Examining the Weinberg and Walker Typology of Student Activists

Author(s): Clarence E. Tygart, Norman Holt and Kenneth Walker

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Mar., 1972), pp. 957-970
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776931
Accessed: 15-03-2016 17:31 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Examining the Weinberg and Walker Typology

of Student Activists'

Clarence E. Tygart

California State College at Fullerton

Norman Holt

California Department of Corrections

Data from a sample of UCLA students is reported concerning the

Weinberg and Walker (1969) contention of an absence of linkage

between student antiwar activism and national political party or-

ganizations and resultant conflict-expressive behavior of student

demonstration. The data indicate that demonstrators were much more

involved in conventional (institutionalized) party politics than non-

demonstrating respondents-namely, that they were more likely to

have done political party precinct work. Also, demonstrators were

more optimistic in their appraisal of demonstrations affecting the

Vietnam situation than the rest of the sample. The Weinberg and

Walker notion that student activism constitutes structurally isolated

and noninstrumental behavior seems not to be supported.

After reviewing the literature on student protest, Scott and El-Assal

(1969), suggested that this phenomenon had not received the scholarly

attention it warranted. The popular news media frequently define student

activism as a major "social problem." Despite the fact that activism pro-

gressively increased in frequency and degree of militancy during the

1960s, Scott and El-Assal were unable to find a single study of student

activism for 1950-67 in such leading journals as the American Sociologi-

cal Review, American Journal of Sociology, Social Problems, Sociometry,

and Social Forces. Of the relatively few available publications concerning

activism, only a minority were based on systematic empirical research.

Scott and El-Assal (1969, p. 702) wisely concluded that "in the absence

of such research, the nature of the protest movement is a matter largely

for speculation and opinions."

The dearth of empirical studies is matched by the inadequate theoreti-

cal contexts in which the studies are usually reported. Research of

student activism seldom has been analyzed within the general social pro-

test activism. Writings often include such propositions as: Is the move-

ment doomed to failure? or Is U.S. student activism but a passing fad?

1 The helpful editorial suggestions given by the anonymous referees and the manag-

ing editor of the Journal, Florence Levinsohn, are gratefully acknowledged. Melvin

Seeman read an earlier version of the paper.

AJS Volume 77 Number 5 957

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

Only by giving "theory" a very broad referrent can much of even the

best propositions qualify as theoretically derived.

A frequent "theoretical" concern in student activism research is family

background. The family socioeconomic status of student activists com-

pared with nonactivists has been investigated by Flacks (1967), Dunlap

(1970), Kahn and Bowers (1970), and Tygart and Holt (1971). Flacks

(1970) argues that student activists come from "humanist" families

which are characterized by romanticism and intellectualism.

Scott and El-Assal (1969) focused on structural components of the

university deriving their hypothesis largely from Kerr's (1965) ad hoc

"theory" of the causes of student activism. Kerr suggests that student

activism stems primarily from tensions generated by the "multiversity."

Accomplishment in research is given greater emphasis than is teaching in

the hiring, retention, and promotion of faculty. Students are left almost

entirely to themselves.

Some of the other "theories" advanced to explain student activism

represent a heterogeneous collection. Trent and Craise (1967), for in-

stance, discuss a greater proclivity to activism among those young people

who go to college. Keniston (1967) gives importance to family socializa-

tion in distinguishing two youth polar types, the alienated retreatist and

the political activist. Derber and Flacks (1967) describe student activism

as youth searching for an alternative to middle-class values.

Attempting to overcome the weaknesses of theoretical speculations,

Weinberg and Walker (1969) have suggested a rudimentary typology of

student activism. The authors appraised prevailing analysis as focusing

almost exclusively upon social-psychological characteristics of activists.

Also, they describe contemporary research as offering microsociological

rather than macrosociological findings. They attempted to construct a

typology of student activism which considered the structural links be-

tween student activism and the political system, a previously ignored

consideration.

