your cooperation is essential for the success of the research

project and will be greatly appreciated.

LLJQL£1a~n»C2-‘252144~.c¢_

William A. Faunce
Chairman

Endorsed by:

like?“ admé

Walter Adams
Acting President

 

IDENTIFICATION CODE

In order to preserve complete anonymity. we are asking you to
construct a personal code from information which cannot be traced.

The procedure for constructing this code Is as follows:

l. Write the first two letters of your mother's maiden name:

__....____(1)

2. Write the second and third letters of your last name: (2)

3. write the day of the month of your birth (example: the
code for January 23 Is “23” -- DO NOT write a number
for the month, only the day):

....__.___(3)

Your code ls then: / ‘ /

(i) * (2) (3T

 

For instance: If your mother's maiden name is Baker, your last name

is Phillips, and your birthday is April I, then your code would be:
B A / H

I / O l
Now we ask you to put your code on each page of the questionnaire
in the event that they become unattached.

Thank you.

Your code.__‘__ / /

MSU MOBILIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE

l. Your sex: __mele _____female

2. Your age at last birthday:

 

3. Marital status: .___ single _y_.married ___ separerated, divorced. widowed
.4. Educational level: ___.high school (specify class: )
____freshman ___.senior
__ sophomore __ M.A.
___ junior ____Ph.D.

___|hot a student

. Grade point average, if applicable:

 

.. American citizen: yes no

 

. Race:

 

S
6
7. What would you say your nationality is?
8
9

Your father's usual political preference or tendency:

 

 

Democrat ____Other (specify:
____Republican )
___.independent ‘___ don't know

i0. Your usual political preference (answer even if you haven’t voted):

 

 

____Democrat ____other (Specify:
____Repubiican )
____lndependent ____don't know

ll. Approximate family income last year (if married, income of you and your Spouse;
if not married, your father's income):

.___ under $2900 ___.$l2,500 to $I4,999
__ $2500 to $4999 __ $15,000 to $17,499
.___ $5000 to $7499 .___ 517.500 to 539.999
____$7500 to $9999 ___.$20,000 or more

____$l0,000 to $l2.499 ___ don't know; doesn't apply
12. Regarding political beliefs, do you view yourself as:
____very conservative .___ somewhat liberal

____somewhat conservative ___ very liberal
____middle-of-the-road ___ radical

Page 2 Your code __ / /

)3.

143

)5.

16.

I7.

18.

19.

Have you attended any sort of protest rally (CHECK ALL ATTENDED):

Issue pp_0rlentation Number f Ti 5
Academic Freedom
Free Speech . .

Civil Rights

Anti-War. . .
Grape Boycott
Anti-ROTC . .
Other (Specify.

 

VV VVVVV
O . . . .

 

)

List the groups (protest organizations) you belong to (include positions
held, if any):

 

 

 

 

a. d.
b. e.
C. f. \

 

 

Have you participated in any protest demonstration which became a violent form
of protest? ____yes no

if yes, please Specify issue involved and nature of violence:

 

 

 

Have you been arrested or detained by the police for your protest activities?
__ yes __ no

If yes. specify nature of alleged offense and number of times:

 

 

 

Briefly state your reasons, in order of importance. for participating in this
Mobilization:

a. (most important reason):
b.

C.

 

 

When did you decide to go to Washington, D.C.. for the Mobilization:

less than a week ago one month to two months ago
one to two weeks ago more than two months ago
three weeks to a month ago

What events had the greatest impact in your deciding to go to Washington. D.C..
for the Mobilization:

l. C.
*—
b.

 

 

 

Page 3 Your code __ / /

20.

2|.

22.

23.

26.

27.

Approximately how many stories or news articles have you read in the last
week about the possible situations which might occur in Washington on the
lSth of November: __ many __ a few __ none

List the newSpapers or magazines (if any) in which you read about the
upcoming events in Washington:

 

 

 

 

a. ' d.
b. e.
c. f.

