Matching Items (2)
Description
Despite the societal importance of activism, the understanding of activist intentions remained limited (Liebert, Leve, & Hu, 2011; Klar & Kasser, 2009). The current study used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine two structural models of low-risk activist intentions and high-risk activist intentions (Ajzen, 1991). The traditional TPB model was tested against a hybrid commitment model that also assessed past activist behaviors and activist identity. Participants (N = 383) were recruited through social media, professional list-serves, and word of mouth. Results indicated a good model fit for both the traditional TPB model (CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .03; χ2(120) = 3760.62, p < .01) and the commitment model (CFI = .97; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .04; χ2(325) = 7848.07, p < .01). The commitment model accounted for notably more variance in both low-risk activist intentions (78.9% in comparison to 26.5% for the traditional TPB model) and high-risk activist intentions (58.9% in comparison to 11.2% for the traditional TPB model). Despite this, the traditional TPB model was deemed the better model as the higher variance explained in the commitment model was almost entirely due to the inclusion of past low-risk activist behaviors and past high-risk activist behaviors. A post-hoc analysis that incorporated sexual orientation and religious affiliation as covariates into the traditional model also led to a good-fitting model (CFI = .98; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04; χ2(127) = 217.18, p < .01) and accounted for increased variance in low-risk activist intentions (29.7%) and high-risk activist intentions (18.7%) compared to the traditional model. The merits of each of the structural models and the practical implications for practice and research were discussed
ContributorsJew, Gilbert (Author) / Tran, Alisia (Thesis advisor) / Tracey, Terence (Committee member) / Capielo Rosario, Cristalís (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
This dissertation examines the history of multiracial alliances among internationalist radical activists in the San Francisco Bay Area from the late 1960s through the 1970s. Using the approaches of social movement history and intellectual history, I critically assess the ideological motivations radicals held for building alliances and the difficulties they encountered with their subsequent coalitional work in four areas of coalescence—the antiwar movement, political prisoner solidarity, higher education, and electoral politics. Radical activists sought to dismantle the systemic racism (as well as economic exploitation, patriarchy, and the intersections of these oppressions) that structured U.S. society, through the creation of broad-based movements with likeminded organizations. The activists in this study also held an orientation toward internationalist solidarity, linking the structural oppressions against which they struggled in the United States to the Vietnam War and other U.S. militaristic interventions overseas and viewing these entanglements as interconnected forces that exploited the masses around the world.
Scholarly and popular interpretations of Sixties radical movements have traditionally characterized them as narrowly-focused and divisive. In contrast, my research highlights the persistent desire among Bay Area radicals to form alliances across these decades, which I argue demonstrates the importance of collaborative organizing within these activist networks. Scholarship on coalitional politics also tends to emphasize “unlikely alliances” between “strange bedfellows.” In contrast, this project illuminates how sharing similar ideological principles predisposed these radical organizations to creating alliances with others. Coalitions remain integral to contemporary social and political movements, and excavating the possibilities but also problems within previous broad-based organizing efforts provides a usable history for understanding and confronting societal issues in the present day. At the same time, the multifarious manifestations of racism and other systems of inequality demonstrate the need to first understand how these oppressions affect minority groups uniquely, before we can understand how they affect groups in comparison to each other.
Scholarly and popular interpretations of Sixties radical movements have traditionally characterized them as narrowly-focused and divisive. In contrast, my research highlights the persistent desire among Bay Area radicals to form alliances across these decades, which I argue demonstrates the importance of collaborative organizing within these activist networks. Scholarship on coalitional politics also tends to emphasize “unlikely alliances” between “strange bedfellows.” In contrast, this project illuminates how sharing similar ideological principles predisposed these radical organizations to creating alliances with others. Coalitions remain integral to contemporary social and political movements, and excavating the possibilities but also problems within previous broad-based organizing efforts provides a usable history for understanding and confronting societal issues in the present day. At the same time, the multifarious manifestations of racism and other systems of inequality demonstrate the need to first understand how these oppressions affect minority groups uniquely, before we can understand how they affect groups in comparison to each other.
ContributorsBae, Aaron Byungjoo (Author) / Garcia, Matthew (Thesis advisor) / Leong, Karen J. (Committee member) / Delmont, Matthew (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016