THE WEINBERG AND WALKER TYPOLOGY OF STUDENT ACTIVISM

Weinberg and Walker posit that the major social factors which substan-

tially influence the forms of student politics are: (1) government control

over university structure and financing, and (2) the relationship of uni-

versity students to national political parties through the political career.

When both are present, competition among political party branches

should prevail. The absence of both links suggests politics dominated by

student government which has until recently been the case for the United

States. Weak linkage with political parties, but strong government control

of university finances, leads to strong national student unions. Under

958

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reexamining Student Activists

reverse conditions, political party branches and clubs should pervade

student politics.

The Weinberg and Walker suggestion of the importance of the extent

of government (federal, state, or local) control over university structure

and financing for student politics merits attention. Suppose that univer-

sity education were largely financed by governmental grants to individual

students or that each university were to give grants to most students.

Would student politics then concern itself with issues of money alloca-

tons while relegating such social concerns as war and racism to the back-

ground? Or would students become more concerned with broad social

issues if they believed that their stipends were dependent on larger social

issues?

Another provocative aspect of the Weinberg and Walker argument

concerns the impact of university student government on student politics.

If university student government were the effective governor of univer-

sity affairs, would student politics focus almost exclusively upon the

university government? For example, would hiring, firing, and promotion

of faculty as well as curriculum control be enough incentive to hold the

major interest of student politicos?

A most basic question is suggested by the speculations stimulated by

Weinberg and Walker. Which (if any) concessions gained by university

students would divert the student movement from one concern with

fundamental social problems agitating for large structural changes? The

student movement may parallel the labor movement in important aspects.

Labor unions today concentrate almost entirely upon making gains within

the existing structure and exert almost no force for social change (Tan-

nenbaum 1965). In its earlier phases, at least some sections of the labor

movement struggled for social change.

That part of Weinberg-Walker's typology pertaining to "political

careers"l is, however, less satisfactory than the portion concerning govern-

ment control of the university. They seem particularly vague in their

analysis of links between the student activism and the larger political

system. The following statements by the authors suggest that they per-

ceive almost no links between student activism and national political

parties (Weinberg and Walker 1969):

The degree and type of student political behavior will consequently be

greatly influenced by the linkages between the political system and the sub-

system of student politics and the system of higher education. [P. 80]

We initially came to this typology through an emphasis on the notion of the

political career. The political career is a system linkage mechanism and, we

consider, one of the most important. Yet it is extraordinary how much it

has been neglected. We came to it by our reading of Cloward and Ohlins

Delinquency and Opportunity (1960). To put their argument in simple

terms, they state that there are three kinds of delinquent subcultures: the

959

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

criminal, the conflict and the retreatist. The first involves an integration of

age levels and values between the adult and adolescent world, the visibility

of role models, and an available career within criminal organizations. The

links to organized crime are not available to members of conflict and

retreatist gangs. It is tempting to transpose their entire typology into the

concept of a student political career for its explanatory value. Thus the

professional student politician (as in England) finds an integration between

his world and that of adult politician, that is, a ladder of mobility. In the

United States this does not occur, so that student activists tend to be con-

flict oriented while the alienated are retreatists. [P. 82]

In American universities-any national crisis will cause this concentration

of a politically active minority, but, given the structure of the political sys-

tem, and its specific combination of attributes, their actual political be-

havior will tend toward the noninstitutionalized forms of protest. They may

resort to ideological abstraction and various forms of civil disobedience

from violence to nonviolence. The comparative elderliness of politicians in

the political system intensifies their generational hostility, and they look for

allies, not within the political system itself, but among the downtrodden

groups in society, which leads to a narodik orientation, or among similar

groups at other universities, which results in a quasi-Leninist form of

elitism. [Pp. 90-91]

In essence, the Weinberg and Walker thesis seems to take this form:

absence of structural linkage between student politics and national poli-

tical parties leads to "conflict" or to "extremist" student activism. Data

relevant to the Weinberg and Walker argument is taken from a sample

of UCLA students.