 

 

Rate each of the following In terms of providing information about the
Mobilization: (CHECK ONE ON EACH LINE)
very important somewhat important unimportant

1V
“'d
riends

 

other (specify)

Which of the following place the greatest restrictionscum people's lives
(place a "l” indicating greatest restriction, a “2” with the next greatest
restriction, and so on through ”9” indicating the least restriction):

___ family ___federal government ____defense industry
____police ___sehbolss one's friends

___ church employers military obligations
Your religious preference: ___ Catholic Protestant Jewish
___.other (specify: "Ji:' ____No preference

 

Have you served in the armed forces?

___,yes . . . . . . . . for how many years?
how old were you when you entered the service?
did you serve in Vietnam? ___.yes no

 

no . . . . . . . . if male, what is your Selective Service classification?

specify:

 

What was the size of the community in which you spent the greatest share of
your life up to age i8?

___,on a farm more than 75,000 but less than i50,0C
town of less than 5000 population more than i50,000 but less than 250,0
more than 5000 but less than 10,000 more than 250,000 but less than 500,0
more than l0,000 but less than 25,000 500,000 or more

more than 25,000 but less than 75.000

llll

Father's occupation (be as specific as possible):

 

 

Page 1+ Your code __ __ / /

28.

29.

.30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

38.

39.

40.

Are you employed during the school year:
a. part time ___ no ___ yes (Specify job: )
b. full time ____no ____yes (specify job: . )

Do your parents know that you will be at the Mobilization?

yes~ no don't know

* I"

Would your parents agree with the purpose of the march?
yes no ___,don't know

Would (or do) your parents agree with your decision to 90?

_____YES ___yes _? ___no ___N0
00 you feel that your presence at the Mobilization will have an effect on
what Nixon will do about the war? .

___YES ___yes _____~'i _____no ____N0
Do you_think that there is a likelihood that there will be arrests of people
taking part in the Mobilization in Washington on November l5?

___YES ___yes _? ____no ____N0
Do you think that there will be people injured by the police in Washington
during the Mobilization?

____YES __yes _? ___no ____N0
Do you feel that the demonstrators at the Mobilization would take action
(other than retreat) to defend themselves from attack by the police?
YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that there will be counterdemonstrators during the Mobilization?
YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that,if there are demonstrators and counterdemonstrators in the
same general area, that violence between the two will occur?

_____YES ___yes ____7 ____no ___N0
if you were struck by counterdemonstrators during the Mobilization. would you
strike back?

____YES_ ___yes ____? ______no ___NO
if you were struck by a policeman would you strike back (assuming this is
possible)?

____YES ____yes ______? _____no ______N0
Do you think that the Marshals employed by the Mobilization will be able to
control the activities of the demonstrators?

--.- YES . ves ? no rm

‘ Q

 

 

If .II|.. its-ll ill" 1"

It‘ll

Page 5 Your code _ __ / /

hi.

42'.

1+3.’

#5.

46.

#7.

AB.

b9.

50.

Si.

Would you make any effort to control the activities of another marcher if you
felt that what he was doing might precipitate a conflict between the police
and demonstrators?

__ YES yes __ ? _ no __ N0
if the police or counterdemonstrators resorted to violence do you feel that
the demonstrators would be justified in responding in kind?

__ YES yes __ ? __ no __ NO
If the demonstrators resorted to verbal abuse of the police or counter-
demonstrators, would they (the police or counterdemonstrators) be justified
in responding in kind?
YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that verbal abuse and physical violence are equivalent?

_____YES ____yes ____'i __no ___NO
If you were verbally abused, would you respond by striking out at the
antagonist (physically)?

____YES' ____yes _? ______no ___NO
The Nixon Administration acted to prevent the Mobilization from marching past
the White House. Do you think this might increase the amount of
confrontation?

____YES ____yes _? ___no ____N0
Some people say that the effort made by the Nixon Administration to
characterize the Mobilization as being 'violent' has dissuaded other people
from participating in the Mobilization? Do you think this is true?

YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that more people will go to Washington: for the Mobilization
because of the actions taken by the Administration in attempting to limit the
size and objectives of the demonstrators?

YES yes ? no N0

‘ I“ ~ —— n

if people generally expected violence during the Mobilization in Washington,
do you think that people who are only slightly committed to the anti-war
movement would,ng1 go to the Mobilization.

YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that the Mobilization will be well organized?
YES yes 7 no N0

Do you think that the police will be well organized?
YES yes ? . no N0

Page 6 Your code __ / /

52.

53.

SS.

56.

57.

Do you think that the counterdemonstrators will be well organized?

YES ? (no N0

.___ .__.Y85 ___ ___. ___

Do you think that there will be leaders representing the Mobilization who

will direct the actions of the demonstrators?

YES yes a ? no N0

00 you think that you might have to lead some type of demonstrator action
(eugb is prevent police from striking women and children)?

YES yes ? no N0

Can you conceive of a situation in which you could lead an 'attack' on
the police or counterdemonstrators?

YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that you will be well enough aware of the situation at the

,Mobiilzatlon to make a judgment of the proper course of action to take?

____YES ____yes _____? ______no ____N0
Would you trust the judgment of someone who called himself (or acted like)
a leader if you might get clubbed or arrested in the process of following
his orders?

YES yes ? no N0

FROM: Department of Sociology
Michigan State University

T0: Participants in the Washington Moratorium, November l5, l969

RE: Supplementary questionnaire to be filled out on the return trip

This questionnaire is the completion of the interview which began
on the bus trip to Washington. We want to record your impressions of
what happened in Washington while they are still new and vivid
in your mind.

Again, to insure anonymity, do not put your name on this
questionnaire. instead, on £2£h_gggg, write the same identification
code you used on the first questionnaire. The instructions for that
code are again given on the next page. 99 fig; discuss tbs guestions
with others until all questionnaires have been returned to the person
who distributed them.

Please accept, once more, our most sincere gratitude for your

assistance in this research project.

Yours truly,
L/L/-/ ,/{{tu.—~ / gAaxfik

William A. Faunce, Chairman
Department of Sociology

lDENTlFlCATiON CODE

in order to preserve complete anonymity, we are asking you to
construct a personal code from information which cannot be traced.

The procedure for constructing this code is as follows:

i. Write the first two letters of your m2£hg£i§_mglflgfl name: _____. (i)
2. Write the second and third letters of yggr_last name: ._____ ,_____ (2)
3. Write the day of the month of your birth (example: the _____, _____, (3)

code for January 23 is ”23” -- DO NOT write a number
for the month, only the day):

 

 

 

Your code is then: / /
(Ii * (2) (3)
For instance: if your mother's maiden name is Baker, your last name
is Phillips, and your birthday is April i, then your code would be:
8 A / H I / 0 i

Now we ask you to put your code on each page of the questionnaire
in the event that they become unattached.

Thank you.

l2.

13.

Your code __.__ / /
MSU MOBILIZATION QUESTIONNAiRE #2

How many arrests do you believe occurred of people taking part in the
Mobilization in Washington; D.C., on November l5? (CHECK ONE BLANK)

(very many) ? (some) - (none) '

How many people do you believe were injured b the police during the
Mobilization in Washington? (CHECK ONE BLANK .

 

(very many) (some) (none)

Did the demonstrators at the Mobilization take action (other than retreat)
to defend themselves from attack by the police?

YES yes ? no NO

* _ * \ — —

Did you take action (other than retreat) to defend yourself from police attack?

yes. strong action yes, moderate action uncertain
no does not apply

Did you see any counterdemonstrators during the Mobilization?
.___ yes, many ___ yes, a few ___ uncertain ____no

If counterdemonstrators were present, did they engage in violence?
____YES ___yes ___ ? _“_ no ‘___ NO

Did you engage in any violent confrontations with counterdemonstrators?

yes, many times yes, sometimes uncertain no

Do you think that the Marshals employed by the Mobilization were able to
control the activities of the demonstrators?