The issue of the protest (the Vietnam War) and the time of the

study (late spring of 1966) increase the centrality of these data. The

Vietnam war constituted not "just a campus issue," but a major political

issue of the United States in the 1960s. Student activism intersects with

general social protest. A broader perspective is, therefore, provided. The

year 1966 was a formative year for the antiwar movement, at least for

the Los Angeles area. Factors associated with early participants of the

movements may differ from those who became involved later.

DATA

Sample.-rEvery eighth male selected from the student directory was

mailed a questionnaire. Of the 1,593 students in the sample, 65% or

1,050 returned questionnaires in usable form. The academic majors of

our respondents corresponded closely with the male student body. All

majors were represented to within 1% of their proportion of the UCLA

male student body. Regarding their academic choices, then, the respon-

dents appeared to adequately represent UCLA male students.

Measurement of antiwar sympathy and activism.-Respondents were

asked to indicate the degree of sympathy as well as participation in the

960

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reexamining Student Activists

campus antiwar movement. The sympathy item gave respondents five

categories concerning their attitudes toward the movement, ranging from

"very positive'' to "very negative." Donating money and demonstrating

were used to indicate participation.

Donating money appears to represent a lesser degree of involvement

than demonstrating. Twenty-six of the 32 demonstrators (81%) had also

given money. However, only 31 % of the financial contributors had de-

monstrated. In the spring of 1966 when the data was collected, only 32%

of the sample had positive feelings toward the movement. Of those who

had positive feelings, 7% had demonstrated and 21%o had given money

only; their respective proportions of the entire sample were about 3 o

and 9%o.

Findings.-Precinct work can operationalize the linkage between stu-

dent activism and national political parties. The Weinberg and Walker

contention of little linkage between student protest and national political

parties suggests that students participating in campus protest activities

would have less experience working with a national political party than

nonparticipants. At least on the interpersonal level, the Weinberg and

Walker contention of a lack of structural linkage between national

political organizations and college campuses in the United States prob-

ably needs refinement from the standpoint of our data. Of the total

sample, only 23%o had precinct work experience. However, table 1 shows,

TABLE 1

ANTIWAR INVOLVEMENT AND PRECINCT WORK EXPERIENCE

Precinct Work No Precinct

Experience Work ToaN

Antiwar Involvement (EeW) Total N

Demonstration participant .56 44 ( 32)

Only given money to antiwar movement 31 69 ( 58)

"Very positive" toward movement .32 68 ( 92)

"Somewhat positive" toward movement 23 77 (159)

"Indifferent" or "negative" toward movement .. 19 81 (699)

NOTE.-The most powerful significance test for these data is the two-sample difference of proportions.

Demonstrators are treated as one sample and nondemonstrators as the other sample. The standard

deviation of the sampling distribution is .076, making a Z-score of 4.3. The significance level is

beyond .001 for both one- and two-tail tests.

contrary to Weinberg and Walker expectations, that 56% of the demon-

strators had worked in precincts. The percentages of precinct experience

decreased with movement involvement and sympathy. Of those unsym-

pathetic to the movement, only 19% had worked in a political party

precinct.

While the questionnaires did not ascertain the time relationship be-

tween precinct work and movement involvement, the timing of the study

961

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

(1966) is suggestive. The questionnaires were all returned in the late

spring following demonstrations which occurred in the previous winter

and early spring. Since these were the first major antiwar demonstrations

in the area, most of the precinct work probably occurred in the general

election 18 months earlier. We might speculate that this is a picture of

student precinct workers turning to demonstrations rather than the other

way around.

Impressionistically, we question whether there is little linkage between

university student political activism and national political organization.

This holds strongly for California. We have seen student political

activists who belonged to the campus Young Democrats, as well as more

"radical" organizations. Not infrequently, the campus Young Democrats

will endorse and/or sponsor demonstrations.

Although we are unable to offer any systematic data, we suspect that

the following claim by Weinberg and Walker is inaccurate (1969, p. 85):

"Members of student government probably do not maintain informal or

even formal social contact with ideological groups, who often regard them

as having been co-opted by the administration." We are especially skep-

tical for universities where activism frequently occurs. Activists run for

student offices and sometimes are elected. Even if student government

officers do not want contacts with "ideological groups," periods of student

activism might bring about such contacts.

As with their discussion of structural linkage, we disagree with the

Weinberg and Walker analysis of university student activism as being

primarily conflict or expressive behavior in the Cloward and Ohlin

(1960) context. Student demonstrations can be viewed as analogous to

violence in the conflict delinquency subculture theory. Manipulation of

violence becomes a means of acquiring status or is valued for its own

sake in the subculture.

The notion that demonstrations constitute expressive, noninstrumental

behavior has occupied an influential position in much of collective be-

havior theory. Smelser (1962), a leading collective-behavior theorist to

whom Weinberg and Walker refer, often has been interpreted as em-

phasizing the expressive, noninstrumental aspects of collective behavior.

Smelser (1970) has recently denied this characterization of his theory.

The concept of "instrumental" or "conflict-expressive" behavior of

demonstrators is difficult to operationalize. Instrumentality might be

conceived as closely akin to goal-oriented behavior. But how can the

effectiveness of demonstrations be demonstrated? Their effectiveness can

hardly be determined during the demonstration. Afterward, presumably,

"experts" attempt to assess the instrumentality of the demonstration on

the basis of what they assume to be objective data. But the measure of

962

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reexamining Student Activists

instrumentality must be based on demonstrator's attitudes-namely, do

they believe the demonstrations helped accomplish their objectives?

Although the present state of research does not enable many definitive

answers, we suspect that Skolnick's (1969) observations on student

social protest are more accurate than those of Weinberg and Walker. Skol-

nick maintains that demonstrators view social protest as primarily instru-

mental activity rather than conflict for its own sake. In interviewing

leftist student political activists, Skolnick found that activists did have

objectives which they hoped their "confrontations" would accomplish.

Activists, he states, usually see confrontations as a means to bring issues

before the public and to prod them into a position on issues.

Our data contained an item somewhat analogous to Skolnick's inter-

views of student activists. Respondents were asked to list possible tactics

for the antiwar movements. The "public demonstration" response espe-

cially seems to pertain to the question of instrumental or noninstrumental

behavior of demonstrators. Participating in an antiwar demonstration

because one believes that demonstrations are effective tactics could

scarcely be adjudged "noninstrumental." Demonstrators who had done

precinct work unanimously listed "public demonstrations" as a possible

tactic; 84% of demonstrators with precinct experience indicated public

demonstrations first or as the only tactic. Table 2 shows that demonstra-

tions and precinct experience are associated with a greater reliance by

respondents upon public demonstrations as an antiwar tactic. A case

might be made for the "noninstrumentality" of demonstrations if they

believed that there were no possible tactics for the antiwar movement.

However, none of the activists stated that "nothing could be done,"

while 8% of the nonactivist sympathizers took such a position.

Of 32%o of our respondents who felt "positive toward the antiwar

movement," 31%o listed more than one possible tactic. In addition to

"public demonstrations," other suggestions included "influence others

personally," "express opinions publicly," and "become informed." These

activities are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A person demonstrating

might be attempting to influence others personally or believe that he is

expressing his opinion publicly.

Time priority is important. Do demonstrators first conclude that dem-

onstrations are effective tactics before, during, or after demonstrating?

As is usually the case with survey research, it is impossible to firmly

establish time priority. However, these data were collected while the first

wave of antiwar demonstrations at UCLA were in progress. It is reason-

able to assume, then, that the demonstrators selected this tactic either

before or during the period of demonstration and not afterward.