YES yes ? no N0
Did you participate in a counter-attack on counterdemonstrators? yes no
Did you see a counter-attack on the police? ___yes no

Did you make any effort to control the activities of another demonstrator(s)
who might have precipitated a conflict between the police (or counterdemonstrators)
and the demonstrators? ____yes ___ no

Did you participate in a counter-attack on police? yes no

Did you see the demonstrators make a cOunter-attack on the counterdemonstrators?

___..__ yes ”.1 _ no

 

#2, Page 2 Your code __ __ / /

ih.

i5.

'i6.

‘7.

l8.

l9.

20.

2i.

22.

23.

2h.

00 you think that verbal abuse and physical violence are equivalent?

YES yes ? no N0

Were you at any.time verbally abused?

YES yes ' ? no N0

if you were verbally abused, did you reSpond by striking out at the
antagonist (physically)?

YES yes ? no NO

.The Nixon Administration acted to prevent the Mobilization from marching past

the White House. Do you think that this increased the amount of confrontation?

YES yes ? no NO

Some people say that the effort made by the Nixon Administration to
characterize the Mobilizatdon as being 'vloient' did dissuade other people
from participating in the Mobilization. Do you think this is true?

YES yes ? no NO

Do you think that the Mobilization was well organized?

YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that the police were well organized?

YES yes ? no N0

Do you think that the counterdemonstrators were well organized?

YES yes ? no N0

Did you see leaders present representing the Mobilization who did direct the
actions of the demonstrators?

yes, many times ___ yes, few times .___ uncertain no
Did you at any time become a leader for some type of action?

yes, many times yes, few times uncertain no

if you did act as a leader at any time, please specify the type of action:

 

 

 

 

#2,

25a

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

BI.

32.

page 3 Your code __ __ / /

Were you weilenough aware of the situation around you at the demonstration to
make a judgment about the proper course of action to be taken?

YES‘ yes ? no NO

if not, please describe:

 

‘Were you well enough prepared for the types of situations you were confronted with

 

 

 

 

. F
___YES ___yes _? ___no ___NO :

if not, please describe: .

. f

Did you suffer any injuries during the mobilization? ___'yes ___ no i

if yes, specify injury and circumstances:

a.

b. as

c.

 

Will you participate in activities (such as the Mobilization) scheduled
for December?

YES yes ? no NO

Do you think that this Mobilization was successful?

YES yes ? no NO

* — — * m

Specify why:

 

 

Do you think that there will be arrests at the next major anti-war
demonstration if it is held in Washington, D.C.?

yes, many yes, few s, funcertaln __ no

Do you think that there will be people injured by the police at the next
major anti-war demonstration if it is held in Washington, D.C.?

YES yes ? no NO

w a—— Inn—am— -———- m

Do you think that violence will be the result of the next major anti-war
demonstration if it is.heid in Washington, D.C.?

YES yes ? no N0

#2,

33.

3h.

35.

36.

37.

page A Your code __.__./ /

Which of the following places the greatest restriction on peeple's lives
(Place a ”l” to indicate greatest restriction, a ”2” with the next reatest
restriction, and so on throUgh “9” indicating the least restriction?

family ‘___ Federal government ___ defense industry
___ police ____schools one's friends
___.church . employers military obligation.

is your cOuntry as important, more important, or less important than you are?
less than me equal to me more than me
Do you usually try to keep your political beliefs to yourself?

YES yes ? no N0

_ I* m m in-

Do you feel that your presence at the Mobilization will have an effect on
what Nixon will do about the war?

YES yes 7 no N0

List ten or more things you did in Washington, D.C., this weekend --
things that you regard as particularly relevant and important to the issue
of peace.

1.

 

 

 

 

2
3
i.
5
6.
7
8
9
O

 

 

 

 

 

0 L

COMMENTS:

ill .
ll. 7 ill

WW 2 1 1977

iiiiiHilliliilillliilliliiiillllllilllll

 

293105398485