Skolnick suggests that when a social protest technique is first widely

963

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

TABLE 2

POSSIBLE TACTICS FOR THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT SUGGESTED BY

ANTIWAR ACTIVISTS AND SYMPATHIZERS

Nonactivists Nonactivists

Demonstrators "Very "Somewhat

Possible Demonstrators without Financial Positive" Positive"

Tactics with Precinct Precinct Contributors toward toward

Listed Experience Experience Only Movement Alovement

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Listed only "public

demonstration" ...... 56 36 12 8 7

Listed "public demon-

stration" first ..... 28 7 5 ... ...

Listed "public demon-

stration" second .... 16 28 14 24 16

"Express opinion

publicly" ............ 36 43 19 3 12

"Influence others

personally" ........ 28 21 52 38 21

"Become informed ... ... ... ... 16 23

"Others" .............. ... ... 10 11 14

"Nothing" ............. ... 2 7 8

Total N ........... (18) (14) (57) (92) (159)

NOTE.-Total percent other than "100" because of more than one tactic listed by 31% of re-

spondents.

used, it is usually labeled as "violent" and "noninstrumental" by a large

segment of the general population. After the technique has been widely

used over a period of time, it becomes institutionalized. For example,

labor strikes, once so widely denounced, are now considered as instru-

mental, legitimate, and "nonviolent" behavior by most of the general

population. While some sociologists and general public questioned the

instrumentality of emergent student demonstrations in the 1 960s, the

issue may not be raised in the 1970s. Demonstrations are probably be-

coming as standard a political tactic in the United States as they have

been in other countries for decades.

As previously quoted, Weinberg and Walker view student activism as

analogous to the Cloward and Ohlin (1960) typology of delinquent be-

havior, and say: "It is tempting to transpose the entire [Cloward and

Ohlin] typology into the concept of a student political career for its

explanatory value." Weinberg and Walker probably would have achieved

greater benefit from the Cloward and Ohlin typology if they had con-

sidered the Merton (1968, pp. 185-248) classification of "deviant" be-

havior, from which Cloward and Ohlin derived their typology. The Merton

scheme also included the "innovative means" category, which Cloward

and Ohlin did not include.

964

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reexamining Student Activists

Our data suggest that early antiwar demonstrators were innovators

concerning the means by which they were attempting to influence U.S.

Vietnam policies. We speculate that through their work in Democratic

party precincts, demonstrators were among the first to conclude that the

conventional technique of precinct work was ineffectual in changing the

Vietnam situation. Consequently, the precinct workers perceived that

less conventional means were needed to change the Vietnam situation-

that is, demonstrations.

CONCLUSION

Demonstrators in the early phase of the UCLA campus antiwar move-

ment were much more likely to have worked in Democratic party precinct

activities than respondents generally. A substantial portion (23 %0) of

the entire sample had political party precinct experience. Additionally,

demonstrators were more optimistic in their appraisal of demonstrations

affecting the Vietnam situation than the rest of the sample.

The Weinberg and Walker assertion of a lack of linkage between stu-

dent activism and national political parties with a resultant expressive

or noninstrumental student political behavior probably is not supported

on the interpersonal level. However, these data might not constitute an

adequate test since the typology is not formalized. Of greater importance

than whether the data support the present typology is the added facility

which the typology affords for reporting the data which were presented.

Studies of university student activism gain sociological relevance when

advanced within the context of why individuals participate in social

movements. The Weinberg and Walker typology makes a contribution

because issues are raised which succinctly pertain to why individuals

participate in social movements.

REFERENCES

Cloward, Richard A., and Lloyd E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A

Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press.

Derber, Charles, and Richard Flacks. 1967. "An Exploration of the Value System of

Radical Student Activists and Their Parents." Paper read at the annual meeting

of the American Sociological Association at San Francisco, California.

Dunlap, Riley. 1970. "Radical and Conservative Student Activists: A Comparison

of Family Backgrounds." Pacific Sociological Review 13 (Summer): 171-81.

Flacks, Richard. 1967. "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of

Student Protest." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July): 52-75.

. 1970. "Who Protests: The Social Basis of the Student Movement." In

Protest! Student Activism in America, edited by Julian Foster and Durwood Long.

New York: Morrow.

Kahn, Roger M., and William J. Bowers. 1970. "The Social Context of Rank and

File Student Activism: A Test of Four Hypotheses." Sociology of Education 43

(Winter): 38-55.

965

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

Keniston, Kenneth. 1967. "The Sources of Student Dissent." Journal of Social Issues

23 (July): 108-37.

Kerr, Clark. 1965. "Selections From the Uses of the University." In The Berkeley

Student Revolt, edited by S. M. Lipset and S. S. Wolin. New York: Doubleday.

. 1968. Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth. New York: Harcourt,

Brace & World.

Merton, Robert N. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Scott, Joseph W., and Mohamed El-Assal. 1969. "Multiversity, University Size,

University Quality and Student Protest: An Empirical Study." American Socio-

logical Review 34 (October): 702-9.

Skolnick, Jerome. 1969. The Politics of Protest. New York: Ballantine Books.

Smelser, Neil. 1962. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press.

. 1970. "Two Critics in Search of a Bias: A Response to Currie and Skol-

nick." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 391

(September): 46-55.

Tannenbaum, Arnold S. 1965. "Unions." In Handbook of Organizations, edited by

James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Trent, James W., and Judith Craise. 1967. "Commitment and Conformity in the

American College." Journal of Social Issues 23 (July): 34-51.

Tygart, Clarence E., and Norman Holt. 1971. "A Research Note on Student Leftist

Political Activism and Family Socioeconomic Status." Pacific Sociological Review

(January): 121-28.

Weinberg, Ian, and Kenneth Walker. 1969. "Student Politics and Political Systems:

Toward a Typology." American Journal of Sociology 75 (July): 77-96.

THE AUTHOR REPLIES

To begin, it is necessary to point out an important misinterpretation by

Tygart and Holt of our paper. They state that our effort was "to construct

a typology of student activism which considered the structural links be-

tween student activism and the political system." Our concern, rather,

was to present a typology of "the major determinants of the forms of

institutionalized student politics and their outcomes for the predominant

and persisting forms within national political educational systems" (Wein-

berg and Walker 1969, p. 83, italics in original). "Activism," as we used

the term, referred to what we called "noninstitutionalized politics," and it

was our concern to suggest the relationship between institutionalized forms

of student politics, such as the national student union, and "noninstitu-

tionalized" forms of student politics, such as the demonstration or sit-in.

Tygart and Holt's paper is concerned, in part, with questioning what is in

fact a subsidiary aspect of our paper, the major purpose of which was to

account for the occurrence of major forms of student political organization.

The scope of their paper is further restricted to one of the four empirical

examples upon which our typology was based, student politics in the

United States. Their data, although limited to one university and one period

of time, appear to refute our contention, as they state it, "of little linkage

between student protest and national political parties [which] suggests

that students participating in campus protest activities would have less

966

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reexamining Student Activists

experience working with a national political party than nonparticipants."

In fact their data show that student involvement in precinct work with a

national political party is positively correlated with participation in anti-

Vietnam war demonstrations. While their inference from our model is justi-

fiable, it is essential here to reassert our concern with the political career,

as clearly stated in one section of our paper from which they quoted: "Thus

the professional student politician (as in England) finds an integration

between his world and that of the adult politician, that is, a ladder of

mobility. In the United States this does not occur, -so that student activists

tend to be conflict oriented while the alienated are retreatists" (Weinberg

and Walker 1969, p. 82). And to reemphasize our concern with explain-

ing institutionalized forms of student politics, let me quote from a passage

preceding the above: "Where parties are relatively decentralized and

loosely organized, the structural conditions for sponsored mobility within

universities are weak. Thus, political clubs or party branches as recruiting

centers are likely to be absent or poorly developed" (Weinberg and Walker

1969, p. 82, italics supplied). Nowhere in their paper do the authors refute

our central assertion that in the United States there is not likely to be a

linkage between established political parties and student politics by means

of sponsored mobility for adult political careers. The authors do assert

that "we have seen student political activists who belonged to the campus

Young Democrats as well as more 'radical' organizations," but neither here

nor in their questionnaire results do they find that this observed linkage has

anything to do with aspiration for political careers in our terms, that is,

primarily careers as elected representatives to a local, state, or national

legislature. However, their data suggest that there are significant linkages

between the national political party and student political activists other

than that of recruitment to an adult political career. This finding may

reveal an overemphasis in our paper on the relevance of the political career.

But Tygart and Holt's findings, and more important, Jerome Skolnick's

The Politics of Protest (1969), cited by Tygart and Holt in criticism of

our model, suggest the need for a reinterpretation of our model of student

politics in the United States and of Tygart and Holt's analysis of their

data. Skolnick presents a brief history of the American student movement

during the 1960s. In "phase one" of this history, "the student movement

embodied concern, dissent, and protest about various social issues, but it

generally accepted the legitimacy of the American political community in

general and especially of the university" (p. 99). "In phase two of the

student movement, a considerable number of young people, particularly

the activist core, experienced a progressive deterioration in their acceptance

of national and university authority" (p. 100). Our paper focused upon

the second phase of the movement's history, after the "delegitimation" of

national and university authority had become widespread among student

967

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

activists. In other words, we took as our image of noninstitutionalized

student politics a specific historical stage in the development of that move-

ment, and tended to ignore the earlier period in which student activists

were more likely to work within the limits of the established, institutional-

ized political system.

Tygart and Holt's data may provide evidence for this transition within

the movement, in that the involvement of student demonstrators in political

party precinct work refers to the general election of 1964, during which stu-

dent activists supported Lyndon Johnson in opposition to Barry Goldwater

for president. (Most of the precinct workers among their demonstrators

were Democrats, as they indicate.) The protests against the war to which

their data refer took place in 1966, when student activists had become

aware that Johnson did not intend to terminate the war, and reflect the

beginning of the delegitimation process to which Skolnick refers. This se-

quence puts a somewhat different light on Tygart and Holt's findings than

they do, suggesting that their demonstrators would be less likely to do

precinct work in the future and might be more likely to engage in tactics

involving direct and occasionally violent confrontation with government

authority in the future. In other words, Tygart and Holt's data, while

appearing to reveal a "structural linkage between student protest and

national political parties," may be more correctly interpreted as revealing

the dissolution of that linkage as the movement passed from Skolnick's

phase one to phase two. (This linkage was revived temporarily in the

support of some student activists for Eugene McCarthy's campaign for the

Democratic presidential nomination in 1968.) Tygart and Holt do imply

such an interpretation in their final paragraph, however.

Tygart and Holt found our focus upon governmental control over univer-

sity structure and financing a more satisfactory explanatory variable than

that of the political career linkage between student and national politics.

However, Skolnick's survey of the student movement suggests the impor-

tance of another variable to which we alluded but which we did not discuss,

in its consequences for the development of student "class consciousness" and

for the forms which student political organization are likely to take: the

autonomy of universities in their degree of freedom from political inter-

ference. Through their opposition to the Vietnam war, students became

aware of the role of some universities in providing a base and personnel

for research directly sponsored and financed by the military establishment.

The university came to be seen by some student radicals as "an institution

whose primary functions were directly opposed to the needs, interests, and

values of activist and intellectual students" (Skolnick 1969, p. 102). This

change in the definition of the university came about through direct con-

frontation with university and government authority, revealing the hereto-

fore relatively hidden links between university and government. This pro-

968

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reexamining Student Activists

vided a basis for the SDS-sponsored movement toward "student syndical-

ism," as Skolnick points out, "a term borrowed from the European student

movement and its tradition of organizing students along trade unionist

lines" (1969, p. 97). He states that this move was directed to "an effort

to increase the 'class-consciousness' of students" (1969, p. 97). Thus, while

the structural relationship in the United States is not that of direct govern-

ment control over university structure and financing, the growing links

between government and university, such as complicity in war research

and support of procedures for facilitating the draft, led to the growth of

student class consciousness and to the development of growing demands

for student power. This has not led to the development of a strong national

student union (indeed the U.S. National Student Association was dis-

covered to have been a front for the CIA) but rather to the greater concern

among student activists for campus affairs, to a demand for greater student

participation in university government, and to the successful candidacy of

some student radicals for student government office, as Tygart and Holt

note. Thus I would conclude that we were essentially correct about the

relevance of student awareness of structural linkages between government

and university for the growth of student class consciousness, but we did not

consider alternative forms of this linkage.

Tygart and Holt criticize our discussion of the American case on two

grounds. The first has been discussed above, regarding the linkage between

student politics and national political parties. The second is the following:

"As with their discussion of structural linkage, we disagree with the Wein-

berg and Walker analysis of university student activism as being primarily

conflict or expressive behavior in the Cloward and Ohlin . . . context.

Student demonstrations can be viewed as analogous to violence in the con-

flict delinquency subculture theory. Manipulation of violence becomes a

means of acquiring status or is valued for its own sake in the subculture."

While it is true that we found the Cloward-Ohlin model suggestive for our

own model with respect to the presence or absence of adult models for

criminal careers, analogous to political careers, I believe it to be a misinter-

pretation to contend that we characterized student activism as "expressive

behavior," or that we asserted that "manipulation of violence becomes a

means of acquiring status or is valued for its own sake" on the part of stu-

dent activists. In fact I do not find the use of the term "expressive" any-

where in our paper. We did, however, use the term "extremism," as in the

following, referring to noninstitutionalized politics in the United States:

"In short, they are caught in the inevitable push toward extremism because

they are not constrained by the limits of the political system, due to the

absence of links to political careers and the high degree of freedom that the

political system allows to students" (Weinberg and Walker 1969, p. 91).

Whether or not it is correct that a major constraint upon the tendency

969

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American Journal of Sociology

for student politics to move toward extremism is the link of political

careers to student politics, the movement of student politics in the United

States toward tactics which are themselves violent or which are likely to

incur violence from the police or other armed agents of the government

seems well substantiated. We did not assert that such "extremism" or

violence, to be more explicit, is merely "expressive," although we did imply

that it may be less effective than working within the political system, as

in the following passage: "When they become linked to national crises,

such as the problems of Negroes or the war in Vietnam, and work with

their generational elders within the political system, the progression

toward extremism is halted, and their impact on the political system can

be considerable" (Weinberg and Walker 1969, p. 91).

We are perhaps vulnerable to Tygart and Holt's interpretation by stating

that "it is tempting to transpose [Cloward and Ohlin's] entire typology into

the concept of a student political career for its explanatory value" (Wein-

berg and Walker 1969, p. 82), but we did not fully succumb to this temp-

tation. There are obvious differences between delinquent and political

subcultures of which we were fully aware. Our intent was to utilize the sug-

gestive functional analogy between the presence or absence of adult polit-

ical or criminal role models and modes of access to these careers, insofar

as this helps to account for the different forms of student political organi-

zation. Whereas Tygart and Holt expend considerable space in discussing

Skolnick's finding that "demonstrators view social protest as primarily in-

strumental activity instead of conflict for its own sake," and support this

with their own data, our interpretation is not at odds with these findings.

We did not assert that protest or confrontation politics are not perceived

as instrumental or goal-oriented behavior by student activists. To reiterate,

we simply argued that in the absence of a close link between student politics

and institutionalized political parties, there would be a greater tendency

for political conflict to move toward "extremist" forms, because of the

absence of the restraints upon activists provided by anticipatory socializa-

tion for political careers within the established political system.

KENNETH WALKER

University of Toronto

REFERENCES

Skolnick, Jerome. 1969. The Politics of Protest. New York: Ballantine.

Weinberg, Ian, and Kenneth N. Walker. 1969. "Student Politics and Political Sys-

tems: Toward a Typology." American Journal of Sociology 75:77-96.

970

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:31:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions