ENCOUNTERS WITH UNJUST AUTHORITY Bruce Fireman, William A. Gamson, Steve Rytina, and Bruce Taylor University of Michigan January 1977 .................................... CRSO Working Paper /I167 Copies available through: Center for Research on Social Organization University of Michigan 330 Packard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 -. . Final Working Copy Encounters with Unjust Authority by Bruce Fireman, William A. Gamson. Steve Rytina, and Bruce Taylor* Center For Research on Social Organization University of Michigan January, 1978 (Chapter to appear in Louis Kriesberg, ed., Research in Social Movements, Conflicts, and Change, Vol. 11, JAI Press.) *Authors listed alphabetically Encounters w i t h Unjust A u t h o r i t y Management speed-ups followed by spontaneous worker sitdowns were becoming widespread i n s e v e r a l i n d u s t r i e s by t h e mid-1930s. company, management suddenly c u t t h e number of "bow-men" t h e a n g l e i r o n s a c r o s s c a r r o o f s ) from f o u r t o three.' . I n one ( t h o s e who welded The remaining t h r e e bow-men were non-union men, two b r o t h e r s named P e r k i n s and an I t a l i a n named Joe.Urban. ing. Confronting t h e f a i t accompli, t h e y simply stopped work- "The foreman and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t rushed over and t r i e d t o t a l k them i n t o going back t o work, b u t t h e men j u s t s a t t h e r e a r g u i n g u n t i l 20 unf i n i s h e d j o b s had passed on t h e p r o d u c t i o n l i n e . The whole Department f o l - lowed t h e argument w i t h i n t e n s e excitement" (Brecher , p. 234). The t h r e e men f i n a l l y a g r e e d t o resume work pending f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i s s u e , b u t when t h e y r e p o r t e d t o work t h e n e x t d a y , t h e y were given f i r i n g s l i p s . They showed t h e s e s l i p s t o a union a c t i v i s t i n t h e shop named Bud Simons, who r e a c t e d by running " t h r o u g h t h e main welding and s o l d e r i n g department y e l l i n g , "The P e r k i n s boys were f i r e d ! Nobody s t a r t s working !" Kraus (1947) d e s c r i b e s t h e ensuing e v e n t s i n u s e f u l d e t a i l : The w h i s t l e blew. Every man i n t h e Department s t o o d a t h i s s t a t i o n , a deep, s i g n i f i c a n t t e n s e n e s s i n him. The foreman pushed t h e b u t t o n and t h e s k e l e t o n b o d i e s , a l r e a d y p a r t l y assembled when t h e y g o t t o t h i s p o i n t , began t o rumble forward. ed a hand. But no one l i f t - All. e y e s were turned t o Simons who stood o u t i n t h e --. a i s l e by h i m s e l f . The b o s s e s r a n a b o u t l i k e mad. "Whatsarnatter? Whatsamatter? Get t o work!" t h e y shouted. But t h e men a c t e d a s though t h e y never heard them. One o r two of them c o u l d n ' t s t a n d t h e t e n s i o n . .HabZt was deep i n them, and i t was l i k e p h y s i c a l agony f o r them t o s e e t h e b o d i e s p a s s untouched. "Rat! Rat!" They grabbed t h e i r t o o l s and chased a f t e r them. t h e men growled w i t h o u t moving and t h e o t h e r s came t o t h e i r senses. The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t stopped by t h e "bow-men" "You're t o blame f o r t h i s ! " . he snarled. "So what i f w e a r e ? " l i t t l e J o e Urban, t h e I t a l i a n c r i e d , overflowing w i t h pride. "You a i n ' t running your l i n e , a r e you?" .That was a l t o g e t h e r t o o much. The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t grabbed J o e and s t a r t e d f o r t h e o f f i c e w i t h him. The two went down t h e e n t i r e l i n e , w h i l e t h e men stood r i g i d a s though a w a i t i n g t h e word of command .... a t t h e end of t h e l i n e . Simons, a t o r c h - s o l d e r e r , was almost H e t o o was momentarily h e l d i n v i s e by t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s o v e r t a c t of a u t h o r i t y . The l a t t e r had dragged J o e Urban p a s t him when h e f i n a l l y found t h e p r e s e n c e of mind t o c a l l o u t : "Hey, T e e f e e , where you going?" I t was spoken i n j u s t a n o r d i n a r y c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t o n e , and t h e o t h e r w a s t a k e n s o aback h e answered t h e r e a l l y i m p e r t i n e n t question. "I'm t a k i n g him t o t h e o f f i c e t o have a l i t t l e t a l k w i t h him." Then suddenly h e r e a l i z e d and g o t mad. "Say, I t h i n k I ' l l t a k e you a l o n g too!" That was h i s mistake. I1 No you wont!" "Oh y e s I w i l l ! " Simons s a i d calmly. and h e took h o l d of h i s s h i r t . Simons yanked himself l o o s e . And suddenly, a t t h i s s i m p l e a c t of i n s u r g e n c e , T e e f e e H e seemed t o become a c u t e l y c o n s c i o u s of r e a l i z e d h i s danger. t h e l o n g s i l e n t men strength. and f e l t t h e t h r e a t of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l They had been t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o something h e had n e v e r known b e f o r e and over which h e no. l o n g e r had any command. He l e t l o o s e of Simons and s t a r t e d o f f a g a i n w i t h J o e Urban, h a s t e n i n g h i s pace. II Simons y e l l e d : Come on, f e l l o w s , d o n ' t l e t t h e m f i r e l i t t l e Joe!" About a dozen boys s h o t o u t o f l i n e and s t a r t e d a f t e r Teefee. The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t dropped J o e l i k e a h o t poker and d e e r - f o o t e d i t f o r t h e door. T h i s encounter l e d .immediately t o a n e g o t i a t i o n between a shop comm i t t e e l e d by Simons and t h e p l a n t manager. The Committee i n s i s t e d t h a t t h e . P e r k i n s boys b e r e h i r e d immediately and b e brought back .on t h e l i n e bef o r e t h e y would resume work. They won t h i s demand, even though t h e P e r k i n s boys had a l r e a d y l e f t f o r home and t o o k s e v e r a l h o u r s t o l o c a t e . Brecher (1972, p. 238) comments t h a t "Largely i n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s v i c t o r y , United Auto Workers' membership i n F l i n t i n c r e a s e d from 150 t o 1 , 5 0 0 w i t h i n two weeks. I' I n 1964, t h r e e .decades l a t e r , s t u d e n t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a ' s Berkeley campus g a t h e r e d f o r a r a l l y i n f r o n t of t h e campus administ r a t i o n building, Sproul Hall. I t was a n e a r l y s t a g e i n t h e emerging Berkeley F r e e Speech Movement. E i g h t s t u d e n t s had been suspended on t h e p r e v i o u s day f o r d e l i b e r a t e l y v i o l a t i n g a U n i v e r s i t y ban a g a i n s t p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y on campus grounds. e n c o u n t e r t h a t day. 0 H e i r i c h (1971) g i v e s a d . e t a i l e d account of t h e About an hour and a h a l f b e f o r e t h e r a l l y was.scheduled t o begin, a campus c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i v i s t named J a c k Weinberg s e t up a p o l i t i c a l t a b l e i n t h e f o r b i d d e n a r e a i n f r o n t of S p r o u l H a l l . He was s h o r t l y c o n f r o n t e d by t h e U n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n t h e person of Dean Murphy. The media w a s on hand, and H e i r i c h managed t o . r e c o n s t r u c t much of t h e f o l l o w i n g conv e r s a t i o n from r a d i o s t a t i o n KPFA t a p e : Murphy: Are you prepared t o remove y o u r s e l f , and t h e t a b l e , from u n i v e r s i t y p r o p e r t y ? " Weinberg ( v e r y q u i e t l y ) : "I 'm n o t p r e p a r e d . " Murphy:"Areyou aware t h a t by n o t d o i n g s o you a r e sub- j e c t i n g yourself t o probable d i s c i p l i n a r y action?" Weinberg ( s t i l l more q u i e t l y ) : "I--uh--I 'm aware t h a t y o u ' r e going t o do what y o u ' l l t r y t o do." Murphy: " A l l r i g h t . Weinberg : "No. W i l l you--uh--identify yourself?" " Murphy ( i n a dead-pan v o i c e , almost as i f h e were reading a s c r i p t i n s t e a d of t a l k i n g t o a p a r t i c u l a r person) : "I must inform you i f you a r e a s t u d e n t you a r e v i o l a t i n g univ e r s i t y r e g u l a t i o n s and i f you a r e a non-student l a t i n g t h e t r e s p a s s law. you a r e v i o - W i l l you i d e n t i f y y o u r s e l f ? " Weinberg (even more q u i e t l y ) : "NO, I w i l l n o t .If Murphy: "You l e a v e me no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o a s k Lfeut e n a n t Chandler t o a r r e s t you. L i e u t e n a n t Chandler, would you p l e a s e a r r e s t him." Chandler: "You come w i t h me, t h e n , p l e a s e . " Voices : "Take t h e i r - p l a c e ! I t Weinberg, f o l l o w i n g c l a s s i c c i v i l r i g h t s t a c t i c s , d i d n o t e i t h e r assist o r resist t h e arrest, r e q u i r i n g t h a t s e v e r a l o f f i c e r s c a r r y him t o a nearby p o l i c e c a r . The p o l i c e . w e r e c a r e f u l t o a v o i d p r o v o c a t i v e rough- n e s s i n making t h e a r r e s t i n f r o n t of t h e now s i z e a b l e crowd of s t u d e n t s a t t r a c t e d t o t h e scene. Within a minute about t h i r t y s t u d e n t s had s e a t e d themselves i n f r o n t and i n back of t h e p o l i c e c a r c o n t a i n i n g Weinberg and t h e a r r e s t i n g p o l i c e officers. I n a n o t h e r b r i e f moment, t h e r e were more t h a n a hundred s t u d e n t s s i t t i n g on t h e ground around t h e p o l i c e c a r , e f f e c t i v e l y ,immobilizing i t , and t h e i r numbers continued t o grow. I n H e i r i c h ' s c a r e f u l a c c o u n t , "a number of p e r s o n s c l a i m t o have been t h e f i r s t t o s i t down around t h e c a r . ' ' He d e s c r i b e s t h e account of Richard Roman, a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t i n s o c i o l o g y , a s t y p i c a l of a p r o c e s s t h a t many r e p o r t e d g o i n g through a s t h e y made t h e sudden d e c i s i o n t o d e f y authority. Roman r e p o r t s himself a s s y m p a t h e t i c t o t h e s t u d e n t s b u t n o t involved i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y a t t h a t p o i n t . H e was c r o s s i n g t h e p l a z a i n f r o n t of S p r o u l H a l l on t h e way t o a luncheon d a t e when h e saw t h e pol i c e a r r e s t i n g Weinberg. He s a y s , "I t h o u g h t , ' I t ' s a p r e t t y r o t t e n t h i n g f o r t h e u n i v e r s i t y t o e x p e l and a r r e s t someone.' u n i v e r s i t y p u l l i n g t h i s t r i c k t o p u n i s h a few . .. It made me mad t o s e e t h e .'I (quoted i n H e i r i c h , p. 1 5 1 ) . Roman r e p o r t s t h a t h e thought a t t h a t moment of a t a c t i c d e s c r i b e d by c i v i l r i g h t s l e a d e r . Bayard R u s t i n t o d e a l w i t h a s i t u a t i o n i n which demons t r a t o r s believed t h a t . . . t h e p o l i c e were moving unfairly against an individual i n a n e f f o r t t o i n t i m i d a t e t h e rest. R u s t i n would u r g e t h e group t o c o n f r o n t t h e p o l i c e a s a u n i t , s o t h a t t h e l a t t e r would have t o d e a l w i t h a l l of them, r a t h e r t h a n w i t h j u s t a few people. A t t h i s p o i n t , Roman r e c a l l s , h e spoke o u t , s u g g e s t i n g t h a t people s t e p i n t o t h e p a t h of t h e p o l i c e , r a t h e r than gett i n g o u t of t h e way. He had n o t h i n g s p e c i f i c i n mind e x c e p t t o r e f u s e t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h i s a c t by t h e p o l i c e . After h e made t h i s s u g g e s t i o n , h e was shoved by "a f r a t e r n i t y type" and g o t angry. Roman y e l l e d , "Don't move o u t of t h e way!" Shoving, t h e p o l i c e p u l l e d J a c k Weinberg t h r o u g h t h e crowd t o t h e car .... [Roman] r a n toward t h e f r o n t of t h e c a r w h i l e t h e p o l i c e p u t Weinberg i n t h e c a r . He began y e l l i n g f o r p e o p l e t o s i t - d o w n i n f r o n t of t h e c a r , and some obeyed him. He r a n around t o encourage o t h e r s t o do t h e same, waving h i s arms t o motion them down. u r g i n g o t h e r s t o s i t down. A f e w o t h e r p e o p l e were a l s o For example, h e n o t i c e d a grad- u a t e s t u d e n t , whom h e d i d n ' t know by-name b u t recognized a s b e i n g from t h e same department, encouraging p e o p l e t o s i t down behind t h e c a r ( H e i r i c h , pp. 151-152). The p o l i c e c a r was h e l d f o r more t h a n 24 h o u r s w h i l e n e g o t i a t i o n s and s t u d e n t were c a r r i e d on by v a r i o u s f a c u l t y / i n t e r m e d i a r i e s . E v e n t u a l l y , t h e demo n s t r a t o r s r e l e a s e d t h e p o l i c e c a r a f ter s t u d e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s and U n i v e r s i t y P r e s i d e n t C l a r k Kerr s i g n e d a w r i t t e n agreement. The agreement called m a i n l y f o r a set of p r o c e d u r e s f o r r e s o l v i n g t h e i s s u e s i n controv e r s y , i n c l u d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e p r o t e s t o r s a s p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e process. The t r u c e proved temporary, and t h e c o n f l i c t b u i l t t o a climax i n which more t h a n 750 peop&e.were a r r e s t e d d u r i n g t h e o c c u p a t i o n of Sproul T h i s massive a c t of c i v i l d i s o b e d i e n c e now a p p e a r s a s a watershed Hall. i n t h e s t u d e n t movement of t h e 1960s, f o r i t was soon t o b e followed by s i m i l a r a c t s a t many campuses a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y and i n o t h e r p a r t s of t h e world d u r i n g t h e remainder of t h e decade. During t h e same p e r i o d , a s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t named S t a n l e y Milgram designed a f a b r i c a t i o n t o e x p l o r e a number of fundamental i s s u e s u n d e r l y i n g obedience t o a u t h o r i t y . The p a r a d i g m a t i c s i t u a t i o n t h a t Milgram c r e a t e d i n v o l v e s a s u b j e c t who i s asked t o a d m i n i s t e r what h e b e l i e v e s t o b e a n i n c r e a s i n g l y p a i n f u l and, p e r h a p s , dangerous s e r i e s of e l e c t r i c shocks t o a n innocent victim. The p e r s o n d o i n g t h e a s k i n g p l a y s t h e r o l e of a psycholo- g i s t conducting eirperimental work on how punishment a f f e c t s l e a r n i n g . gram recorded many o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s on film. 2 - W e q u o t e an-example of t h e s e i n t e r a c t i o n s : I1 Next one," c o n t i n u e d Vince, t h e n a i v e s u b j e c t p l a y i n g t h e r o l e of " t e a c h e r . " "Short: ( A f t e r a p a u s e ) : "Wrong. s e n t e n c e , movie, s k i r t , time. 165 v o l t s . Time." He d e l i v e r e d t h e shock and M r . Wal-lace, t h e " l e a r n e r , " groaned. Vince laughed n e r v o u s l y . From i n s i d e t h e booth, Wallace s h o u t e d , "Let me out!" Vince looked o v e r a t t h e " e x p e r i m e n t e r , " Mr. Williams, "That g u y ' s h o l l e r i n ' i n t h e r e , " h e s a i d q u i e t l y . II Continue p l e a s e . Go on," t h e experimenter i n s t r u c t e d . Vince sighed deeply. you know. "Well, t h e r e ' s a l o t of them h e r e , He's l i a b l e t o have a h e a r t c o n d i t i o n t h e r e . You want me t o go?" "Just continue, please." Mil- Vince t u r n e d back t o h i s s h e e t , r e a d i n g with. a u t h o r i t y , "Sharp: a x e , n e e d l e , stick, b l a d e . (Pause) "Wrong." Vince t u r n e d t o t h e e x p e r i - menter w i t h a l a r m , " I ' m up t o 1 8 0 volts!". M r . W i l l i a m s responded . c o o l l y , " P l e a s e c o n t i n u e , t e a c h e r .'I Vince spoke i n t o t h e microphone, "You're going t o g e t a shock 180 v o l t s . " - He p r e s s e d t h e s w i t c h . Wallace c r i e d o u t , "I c a n ' t s t a n d t h e pain! Get me o u t of here!" Vince glanced o v e r a t Williams, "He c a n ' t s t a n d i t . t o k i l l t h a t man i n t h e r e . I ' m n o t going You h e a r him h o l l e r i n ' i n t h e r e ? " "As I s a i d b e f o r e , t h e shocks may b e p a i n f u l , b u t they.!r.e n o t dangero u s ," W i l l i a m s i n t o n e d . "But h e ' s h o l l e r i n ' h e c a n ' t s t a n d i t . What i f something happens t o him?" '1 The experiment r e q u i r e s t h a t you c o n t i n u e , t e a c h e r . " II Yeah, b u t , heh, I ' m n o t g o i n g t o g e t t h a t man s i c k i n t h e r e . hollerin' i n there. You,know what I mean, uh, .I mean, h e ' s He's ... 11 "Whether t h e l e a r n e r l i k e s i t o r n o t , we must go on u n t i l h e ' s l e a r n e d a l l t h e word p a i r s . " Vince jumped i n , "I r e f u s e t o t a k e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of him g e t ting hurt i n there. You know, I mean, h e ' s i n . t h e r e h o l l e r i n . "' "It's .absolutely e s s e n t i a l t h a t . y o u continue, teacher." "Eh, t h e r e ' s t o o many of them l e f t . I mean who's going t o t a k e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i f a n y t h i n g happens t o t h a t gentleman?" "I'm r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y t h i n g - t h a t happens h e r e , " Williams emphasized. "Continue, p l e a s e . I' Vince r e t u r n e d t o h i s s h e e t , "Next one. music. " Slow: Walk, dance, t r u c k , These t h r e e i n c i d e n t s a r e examples of what we c a l l " e n c o u n t e r s w i t h unjust authority". They a r e e n c o u n t e r s i n t h a t t h e y a r e s t r i p s 0.f con- tinuous, face-to-face interaction. They i n v o l v e a u t h o r i t y i n t h a t i t i s g e n e r a l l y understood by a l l p a r t i e s i n t h e e n c o u n t e r t h a t a t l e a s t one p a r t y h a s t h e ' r i g h t and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o r e g u l a t e some a s p e c t s of t h e action-of the others. Somebody i s o p e r a t i n g i n a n a u t h o r i t y r o l e , t y p i c a l l y a s an a g e n t of a l a r g e r a u t h o r i t y system. Other p a r t i c i p a n t s e x p e c t t o b e s u b j e c t t o some form of attempted r e g u l a t i o n . . The d e g r e e t o which part i c i p a n t s e v e n t u a l l y submit t o r e g u l a t i o n i s t r e a t e d as a v a r i a b l e element of an e n c o u n t e r w i t h a u t h o r i t y , b u t n o t a s a d e f i n i n g c o n d i t i o n . What i s t h e s e n s e i n which t h e e n c o u n t e r s d e s c r i b e d above c a n b e s a i d t o be encounters w i t h "unjust" a u t h o r i t y ? W e c e r t a i n l y do n o t mean t h a t t h e people i n a u t h o r i t y r o l e s a r e e v i l people. The shop foreman, T e e f e e , may have been a r r o g a n t i n t h e encounter d e s c r i b e d , b u t h e may a l s o have been a n exemplary c i t i z e n i n g e n e r a l . Dean Murphy and O f f i c e r Chand- l e r w'ere as p o l i t e a s c o u l a b e i n c a r r y i n g o u t t h e i r r o l e s i n t h e a r r e s t of Weinberg, and t h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o t h i n k them less t h a n s i n c e r e and ' h o n o r a b l e men. Nor do w e mean t o a s s e r t o u r own moral judgments a b o u t t h e s e enc o u n t e r s a s some s o r t of g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d f o r a l l t o a d o p t . In defining t h e c l a s s of r e l e v a n t e n c o u n t e r s , w e t a k e t h e s t a n d p o i n t of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t some p a r t i c i p a n t s s h a r e t h e view t h a t t h e unimpeded opera t i o n of a n a u t h o r i t y system on a g i v e n o c c a s i o n would r e s u l t i n a n i n j u s t i c e , we c o n s i d e r t h e encounter r e l e v a n t t o o u r concern. Note t h a t t h e above d e f i n i t i o n d i s t i n g u i s h e s s u c h e n c o u n t e r s from t h o s e i n which t h e unimpeded o p e r a t i o n of a n a u t h o r i t y system w i l l produce inefficiencies. It i s n o t d i s a p p r o v a l of a u t h o r i t y a s such b u t a p a r t i c - . u l a r kind of d i s a p p r o v a l t h a t makes t h e encounter r e l e v a n t . An i n j u s t i c e i n v o l v e s t h e v i o l a t i o n of some p r i n c i p l e a b o u t what i s f a i r i n v o l v e s a moral dimension. - that is, i t 3 It i s r e a s o n a b l y c l e a r i n t h e e n c o u n t e r s d e s c r i b e d above t h a t many . of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f e l t t h a t t h e unimpeded o p e r a t i o n of t h e a u t h o r i t y sys- t e m would r e s u l t i n a n i n j u s t i c e . Many workers would have f e l t t h a t t h e f i r i n g of t h e P e t k i n s b r o t h e r s and J o e Urban was u n j u s t , r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e y had a c t e d ' c o l l e c t i v e l y t o oppose i t . Many s t u d e n t s and f a c - u l t y a t Berkeley would have f e l t t h a t t h e a r r e s t of Weinberg w a s u n j u s t , r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e y had c o l l e c t i v e l y opposed i t . Many of Milgram's s u b j e c t s made c l e a r t h a t t h e y had s t r o n g m i s g i v i n g s a b o u t a d m i n i s t e r i n g s u c h a p p a r e n t l y s e v e r e e l e c t r i c shocks. Those who expressed t h i s includ- ed b o t h p e o p l e who r e f u s e d t o ' c o m p l y and p e o p l e who 'continued t o comply. The i n d i v i d u a l o r c o l l e c t i v e r e s p o n s e t o t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e a u t h o r i t y system i s t r e a t e d h e r e a s t h e c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e t o b e e x p l a i n e d r a t h e r than a s a d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of e n c o u n t e r s w i t h u n j u s t a u t h o r i t y . A u t h o r i t y systems a r e , a s we know, c a p a b l e of v a s t d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s and malevolence. Our d a i l y newspaper p r o v i d e s u s w i t h c o u n t l e s s c o n c r e t e examples of governments t h a t p e r p e t r a t e i n j u d t i c e - - i n j u s t i c e not only from o u r s t a n d p o i n t b u t from t h a t of t h e governments' a g e n t s , s u b j e c t s , and v i c t i m s . How p e o p l e m o b i l i z e t o c h a l l e n g e u n j u s t a u t h o r i t y systems h a s l o n g been a concern of s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s . S u b s t a n t i a l c h a l l e n g e s t o a u t h o r i t y systems g e n e r a l l y i n v o l v e cons i d e r a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e s o u r c e m o b i l i z a t i o n , and s t r u g g l e t h a t extend f a r beyond what t a k e s p l a c e i n f a c e - t o - f a c e a r e f r e q u e n t l y t h e o c c a s i o n f o r i m p o r t a n t e v e n t s i n t h e l i f e of s u s t a i n e d -- challenges. II e n c o u n t e r s . : -Yet e n c o u n t e r s I n t h e sitdown example, t h e encounter had consequences f o r t h e r a p i d growth of t h e United Automobile Workers. The p o l i c e c a r c a p t u r e __-- w a s an i m p o r t a n t e p i s o d e i n t h e growth o f t h e F r e e Speech Movement a t Berkeley a n d . i n t h e s t u d e n t movement more g e n e r a l l y . Collective a c t i o n f l o w i n g from t h e s e e n c o u n t e r s l e d t o a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e l e v e l of m o b i l i z a t i o n of t h e r e l e v a n t c o n s t - i t u e n c y . But'some e n c o u n t e r s have d e m o b i l i z i n g consequences a s w e l l . Some- t i m e s t h e s o l i d a r i t y o f would-be r e b e l s i s undermined and t h e demorali z a t i o n of a c o n s t i t u e n c y i s i n c r e a s e d . Some e n c o u n t e r s b r i n g t h e f o r c e s of r e p r e s s i o n down upon t h e h e a d s of c h a l l e n g e r s , f r i g h t e n i n g them i n t o compliance and. d e p r i v i n g them of c r u c i a l l e a d e r s . Encounters w i t h u n j u s t a u t h o r i t y , t h e n , a r e p o t e n t i a l e p i s o d e s i n t h e long-run c a r e e r of a sustaiii&d:: c h a l l e n g e t o a n a u t h o r i t y system. What happens i n such e n c o u n t e r s h a s c r i t i c a l consequences f o r t h e m o b i l i z a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s . a problem i n micro-mobilization: To s t u d y such e n c o u n t e r s i s t o s t u d y How do p e o p l e , engaged i n an encoun- t e r w i t h u n j u s t a u t h o r i t y , move t o v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of r e b e l l i o n and opposition? C o n t r a s t s among Encounters T h i s p a p e r d e s c r i b e s and a n a l y z e s t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r , a s p e c i a l c a s e of e n c o u n t e r s w i t h u n j u s t a u t h o r i t y . Before p r e s e n t i n g i t i n d e t a i l , we s i t u a t e i t w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o s e v e r a l p o i n t s of comparison among e n c o u n t e r s . We b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e some of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s among e n c o u n t e r s t h a t seem worth making and l o c a t e t h e MHRC c a s e w i t h respect t o these distinctions. . . .. Individual vs. Collective. When':people w i t h a s i m i l a r . r e l a t i o n - s h i p t o t h e a u t h o r i t y system c o n f r o n t i t s a g e n t s , r e s p o n s e i s h e a v i l y mediated by group p r o c e s s e s . T h e ' s o l i d a r i t y o r c o h e s i v e n e s s of par- t i c i p a n t s , problems of c o o r d i n a t i n g common a c t i o n , t h e d e g r e e of consensus about what i s happening and what should b e done about i t , a l l t a k e on major importance. I n d i v i d u a l r e b e l l i o n may c a r r y on be- yond t h e immediate e n c o u n t e r b u t c o l l e c t i v e e n c o u n t e r s e s p e c i a l l y _.: r a i s e t h i s specter. C o l l e c t i v e r e b e l l i o n p r e s a g e s t h e emergence of a c o l l e c t i v e e n t i t y t h a t can s u s t a i n a . . r e b e l l i o u s s t a t e beyond t h e immediate i n t e r a c t i o n . The MHRC c a s e c o n c e r n s a c o l l e c t i v e e n c o u n t e r w i t h u n j u s t author2ty. I n t h a t r e s p e c t , i t i s more l i k e t h e automobile assem- b l y p l a n t and Berkeley e n c o u n t e r s t h a n i t i s l i k e t h e Milgram encounter . Continuing v s . D i s c r e t e . I n some e n c o u n t e r s , t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s have a h i s t o r y of p r e v i o u s c o n t a c t and a n e x p e c t a t i o n of f u t u r e contact. The e n c o u n t e r o c c u r s i n t h e c o n t e x t of r o u t i n i z e d , c o n t i n u i n g interaction. ad hoc, nonI n c o n t r a s t , o t h e r e n c o u n t e r s o c c u r i n -- routinized settings. I n a continuing encounter, p o t e n t i a l challengers have e s t a b l i s h e d some p a t t e r n i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a u t h o r i t y system. Perhaps i t i s a r e b e l l i o u s p a t t e r n , perhaps a com- p l i a n t one, b u t i n e i t h e r c a s e i t p r o v i d e s a r e l e v a n t c o n t e x t f o r t h e present encounter. Furthermore, t h e r e i s an e x p e c t a t i o n of f u t u r e c o n t a c t t h a t makes a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r o n e ' s p r e s e n t a c t i o n s a more s a l i e n t i s s u e i n continuing encounters. The p a r t i c i p a n t s have t o live with each other in the future. In contrast, the timelessness of discrete encounters frees the participants from many of these constraints. The MHRC case concerns a discrete encounter. In that respect, it is more like the Berkeley and Milgram encounter and less like the auto assembly plant encounter. Organized vs. Unorganized Challengers. The potential challengers in an encounter may be strangers, acquaintances, friends, kin, comrades, or some mixture of these. They may have an organizational infra-structure, or they may lack one. The encounter may be one they are anticipating or are deliberately seeking, and they may approach it with a detailed contingency plan. Or the encounter may be unex- pected and approached with no prior planning or preparation. In some encounters, the potential challengers are people who have been engaged in past political struggles and are operating within a well-coordinated organization. In contrast, the potential challen- gers may be composed of previously unacquainted individuals of heterogeneous background. The MHRC case concerns a completely unorganized challenger. It resembles the Berkeley encounter in this regard and contrasts more sharply with the auto assembly plant. Although n~thighl,~organized, the workers in the assembly plant knew each other as co-workers, had 4 formed some friendship networks, and were partially unionized. Clear vs. Questionable Availability of Sanctions. The authorities in an encounter may have sanctions readily available either because they c o n t r o l such s a n c t i o n s d i r e c t l y o r b e c a u s e t h e y can q u i c k l y p r o c u r e them from o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s w i t h enforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t y arises. - i f t h e need I n c o n t r a s t , a u t h o r i t i e s may b e i s o l a t e d and v u l n e r a b l e , l a c k i n g e f f e c t i v e s a n c t i o n s i n t h e encounter and w i t h q u e s t i o n a b l e a b i l i t y t o c a l l f o r t h r e i n f o r c e m e n t s i f needed. The a u t h o r i t i e s may approach t h e e n c o u n t e r w i t h p r e p a r a t i o n and p l a n n i n g , i n c l u d i n g a. d e t a i l e d c o n t i n g e n c y p l a n f o r u s i n g f o r c e f u l cons t r a i n t i f necessary. O r t h e e n c o u n t e r may s u r p r i s e t h e a u t h o r i t i e s and c a t c h them unprepared t o d e a l w i t h r e s i s t a n c e o r o p p o s i t i o n . The MHRC c a s e c o n c e r n s a n e n c o u n t e r i n which t h e a g e n t of a u t h o r i t y h a s no c l e a r s a n c t i o n s a v a i l a b l e . I n t h t s r e s p e c t , i t i s l i k e t h e Milgram encounter; and l e s s l i k e t h e auto-assembly p l a n t o r Berkeley e n c o u n t e r s . I n sum, t h e MHRC c a s e . i s a c o l l e c t i v e , ~ ~ ~ d i s ecn~c~o ut en t e r , i n which uno r g a n i z e d p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s o p e r a t i n g i n a g e n t i c r o l e s c o n f r o n t an a u t h o r i t y with questionable sanctioning a b i l i t y . The MHRC S i t u a t i o n W e have chosen t o s t u d y a n e n c o u n t e r i n which t h e a g e n t of a u t h o r i t y h a s no c l e a r s a n c t i o n s , of t h i s f a c t . a l t h o u g h p a r t i c i p a n t s may v a r y i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n They may f e a r a s a n c t i o n i n g power t h a t d o e s n o t e x i s t , b u t we a t t e m p t t o minimize t h e i s s u e o f s a n c t i o n s . By d o i n g t h i s , we a r e a b l e t o f o c u s a t t e n t i o n on t h e moral and p s y c h o l o g i c a l bonds t h a t t i e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a u t h o r i t y systems, r a t h e r t h a n on compliance t h a t can be accounted f o r by inducements and c o n s t r a i n t s . S i n c e we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n proces- s e s of i n i t i a l group f o r m a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n a s c a u s a l elements i n r e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , w e have chosen t o s t u d y a n encounter i n which p r i o r organization i s absent. The g e n e r a l f e a t u r e s of t h e MHRC s i t u a t i o n a r e t h a t a group of s t r a n g e r s i s h i r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y by a l a r g e company t o perform a vaguely defined task. They d i s c o v e r , a f t e r a c c e p t i n g t h e j o b , t h a t t h e company i s a c t i n g r e p r e h e n s i b l y i n t h e i r e y e s , and t h e y a r e asked t o perform a s .lower a g e n t s of t h e company i n c a r r y i n g o u t i t s d e s i g n s . The s i t u a t i o n u n f o l d s g r a d u a l l y and p r o v i d e s a number of p o i n t s a t which t h e a u t h o r i t y r e q u e s t s s p e c i f i c a c t s of c o m p l i c i t y . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l s i n medium-sized towns i n s o u t h e a s t e r n Michigan answer an a d v e r t i s e m e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e s e a r c h being conducted by a commercial r e s e a r c h f i r m c a l l i n g i t s e l f t h e Manufacturersf Human R e l a t i o n s C o n s u l t a n t s (MHRC). They b e l i e v e themselves t o b e p a r t i c i p a t - i n g , f o r a f e e , i n a group d i s c u s s i o n of community s t a n d a r d s . Typically, e i g h t o r n i n e p e o p l e , of d i f f e r e n t gender and s o c i a l c l a s s , convene i n t h e c o n f e r e n c e room of a h o t e l o r motor inn. t a p i n g equipment - The room i n c l u d e s video- l i g h t s , cameras, microphones, t a p e deck. A f t e r having them f i l l o u t a s h o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e MHRC r e p r e s e n t a t i v e pays them $10 as t h e y s i g n a " P a r t i c i p a t i o n Agreement" which acknowledges t h a t t h e y were w i l l i n g l y video-taped , received payment, and t h a t t h e t a p e produced i s t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y of t h e MHRC. Af ter p a r t i c i p a n t s have i n t r o d u c e d themselves on camera, t h e coord ina t o r e x p l a i n s t h e purpose of t h e s e s s i o n : t o r e c o r d a group d i s c u s s i o n of a l e g a l c a s e i n which a c l i e n t of t h e MHRC i s involved. The d i s c u s s i o n i s being r e c o r d e d f o r u s e i n t h i s c a s e which h i n g e s on some i s s u e s of commun i t y s t a n d a r d s , t h a t i s , "what p e o p l e c o n s i d e r proper behavior". The c a s e i s t h e n d e s c r i b e d i n moderate d e t a i l t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . The MHRC c l i e n t , a l a r g e o i l company, h a s t e r m i n a t e d o n e of i t s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n managers, who i s now s u i n g them. He c h a r g e s t h a t h e h a s .. been u n j u s t l y f i r e d f o r c r i t i c i z i n g major o i l company p r i c i n g p o l i c i e s i n a t e l e v i s i o n "man i n t h e s t r e e t " i n t e r v i e w and t h a t t h e company invaded h i s p r i v a c y by h i r i n g a p r i v a t e d e t e c t i v e t o i n v e s t i g a t e h i s o f f t h e j o b behavior. They c l a i m t h e y f i r e d him because h e i s l i v i n g w i t h a woman o u t of wedlock, which v i o l a t e s r e a s o n a b l e s t a n d a r d s f o r an employee who must d e a l w i t h t h e p u b l i c . A f t e r a d i s c u s s i o n i n which v e r y few p a r t i c i p a n t s s p o n t a n e o u s l y t a k e t h e s i d e of t h e company, t h e c o o r d i n a t o r a s k s t h r e e members of t h e group t o a r g u e a s i f t h e y a r e offended by t h e conduct of t h e p l a i n t i f f , M r . C. A f t e r f u r t h e r group d i s c u s s i o n and a b r e a k , a n a d d i t i o n a l t h r e e people a r e asked t o t a k e t h i s pro-company view. A f t e r an a d d i t i o n a l b r e a k , everyone i s asked t o make a summary s t a t e m e n t from t h e viewpoint of a p e r s o n offended by M r . C ' s b e h a v i o r . F i n a l l y , p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e asked t o s i g n a r e l e a s e f o r m / a f f i d a v i t which g i v e s t h e MHRC p e r m i s s i o n t o e d i t t h e v i d e o t a p e s f o r e a s e of presentation i n court. I f t h e y r e f u s e t o s i g n t h i s , t h e c o o r d i n a t o r excuses himself t o check w i t h h i s s u p e r v i s o r and r e t u r n s s h o r t l y t o announce t h a t he has been a d v i s e d t h a t t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n agreements which t h e y signed a t t h e beginning w i l l be s u f f i c i e n t f o r using t h e tapes. He t h e n proceeds t o n o t a r i z e t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n agreements and d i s m i s s e s everybody. The c o o r d i n a t o r , i f c h a l l e n g e d a t any p o i n t , h a s a s c r i p t e d s e t of responses. A t no t i m e d o e s h e t h r e a t e n t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r non-compli- a n c e o r o f f e r any inducements f o r compliance. The c o o r d i n a t o r t r e a t s t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a s employees who have been h i r e d t o perform a s p e c i f i c t a s k . He t e l l s them what t h e j o b r e q u i r e s i n a p o l i t e , s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , businessl i k e manner. No m a t t e r how r e s i s t a n t t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e , t h e c o o r d i n a t o r i s never h o s t i l e o r r u d e . cooperative they a r e . Nor i s h e e v e r v e r y f r i e n d l y - no m a t t e r how H e i s a s u p e r v i s o r , c o n f i d e n t of h i s a u t h o r i t y , d e a l i n g w i t h a group of s u b o r d i n a t e s . I f t h e c o o r d i n a t o r i s asked t o e x p l a i n why some p e o p l e a r e being asked t o t a k e t h e company's p e r s p e c t i v e , h e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e procedure w i l l make f o r a l i v e l i e r , more p r o d u c t i v e d i s c u s s i o n w i t h more p o i n t s of view developed and c o n s i d e r e d . I f p a r t i c i p a n t s ref u s e ' t o accept t h i s j u s t i f i c a t i o n , h e invokes formal a u t h o r i t y by d e c l a r i n g : Look, t h i s i s what t h e r e s e a r c h c a l l s f o r you t o do. This p r o j e c t h a s been designed by p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s , and t h e s e a r e t h e p r o c e d u r e s t h a t have been e s t a b l i s h e d . structions here a r e quite explicit. My i n - Now we have t o do. t h i s r e s e a r c h t h e way i t ' s supposed t o b e done. I f p a r t i c i p a n t s r e f u s e t o a c c e p t t h i s , t h e c o o r d i n a t o r c a l l s upon them t o l i v e up t o t h e i r agreement t o p a r t i c i p a t e , t o f u l f i l l t h e i r cont r a c t w i t h t h e MHRC,for which t h e y have a l r e a d y been p a i d . I f participants i n s i s t t h a t what i s b e i n g asked of them i s wrong and u n j u s t , t h e c o o r d i n a ~ t o r a s s u r e s them t h a t t h e MHRC assumes f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r any problems caused by t h e procedures. I f r e s i s t a n c e s t i l l continues, t h e coordinator makes one f i n a l e f f o r t t o g a i n compliance b y - r e i t e r a t i n g t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h i s designed by competent p r o f e s s i o n a l s , t h a t t h e y have agreed v o l u n t a r i l y t o p a r t i c i p a t e and have been paid f o r i t , and now have a n o b l i g a t i o n t o complete t h e job. H e r e j e c t s any e f f o r t s by p a r t i c i p a n t s t o r e t u r n t h e money t h e y r e c e i v e d . R e b e l l i o u s C o l l e c t i v e Action The MHRC f a b r i c a t i o n i s a good d e a l more complex t h a n t h e one conf r o n t i n g Milgram's p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s . Milgram d e l i b e r a t e l y confronted p e o p l e w i t h a c l e a r s t i m u l u s s i t u a t i o n : t h e y recognized t h a t t h e i r a c t i o n s were c a u s i n g p a i n t o a n o t h e r person. unambiguously f o r h i s s u b j e c t s . H e a t t e m p t e d t o frame t h e s i t u a t i o n The MHRC e n c o u n t e r , i n c o n t r a s t , r e q u i r e s a more a c t i v e , i n t e r p r e t i v e p r o c e s s on t h e p a r t of p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s . Encounters a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c e r t a i n assumptions, u s u a l l y s h a r e d , about t h e r u l e s t h a t govern them and d e f i n e a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r . The MHRC encounter p r e s e n t s t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h a complex and s u b t l e problem of c o l l e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Before p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s can move t o c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n , t h e y must adopt a common frame about what i s happening. The r e l a t i v e complexity o f t h e MHRC encounter e n a b l e s u s t o o b s e r v e how t h e p r o c e s s of c o l l e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n o p e r a t e s and how i t r e l a t e s t o rebellious collective action. While a s i m p l e dichotomy between compliance and non-compliance may b e s u f f i c i e n t for:some p u r p o s e s , - i t o b s c u r e s t h e complexity of t h e a . l t e r n a t i v e s ' a v a i l a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a n t s and t h e p r o c e s s of moving c o l - lectively t o rebellious action. We d i s t i n g u i s h f i v e c a t e g o r i e s of a c t i o n . .. t h a t p a r t i c i p a k t s can engage i n by themselves o r w i t h o t h e r s . 1. ~omp'l!iance. an a u t h o r i t y system. P a r t i c i p a n t s are a c t i n g i n r o l e i n : . r ..'- -,-, . They a r e c a r r y i n g o u t t h e r e q u e s t s of a n a u t h o r i t y t o t h e b e s t of t h e i r a b i l i t y , f r e q u e n t l y a t t e m p t i n g t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e i r competence i n t h e p r o c e s s . They may a s k q u e s t i o n s of t h e a u t h o r i t i e s , b u t t h e s e a r e designed t o c l a r i f y t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t o req u e s t j u s t i f i c a t i o n of p r o c e d u r e s . 2. Evasion. P a r t i c i p a n t s do n o t c o n f r o n t t h e a u t h o r i t i e s , b u t t h e y do n o t perform i n t h e c o r r e c t o r d e s i r e d manner. Like t h e Good S o l d i e r Schweik, t h e y a r e a p p a r e n t l y c o m p l i a n t , b u t , i n p r a c t i c e , t h e i r p e r f o r mance i s marred by e r r o r from t h e s t a n d p o i n t of a u t h o r i t i e s . They a t t e m p t t o a v o i d s u r v e i l l a n c e s o t h a t a c o n f r o n t a t i o n can b e avoided. Any f a i l u r e t o comply i s i m p l i c i t and n o t o p e n l y acknowledged by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . Face-to-face strategy. e n c o u n t e r s may make such e v a s i o n d i f f i c u l t a s a s t a b l e Some of Milgram's s u b j e c t s t r i e d t o c u e t h e " l e a r n e r " whom t h e y were shocking by emphasizing t h e c o r r e c t answer a s t h e y r e a d t h e l i s t of words t o choose from. T h i s proved t o t a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e , s i n c e t h e " l e a r n - e r " was, i n f a c t , a conf e d e r a t e of t h e experiment. However, when t h e ex- perimenter r e l a y e d i n s t r u c t i o n s p v e r t h e t e l e p h o n e and t h e r e was no d i r e c t s u r v e i l l a n c e , t h i s e v a s i o n s t r a t e g y became much more f e a s i b l e . Many sub- j e c t s f a i l e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e shock l e v e l a s i n s t r u c t e d w i t h o u t acknowledging t h i s f a c t . T h i s g i v e s us.good r e a s o n t o expect t h a t e v a s i o n would have been a more w i d e l y used a l t e r n a t i v e i n Milgrams's endounter Sf ' h i s d e s i g n had p e r m i t t e d i t a s an e f f e c t i v e p o s s i b l i l i t y . 3. D i s s e n t . P a r t i c i p a n t s p u b l i c l y e x p r e s s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e way i n which a u t h o r i t i e s a r e a c t i n g , by i n some way c r i t i c i z i n g o r denouncing them o r t h e i r b e h a v i o r . We i n c l u d e h e r e a l s o demands f o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n of p r o c e d u r e s which imply c r i t i c i s m . The i n t e n s i t y of d i s s e n t may v a r y from p a r t i c i p a n t s p o l i t e l y e x p r e s s i n g d o u b t s a b o u t whether a u t h o r i t i e s a r e a c t i n g p r o p e r l y t o h a r s h denunci-at i o n s..- ~them.. ,~ , Milgram w i s e l y r e c o g n i z e s t h e s u b t l e n a t u r e of d i s s e n t a s a chal: l e n g e t o an a u t h o r i t y system: D i s s e n t r e f e r s t o a s u b j e c t ' s e x p r e s s i o n of disagreement w i t h t h e c o u r s e of a c t i o n p r e s c r i b e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . But t h i s v e r b a l d i s p u t e d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t t h e s u b j e c t w i l l disobey t h e experimenter, f o r d i s s e n t s e r v e s a dual and conflicting function. On the one hand, it may be the first step in a progressive rift between the subject and the experimenter, a testing of the experimenter's intentions, and an attempt to persuade him to alter his course of action. But, paradoxically, it may also serve as a strain-reducing mechanism, a valve that allows the subject to blow off steam without altering his course of action. Dissent may occur without rupturing hierarchical bonds and thus belongs~toan order of experience that is qualitatively discontinuous with disobedience (1974, p. 161). 4. Resistance. Participants openly refuse to do what the authorities ask them to do. This differs from evasion in that the noncompliance is complete, open, and acknowledged. Whereas evasion involves slyly botching the performance of a role, resistance involves breaking out of the role altogether. Acknowledgment of non-compliance forces the authority to respond in some fashion. The authority may explicitly.ratify the non-compliance by withdrawing the request for compliance or implicitly ratify it by making no effort to enforce or repeat the request. Usually, however, participants who sustain resistance must withstand the pressing of demands for compliance by authorities accompanied by implicit or explicit threat of sanctions for non-compliance. 5. Struggle. Participants take action aimed beyond the encounter to stop the authority system from perpetrating the injustice. Participants may try to persuade countervailing authorities to constrain the unjust authority or undo him altogether. Or, they may plan to mobilize resources to deal with the unjust authority in other ways. Struggle goes beyond noncompliance and pro-actively seeks to change the authority system through efforts that reach past the end of the encounter. This category is ignored by Milgram but is of prime importance in linking encounters to sustained mobilization efforts. Even collec- tive resistance by one group will have little impact if there are other groups of people to take their place in line. Refusing to act as the agent of an unjust authority may save: one's individual conscience, but the authority system may be able to obtain other agents to do its work. Struggle represents a critical level of action beyond resistance. It could have been manifested in the Milgram encounter by participants not only refusing to continue but making efforts to prevent the research from continuing. One obvious channel for such efforts is public exposure by going to a newspaper to rally public opposition or going to Yale University officials in an effort to get them to exercise benign authority in discontinuing the research. Milgram did not apparently ask those who refused to comply whether they planned to take further action after leaving the laboratory, but;prior to being dehoaxed, some of them may well have intended to. The Difficulty of Challenging Authority The agentic role is an extremely difficult one from which to launch an attack on authority. There is a series of forces that hold one in role, making compliance the natural state. Milgram argues that there is a tendency for those in such a role to develop a particular mental set or state of consciousness that he calls the "agentic state." It is a condition a person is in: . . . when he sees himself as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes. This term will be used in opposition to that of autonomy--that is, when a person sees himself as acting on his own .... A person entering an authority system no longer views himself as acting out of his own purposes but rather comes to see himself as an agent for executing the wishes of another person. Once an individual con- ceives his action in this light, profound alterations occur in his behavior and his internal functioning (p. 133) .' This state of consciousness, Milgram suggests, removes from the individual the sense of responsibility for his own actions. As an agent of another'srwill, one is no longer choosing but simply carrying out a set of well-defined expectations. Participants who are fully engaged in an agentic role have a difficult time even conceiving of the possibility of rebellion. They must break out of this way of framing the situation and the role behavior appropriate to it before rebellious action can occur. Just how compelling such a state is depends on the nature of one's role in the authority system. Engagement is likely to be highest for agents such as managers or enforcers, somewhat less for agents such as employees o r s u b j e c t s , and weaker s t i l l f o r t h o s e i n g e n e r a l p u b l i c r o l e s such a s s p e c t a t o r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , even a g e n t s i n an MZIRC encounter f i n d a s e r i e s o f s t r o n g f o r c e s o p e r a t i n g t o hold them i n r o l e : 1. Self-Interest. S e l f - i n t e r e s t i s a proven p o l i t i c a l motivator. One might w e l l expect t h a t t h e primary concern of MHRC p a r t i c i p a n t s would be t o cover t h e i r own r e a r . I n f a c t , many d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of s e l f - i n t e r e s t combine t o hold people i n t h e a g e n t i c r o l e : F i r s t , t h e r e i s t h e i s s u e of s a n c t i o n s . Although t h e c o o r d i n a t o r never t h r e a t e n s p a r t i c i p a n t s , w e went t o some l e n g t h s t o make t h e MHRC appear r i c h and powerful. P o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s might w e l l have regarded i t a s a formidable opponent t o a t t a c k , one t h a t i s a b l e and w i l l i n g t o pursue an adversary w i t h l e g a l s a n c t i o n s , f o r example. The MHRC p r e s e n t e d a p u b l i c f r o n t of a l a r g e n a t i o n a l c o r p o r a t i o n w i t h i t s main o f f i c e i n D a l l a s , Texas and a branch i n s o u t h e a s t e r n Michigan, t h e l a r g e s t f i r m i n t h e country performing marketing and personnel services for industry. A s long a s one complies, t h e r e i s no danger of n e g a t i v e s a n c t i o n s , b u t a c h a l l e n g e r f a c e s some p o s s i b l e r e t a l i a t i o n . The very u n c e r t a i n t y may encourage d i f f u s e and i r r a t i o n a l f e a r s i n t h i s regard. Second, an e t h i c of minding o n e ' s own b u s i n e s s h e l p s t o maintain the agentic role; I n t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r , Mr. C i s unknown t o t h e p a r t i c i - p a n t s , a d i s t a n t v i c t i m of t h e MHRC's o i l company c l i e n t whom t h e y w i l l never need t o l o o k i n t h e eye. " D i s t a n c e , t i m e and p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s n e u t r a l i z e t h e moral s e n s e , " Mflgram w r i t e s (1974, p. 1 5 7 ) . I f potential c h a l l e n g e r s remain i n t h e a g e n t i c r o l e , t h e y w i l l b e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o a n injustice a t a great distance. It i s a f a r c r y from p r e s s i n g a p e r s o n ' s hand o n t o a n e l e c t f i c shock g r i d a s Milgram's s u b j e c t s were asked t o do i n one v a r i a t i o n . T h e r e i s l i t t l e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n t o p r o p e l them t o t a k e u n c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l r i s k s i n opposing t h e MHRC when t h e y c a n e a s i l y enough go a l o n g w i t h o u t e v e r having t o f a c e t h e d i r e c t consequences. Third, t h e r e is t h e f a c t t h a t preventing a n i n j u s t i c e t o M r . C i s a c o l l e c t i v e good. P o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s a r e t o l d t h a t many groups of peo- p l e a r e h o l d i n g s i m i l a r d i s c u s s i o n s of community s t a n d a r d s . I f t h e y per- s o n a l l y r e f u s e t o comply w i t h w h a t . t h e a u t h o r i t y a s k s , i t w i l l have l i t t l e i f any e f f e c t on t h e outcome of M r . C ' s c a s e . On t h e o t h e r hand, i f o t h - e r s succeed i n a t t a c k i n g t h e MHRC and p r e v e n t i n g t h e i n j u s t i c e t o M r . C, t h e y w i l l have gained t h e b e n e f i t s . w i t h o u t t a k i n g p e r s o n a l r i s k s . Either way, n o t h i n g i s gained p e r s o n a l l y by r h k i n g a n u n p l e a s a n t s c e n e and perhaps even p o s s i b l e s a n c t i o n s . 2. O b l i g a t i o n s t o L e g i t i m a t e A u t h o r i t y . It i s i m p o r t a n t t o recog- n i z e , as Milgram d o e s , t h a t . a u t h o r i t y systems e x e r t t h e i r own moral c l a i m f o r compliance. When a u t h o r i t i e s a r e regarded a s l e g i t i m a t e and a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e i r domain of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e a g e n t i c r o l e makes a moral -. claini on t h e incumbent. A s Milgram p u t s i t , t h e moral c o n c e r n s of a person i n such a n encounter f o c u s on: . . . how w e l l h e i s l i v i n g up t o t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y h a s of him. I n wartime, a s o l d i e r d o e s n o t a s k . . .. whether i t i s good o r bad t o bomb a hamlet; h e d o e s n o t e x p e r i e n c e shame o r g u i l t i n t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of a v i l l a g e : r a t h e r he f e e l s p r i d e o r shame depending on how w e l l h e has performed t h e m i s s i o n a s s i g n e d t o him (1974, p. 8 ) . A u t h o r i t i e s t y p i c a l l y o p e r a t e w i t h a presumption of l e g i t i m a c y . The a u t h o r i t y i n t h e Milgram encounter was b u t t r e s s e d by t h e l e g i t i m a t i n g i d e o l ogy of s c i e n c e . sity, but T h i s i d e o l o g y was i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y embedded i n Yale Univer- t h e presumption of l e g i t i m a c y was a p p a r e n t l y s t i l l o p e r a t i n g i n h i s Bridgeport version. I n t h i s v a r i a t i o n of h i s b a s i c f a b r i c a t i o n , M i l - gram i n v e n t e d a f i c t i t i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n c a l l i n g i t s e l f "Research A s s o c i a t e s of B r i d g e p o r t , I f which conducted t h e experiment i n r e n t e d o f f i c e s i n a comm e r c i a l b u i l d i n g i n t h e downtown shopping a r e a of B r i d g e p o r t . Even s u c h f i c t i t i o u s e n t i t i e s a s t h e MHRC and Research A s s o c i a t e s of B r i d g e p o r t seem a b l e t o o p e r a t e on a presumption of l e g i t i m a c y t h a t a l l o w s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o make a moral c l a i m on p a r t i c i p a n t s . The f a c t t h a t t h e po- t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s have v o l u n t a r i l y a g r e e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n d u c e s a s e n s e of commitment and o b l i g a t i o n t h a t o p e r a t e s as a f o r c e t o keep them i n t h e agentic role. 3. Face-Work. Encounters w i t h a u t h o r i t y a r e a s p e c i a l c a s e of en- c o u n t e r s more g e n e r a l l y , and t h e r e are f a c t o r s o p e r a t i n g i n a l l face-tof a c e i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t r e s t r a i n challenge. t o make u s aware of such f a c t o r s . Goffman (1959) h a s done t h e most Every s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n i s b u i l t upon a working c o n s e n s u s among t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s . One of i t s . c h i e f premises i s t h a t once a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n h a s been p r o j e c t e d and agreed upon by p a r t i c i p a n t s , t h e r e s h a l l b e no c h a l l e n g e t o i t . D i s r u p t i o n of t h e work- i n g consensus h a s t h e c h a r a c t e r of moral t r a n s g r e s s i o n . Under no circum- s t a n c e s i s open c o n f l i c t a b o u t t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n compatible w i t h p o l i t e exchange. When a n i n d i v i d u a l p r o j e c t s a d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n and t h e n makes a n i m p l i c i t o r e x p l i c i t c l a i m t o b e a person of a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d , h e a u t o m a t i c a l l y e x e r t s a moral demand upon t h e o t h e r s , o b l i g i n g them t o v a l u e and treat him i n t h e manner t h a t p e r s o n s of h i s kind have a r i g h t t o e x p e c t (p. 1 8 5 ) . Milgram, d e s c r i b i n g some of t h e f a c t o r s t h a t hold a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e a g e n t i c r o l e , i n c l u d e s " p o l i t e n e s s on h i s p a r t , h i s d e s i r e t o uphold h i s i n i t i a l promise of a i d t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r , and t h e awkwardness of withdrawal" (1974, p. 7 ) . Most p e o p l e , i t seems, d o n ' t l i k e t o c r e a t e a s c e n e , and a c h a l l e n g e t o a u t h o r i t y w i l l do j u s t t h a t . It w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y d i s r u p t t h e smooth f l o w of i n t e r a c t i o n and w i l l p e r h a p s l e a d t o a n awkward and u n p l e a s a n t i n t e r p e r s o n a l exchange. Face-work c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e n , oper- a t e t o keep t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s f u n c t i o n i n g i n t h e a g e n t i c r o l e . 4. R e i f i c a t i o n . A u t h o r i t y s y s t e m s a r e p r o d u c t s of human c o n t r o l , b u t t h i s i s sometimes f o r g o t t e n by t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e i n them. Milgram c a l l s t h i s r e i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s "counter anthropomorphism": For decades p s y c h o l o g i s t s have d i s c u s s e d t h e p r i m i t i v e tendency among men t o a t t r i b u t e t o i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t s and f o r c e s t h e quali t i e s of t h e human s p e c i e s . A c o u n t e r v a i l i n g tendency, however, i s t h a t of a t t r i b u t i n g an i m p e r s o n a l q u a l i t y t o f o r c e s t h a t a r e e s s e n t i a l l y human i n o r i g i n and maintenance. systems of human o r i g i n Some p e o p l e t r e a t a s i f t h e y e x i s t e d above and beyond any human a g e n t , beyond t h e c o n t r o l of whim o r human f e e l i n g . The human element behind a g e n c i e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s i s d e n i e d . , (P. 8 ) . There i s one a s p e c t of t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r t h a t may p a r t i c u l a r l y enc o u r a g e such r e i f i c a t i o n . The c o o r d i n a t o r r e s p o n d s i n ways t h a t imply t h a t h e i s an a g e n t of a l a r g e r system i n which h e i s b u t o n e cog. For example, when p r e s s e d on t h e p r o c e d u r e s , one of h i s r e s p o n s e s i s t o a s s e r t t h a t t h e " p r o j e c t h a s been d e s i g n e d by p r o f e s s i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s , and t h e s e a r e t h e p r o c e d u r e s t h a t have been e s t a b l i s h e d . quite explicit." My i n s t r u c t i o n s h e r e a r e P o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s might w e l l f e e l t h a t t h e c o o r d i - n a t o r and t h e y a r e a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n some e x t e r n a l e n t i t y over which none of them h a s any c o n t r o l . R e i f i c a t i o n , then, i s another f o r c e t o maintain the agentic role. Breaking o u t of t h e a g e n t i c r o l e i s o n l y h a l f t h e b a t t l e i n mobilizing f o r rebellious c o l l e c t i v e action. Even w i t h o u t t h e a g e n t i c r o l e , i t i s no e a s y t a s k f o r a group of p r e v i o u s l y unacquainted p e o p l e t o o r g a n i z e thems e l v e s f o r a n a t t a c k on a u t h o r i t y . The MHRC encounter c o n f r o n t s p a r t i c i - p a n t s w i t h a problem of i n t e r p r e t i n g a complex s e t of u n f o l d i n g e v e n t s . It i s n o t always c l e a r how o t h e r s have i n t e r p r e t e d what i s happening, and i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a r r i v e a t a shared a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e working consensus which t h e a u t h o r i t y h a s imposed. Nor do t h e y have any p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e working t o g e t h e r on a common task. They have no e s t a b l i s h e d working r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r h i e r a r c h y of l e a d - e r s h i p t h a t would ease t h e problems of c o o r d i n a t i n g a c t i o n . They do n o t even t h i n k of themselves a s a group, b u t a s a c o l l e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h t h e f l i m s i e s t of common bonds. To embark on r e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n w i t h such a haphazard group of s h i p m a t e s i s l i k e l y t o seem f o o l h a r d y t o many. They do n o t know t o what e x t e n t t h e y can count on t h e i r f e l l o w par- t i c i p a n t s should a storm d e v e l o p , and t h e y have no way of f i n d i n g o u t unt i l i t may b e t o o l a t e t o t u r n back. Responses t o t h e MHRC Encounter Between t h e d i f f i c u l t y of e l u d i n g t h e a g e n t i c r o l e and t h e d i f f i c u l t y of s t r a n g e r s o r g a n i z i n g themselves, r e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n might w e l l seem improbable i n t h e MHRC encounter. v a r i o u s forms. I n f a c t i t o c c u r s f r e q u e n t l y and i n I n t h i s s e c t i o n , we summarize t h e r e s p o n s e s we observed i n 33 i t e r a t i o n s of t h e MHRC encounter. among t h e 33 groups. There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y T h i s i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e we intended t o produce v a r i a b i l i t y and d e l i b e r a t e l y a l t e r e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which some of t h e groups were run. P a r t i c i p a n t s , f a c e d w i t h a d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n , im- p r o v i s e d i n v a r i o u s ways, some of them q u i t e i n g e n i o u s . From o u r p r e s e n t v a n t a g e p o i n t , we c a n s e e p a t t e r n and o r d e r i n t h e s e r e s p o n s e s , b u t t h e enc o u n t e r s , a s e v e n t s , were extremely r i c h and i d i o s y n c r a t i c . E v e n t u a l l y , we hope t o account f o r some of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among groups w i t h a s y s t e m a t i c a n a l y s i s of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and v i d e o - t a p e s t h a t comprise o u r d a t a set. S i n c e d a t a r e d u c t i o n and a n a l y s i s i s s t i l l i n p r o g r e s s , we p r e f e r t o l i m i t o u r s e l v e s a t t h i s p o i n t t o a summary d e s c r i p t i o n , i g n o r i n g i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among groups t h a t might account f o r variation. We w i l l a l s o omit t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l and p r o c e d u r a l d e t a i l s t h a t a r e a d e r would need t o e v a l u a t e t h e q u a l i t y of t h e d a t a we p r e s e n t and how w e l l w e met o u r o b l i g a t i o n s t o p a r t i c i p a n t s . A l l of t h e 33 groups s e t t l e d i n t o r o l e w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y . A l l of t h e 261 p a r t i c i p a n t s o b e d i e n t l y completed o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , introduced themselves t o t h e camera a s a s k e d , and began a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e c a s e a s asked. A l l e x c e p t one group signed t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n agreement i n which t h e y acknowledged t h a t t h e y were w i l l i n g l y v i d e o t a p e d , r e c e i v e d payment, and t h a t t h e t a p e produced was t h e s o l e p r o p e r t y of t h e MHRC. The r e s i s t - i n g group followed t h e l e a d of a r e t i r e d book e d i t o r from a l o c a l p u b l i s h i n g house who s u g g e s t e d t h a t h e never signed a n y t h i n g i n advance. The exchange w a s p o l i t e and r e a s o n a b l e , b u t t h i s u n u s u a l r e s p o n s e foreshadowed l a t e r fireworks. Even t h i s group complied w i l l i n g l y enough w i t h t h e r e - mainder o f t h e c o o r d i n a t o r ' s benign i n s t r u c t i o n s . The c o o r d i n a t o r ' s f i r s t t r a n s g r e s s i o n o c c u r s when h e a s k s one-third of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n each group t o " a r g u e a s i f you were members of t h e community who are offended by Mr. C ' s b e h a v i o r diverge significantly. .I1 A t t h i s p o i n t , t h e groups .. . I n s i x t e e n - of t h e 33 g r o u p s , more than one-third of t h e group members e i t h e r p u b l i c l y r e g i s t e r e d a n e x p l i c i t p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h i s p r o c e d u r e , o r p u b l i c l y r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h i t . The people r e g i s t e r - i n g d i s s e n t o r r e s i s t a n c e were n o t restricted by any means t o t h o s e who had been asked t o g i v e f a l s e o p i n i o n s . I n two of t h e s e s i x t e e n groups, d i s s e n t became g e n e r a l r e s i s t a n c e , and t h e c o o r d i n a t o r was u n a b l e t o g a i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance t o proceed. d e s c r i p t i o n of one of t h e s e s c e n e s p r o v i d e s a r i c h e r s e n s e of t h e i n t e r - - action a t t h a t point: M r . R y t i n a , t h e c o o r d i n a t o r , e n t e r e d t h e room, turned o f f t h e t a p e d e c k , andapproached t h e group: "That was f a i r l y l i v e l y t h e r e , and I t h i n k w e can move on t o t h e second q u e s t i o n . But f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n , w e ' r e g o i n g t o make a n a d j u s t m e n t i n t h e procedure here. What w e ' r e g o i n g t o do on t h i s q u e s t i o n i s w e ' r e going t o a s k Dick, and L i n d a , and J e a n been done by a random p r o c e d u r e - to - this . has t a k e t h e p o i n t of view of someone i n t h e community who's offended by M r . C ' s b e h a v i o r . C a r l i n t e r j e c t e d , "Would you mind l e a v i n g t h e t a p e on w h i l e you s a y t h i s ? " R y t i n a responded, "Well, t h i s i s s t a n d a r d p r o c e d u r e here." C a r l r e p e a t e d , "Would you mind l e a v i n g t h e t a p e on w h i l e youg i v e u s t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s , s o t h a t i t d o e s n ' t appear ... " T h a t ' s n o t what my i n s t r u c t i o n s c a l l f o r me t o do," Rytina interrupted. "That would b e , I g u e s s , a w a s t e of t a p e . But 11 . A . . I just I certainly. follow t h e instructions." "You ' r e t e l l i n g somebody t o pre- C a r l sounded i n c r e d u l o u s . t e n d , and y o u ' r e g e t t i n ' a v i d e o - t a p e of them p r e t e n d i n g , b u t y o u ' r e n o t p u t t i n ' on t h e t a p e t h a t you',re t e l l i n ' them t o pretend?" "If you n o t i c e d what happened h e r e i n t h i s f i r s t d i s c u s s i o n , i t was 1 a r g e l y . t h e c a s e t h a t most p e o p l e were on t h e same s i d e . And w e found i n t h e p a s t t h a t you c a n g e t a much more l i v e l y and f u l l e r - discussion i o n w i t h i n t h e group. - i f t h e r e a r e some d i f f e r e n c e s of opin- And s o w e ' r e a s k i n g t h e s e t h r e e people t o t a k e t h e p o i n t of view of someone who's offended by M r . C ' s b e h a v i o r , s o w e can g e t a l i v e l i e r d i s c u s s i o n . " The group s t i f f e n e d d u r i n g R y t i n a ' s a t t e m p t t o j u s t i f y t h e procedure. Linda and Frank exchanged l o o k s of d i s b e l i e f , t h e n Frank looked away and s l o w l y shook h i s head. a t t h e c o o r d i n a t o r , h e r mouth agape. Linda s t a r e d When Rytina f i n i s h e d h i s s t a t e m e n t , members of t h e group who had p r e v i o u s l y been s i l e n t jumped i n t o t h e f r a y . Over t h e a n g r y murmurings of s e v e r a l p e o p l e , Frank i n t e r j e c t e d , "But i f t h a t ' s n d t a p o i n t t h a t they ..." Linda i n s i s t e d l o u d l y , "I d o n ' t f e e l t h a t way. I f I d o n ' t f e e l t h a t way, I ' m n o t going t o a c t l i k e I do! Es- p e c i a l l y on t h e tape!" "Well, no, i t ' s n o t Rytina began t o stumble. it's really ... . . . now, it, it, I ' m sure you'll find that i t ' s f i r s t quality. I t ' s much e a s i e r t o do when you make a n e f f o r t t o j u s t s i t and t h i n k f o r a minute ... II Linda looked a t Carl: " I ' m n o t g o i n g t o a c t i n some way I don't feel." Rytina p e r s i s t e d , "There a r e p e o p l e l i k e t h a t i n t h e world who f e e l t h a t way, and w e ' r e a s k i n g you t o a c t a s i f you f e e l t h a t ' way." Linda looked away, shaking h e r head i n d i s g u s t . The o t h e r group -members s a t s i l e n t l y , e y e i n g t h e c o o r d i n a t o r . Rytina c o n t i n u e d , "And y o u ' l l s e e , i f you t r y t h a t , how much l i v e l i e r t h e d i s c u s s i o n g e t s , and how much b e t t e r t h i s whole t h i n g w i l l work then." Various group members began t o mumble i n a u d i b l y among themselves. Having r e g a i n e d c o n t r o l o f t h e f l o o r , Rytina f i n "So l e t m e a s k you t o t r y t h a t , okay? ished h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s . And we c a n move i n t o t h e second q u e s t i o n , and i f you t h r e e p e o p l e w i l l t a k e t h e p o i n t of view of someone offended by M r . C!s behavior ... 1I He t h e n l e f t t h e room, t u r n i n g on t h e t a p e d e c k a s h e e x i t e d . .Rebecca -.. pronounced t r i u m p h a n t l y , a s t h e c o o r d i n a t o r d e p a r t e d , "This, l a d i e s and gentlemen, Is what Watergate i s a l l ' a b o u t . " The group r o a r e d w i t h l a u g h t e r . Linda l e a n e d back i n h e r c h a i r , s t i l l s m i l i n g , and a s s e r t e d , 11 I ' m n o t going t o s a y anything." Frank mumbled, "I mean, I ' l l t a k e t h e money, b u t t h i s i s t h e most l u d i c r o u s a f t e r n o o n . ... 11 "I t h i n k we should o b j e c t 06 ~ r i n c i p l e . " Randy added, "I know one t h i n g : i t ' s a g a i n s t my p e r s o n a l t h i n g t o t r y t o , uh, go a g a i n s t my own i d e a s . " The c o o r d i n a t o r never d o e s succeed i n g e t t i n g t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group t o comply, a n d . b e f o r e t h e a f t e r n o o n i s o v e r , t h e group becomes h i g h l y mo- D4-31 b i l i z e d f o r s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h e MHRC. - ,' But i n 3 1 of t h e 33..groups, i n s p i t e of -_ - -. - - -- - s t r o n g p u b l i c d i s s e n t i n 1 4 of them, t h e c o o r d i n a t o r d o e s g e t s u f f i c i e n t compliance w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s t o proceed. I n some of t h e s e 3 1 groups, compliance was ambiguous a t best'. evaded t h e t a s k , g i v i n g s a r c a s t i c o r exaggerated r e s p o n s e s . People I n one group, a p a r t i c i p a n t d o i n g h i s b e s t t o sound l i k e Gabby Hayes i n t o n e d , "Next t o ma 0 waaf, m a c a r i s ma f a v r i t t t h a n g , a n ' a h a i n ' t sending n e i t h e r of '.em t u h t h e t gas stoishen." Another group member followed h i s comment w i t h h e r own s e r i o u s b u t s t i l l o n l y half-compliant s t a t e m e n t , "Well, I f e e l t h a t i f , um, y o u ' r e a p u b l i c s e r v a n t , and y o u ' r e working f o r a company t h a t y o u ' r e i n t h e p u b l i c e y e a l l t h e time. .Then I suppose t h a t you do have' t h e o b l i g a t i o n t o uphold c e r t a i n s t a n d a r d s . But I a l s o do n o t a g r e e w i t h v i o l a t i o n of p r i - vate rights. .. I want t h a t made c l e a r . " I n many groups, compliance was s u b s t a n t i a l . Those who h a d n ' t been asked t o g i v e f a l s e o p i n i o n s sometimes o f f e r e d s u g g e s t i o n s and a s s i s t a n c e t o t h o s e who were a t t e m p t i n g t o comply. I n most groups d u r i n g t h i s phase of t h e e n c o u n t e r , p a r t i c i p a n t s r e a c t e d on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , and somet i m e s t e n s i o n was a p p a r e n t among group members f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n t strategies. I n a few groups, p a r t i c i p a n t s o s c i l l a t e d d r a m a t i c a l l y , a d v o c a t i n g r e s i s t a n c e w i t h one b r e a t h and compliance w i t h t h e n e x t . Throughout t h i s p e r i o d , r e s i s t a n c e and p r o t e s t became more p r e v a l e n t i n a l l g r o u p s , b u t t h i s p r o g r e s s i o n was t y p i c a l l y h a l t i n g and i r r e g u l a r . The f i n a l s c e n e b e f o r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h t h e a f f i d a v i t s h a s t h e c o o r d i n a t o r a s k i n g everyone t o make a summary s t a t e m e n t supp o r t i n g t h e o i l company. By t h e end of t h i s s c e n e , 29 of t h e . 3 3 groups have had o n e - t h i r d o r . m o r e d i s s e n t i n g o r r e s i s t i n g a t some p o i n t , and 14 of t h e s e had t w o - t h i r d s o r more d i s s e n t i n g o r r e s i s t i n g i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r scene. Some c o n f r o n t a t i o n between t h e group and t h e c o o r d i n a t o r was typ- 6 i c a l at t h i s point. Given t h e e a r l i e r h i s t o r y of t h e e n c o u n t e r , t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a f f i d a v i t f o r t h e i r s i g n a t u r e s i s a moment of c o n s i d e r a b l e t e n s i o n i n many groups. The a f f i d a v i t states: I hereby permit t h e M a n u f a c t u r e r s ' Human R e l a t i o n s C o n s u l t a n t s t o u t i l i z e v i d e o - t a p e s of a d i s c u s s i o n i n which I p a r t i c i p a t e d on t h i s d a t e . During t h e d i s c u s s i o n , I was aware t h a t my com- ments. - w e r e b e i n g r e c o r d e d . F u r t h e r , i t i s understood t h a t such t a p e s w i l l b e submitted t o t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t of Michigan, Southern D i v i s i o n , i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a n amicus c u r i a e b r i e f , and t h a t t h e t a p e s w i l l b e e d i t e d i n such a wayyas t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r presentation t o t h e court. I t t a k e s a moment f o r t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s t o s i n k i n . The s i l e n t read- i n g of t h e a f f i d a v i t was o f t e n punctuated by g a s p s , s i g h s , and e x p r e s s i o n s of dismay and a n g e r . Some groups r e a c t e d immediately and a n g r i l y , r i p p i n g up t h e i r a f f i d a v i t s and g r e e t i n g t h e c o o r d i n a t o r w i t h a storm of p r o t e s t s . O t h e r s were slower and l e s s unanimous i n t h e i r r e a c t i o n . I n some, t h e a f f i d a v i t s e t o f f a heated d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e . In one group, t h e most compliant of a l l t h e 33, even t h i s p r o v o c a t i o n was acc e p t e d p a s s i v e l y as a l l signed. The c o o r d i n a t o r was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h c o m p l e t e . r e s i s t a n c e i n 1 5 groups: no one s i g n e d t h e a f f i d a v i t . S i x groups were e q u a l l y unanimous i n com- p l i a n c e w h i l e t h e remaining 12 groups d i v i d e d . 6 Even i n groups where sign- i n g was common o r c o n s e n s u a l , t h e r e w e r e o f t e n p e o p l e who s a i d i n i t i a l l y t h a t t h e y wouldn't s i g n , a l t h o u g h t h e y e v e n t u a l l y d i d . There i s c l e a r l y a n i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups t h a t p r e s e n t e d a u n i t e d f r o n t of r e s i s t a n c e and t h o s e t h a t d i d n o t . But most of t h e s e l a t t e r groups were f a r from p a s s i v e . To what e x t e n t d i d t h e s e groups move beyond r e s i s t a n c e toward a c t i o n aimed beyond t h e e n c o u n t e r and d e s i g n e d t o s t o p t h e MHRC from perpetrating injustice. We looked f o r m o b i l i z a t i o n f o r such s t r u g g l e i n such s p e c i f i c a c t i o n s a s : I n t e n t i o n t o Conduct F u r t h e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n . Participants fre- q u e n t l y d i s c u s s going t o a newspaper, a lawyer, t h e Court, t h e B e t t e r Business Bureau, o r o t h e r o f f i c i a l s t o r e p o r t on what t h e y have experienced. It i s u s u a l l y q u i t e c l e a r i n t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s t h a t t h e p a r t i ' c i p a n t s hope t o expose t h e MHRC t o p u b l i c o r o f f i c i a l view a s an e v i l outfit. Thus, i t can b e c o n s t r u e d a s a planned a t t a c k on t h e MHRC. The f o l l o w i n g exchange p r o v i d e s a n example: J a c k s t a r t e d g a t h e r i n g m a t e r i a l s from t h e t a b l e and f o l d i n g them up. "I'm going t o t a k e . t h e s e t h i n g s o v e r t o t h e News r i g h t a f t e r w a r d . I'm going t o t a l k t o a n e d i t o r . " Lei£ l i k e d t h e idea: "Have t h e m , p u b l i s h something about t h i s , s o t h e y d o n ' t s u c k e r more p e o p l e i n t o i t ." "Go t o t h e News! Go t o t h e News ! I r agreed Chuck. "Can w e a l l go t o t h e N e w s together?" another p a r t i c i p a n t asked. Oh, s u r e ," s a i d J a c k . 11 "Yeah, i t ' s probably a good i d e a , " Lei£ r e a c t e d , "so t h e y know ... 11 Organizing. If participants are to act as a group in pursuing an attack on the MHRC, they .must take a few necessary steps for such future action. as a group. These minimal steps involve a capacity to reassemble We look for any of three indicators of such organization: the planning of a meeting at some other place, the exchanging of addresses and/or phone numbers, and the employment of some division of labor among future tasks (for example, .oneperson calling a lawyer, another person calling the newspapers). We consider 15 of these groups highly mobilized for struggle at the end of the session. They score on more than one of the above indicators, and their discussion and planning .aremore or less continuous at the end and involve most of the group. In the other 18 groups, there are sporadic or isolated, individual acts, but not sustained group discussion of how to attack the MHRC. Chart One presents the basic description of the pattern of response in the 33 groups. There are several noteworthy features revealed in it. (Chart One goes about here.) First, there are two particularly common streams. One of these runs through high early protest and ends in complete resistance to the affidavit and a high likelihood of mobilizing for an attack on the MHRC. The second of these runs through.10~early protest, leads'.to substantial later dissent but ends in some signing of the affidavit and a relatively small probability of mobilization for struggle. T a b l e s One t o Three h e l p make t h e p a t t e r n even c l e a r e r . First, t h e r e i s a c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e a f f i d a v i t and s t r u g gle. A s T a b l e One shows, a group t h a t h a s been a b l e t o u n i t e behind com- p l e t e r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e c o o r d i n a t o r i s a n e x c e l l e n t b e t t o go on t o mobilization f o r struggle. Seventy-two p e r c e n t of them m o b i l i z e compared t o o n l y 1 8 p e r c e n t of t h e groups t h a t f a i l t o s u s t a i n unanimous resistance t o the affidavit. ( T a b l e s One t o Three a b o u t h e r e . ) T a b l e Two shows t h a t i t i s e a r l y p r o t e s t r a t h e r t h a n l a t e r p r o t e s t t h a t i s c r i t i c a l f o r p r e d i c t i n g which groups w i l l resist t h e a f f i d a v i t . C u r i o u s l y enough, l a t e p r o t e s t i s u n r e l a t e d t o a f f i d a v i t r e s i s t a n c e , and t h e p a t t e r n d o e s n o t even r u n i n t h e expected d i r e c t i o n . Table Three makes i t c l e a r e r why t h i s i s s o : t h e r e i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between e a r l y p r o t e s t and p r o t e s t i n t h e l a t e r s c e n e s . One might w e l l t h i n k t h a t d i s - s e n t t h a t i s more proximate t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e a f f i d a v i t would b e p r e d i c t i v e , b u t t h i s is c l e a r l y n o t so. The c o o r d i n a t o r ' s f i r s t t r a n s - g r e s s i o n t u r n s o u t t o b e a c r i t i c a l moment. Breaking-Out and G e t t i n g Mobilized The movement from engagement i n t h e a g e n t i c r o l e t o a s t a t e of r e b e l l i o n r e q u i r e s b r e a k i n g through t h e c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r . But an a g g r e g a t e of i n d i v i d u a l s i n a r e b e l l i o u s s t a t e i s n o t y e t a c o l l e c t i v e actor. The i n d i v i d u a l s must have a t l e a s t some n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t makes i t p o s s i b l e f o r them t o a c t a s a u n i t . Both breaking-out of t h e a g e n t i c r o l e and c r e a t i n g a c o l l e c t i v e a c t o r a r e f o r m i d a b l e t a s k s . R e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n i s n o t a n everyday o c c u r r e n c e . But i t o c c u r s o f t e n enough t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e problems are f a r from i n s o l u b l e . T h i s i s c l e a r l y t r u e f o r t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r . Some groups a r e a b l e D4-36 t o c a s t a s i d e t h e a g e n t i c r o l e and t o m a s t e r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l problems o f a c t i n g t o g e t h e r q u i t e r a p i d l y a l b e i t w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e stress.. O t h e r s move i n d i r e c t l y and unevenly b u t manage t o a r r i v e a t t h e same p o i n t . S t i l l o t h e r s a r e unable t o break-out,or f a l t e r on t h e r o c k s of i n t e r n a l division. What i s t h e p r o c e s s by which some g r o u p s manage t o become mobilized f o r a c o l l e c t i v e a t t a c k on t h e MHRC? It i s u s e f u l t o t h i n k of a s e t of s i m u l t a n e o u s p r o c e s s e s r a t h e r t h a n a s i n g l e one. - A s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n pro- c e e d s , t h e p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s change i n t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of what i s happening, i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l - r e l a t i o n s , and i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e coordinator. Success i n m o b i l i z a t i o n r e s u l t s from these U l t i m a t e l y , w e e x p e c t t o ground o u r arguments a b o u t t h e n a t u r e of t h e s e p r o c e s s e s and t h e i r importance f o r producing r e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n i n t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e MHRC d a t a c u r r e n t l y i n p r o g r e s s . At this point, we o f f e r our t e n t a t i v e thinking. 7 The P a r t i c i p a n t s l . F r a m e . . P a r t i c i p a n t s e n t e r t h e MHRC encounter w i t h some vague b e l i e f s about what i s happening and what t o e x p e c t . Once t h e w a r d i n a t o r e n t e r s t h e s c e n e , h e i n t r o d u c e s a working consensus which w e w i l l call t h e ' t a s k frame. T h i s frame d e f i n e s t h e s i t u a t i o n a s o n e i n which t h e r e i s a j o b t o b e done. The c o o r d i n a t o r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s t o provide t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s , a n d i t i s t h e i r job t o c a r r y o u t t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s a s b e s t t h e y can. A p p r o p r i a t e behavior means g e t t i n g on w i t h t h e job. ~ c c e ~ t a n cofe t h i s t a s k frame means remaining i n t h e a g e n t i c r o l e . But t h i s frame h a s a b u i l t i n v u l n e r a b i l i t y t o c h a l l e n g e : questions. it' allows A completely a p p r o p r i a t e q u e s t i o n , from t h e s t a n d p o i n t of t h e t a s k frame i s a r e q u e s t f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n s . But t h i s opening can be e x p l o i t e d by d i r e c t i n g q u e s t i o n s t o t h e r i m of t h e encounter--that i s , t o t h e s o c i a l context surrounding i t . I n t h i s in- s t a n c e , such q u e s t i o n s concern who t h e MHRC i s and what i t s purposes are. The' c o o r d i n a t o r , however, i s p r e p a r e d t o p a r r y t h e s e q u e s t i o n s and d i r e c t t h e group back t o t h e t a s k frame. He can b e d e f e a t e d i n t h i s , b u t i t t a k e s p e r s i s t e n c e and group s u p p o r t t o keep p r e s s i n g r i m discussion. Sometimes a n impasse i s broken by one of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s resuming t h e t a s k , t h e r e b y r e i n v o k i n g t h e c o o r d i n a t o r ' s frame. This i s almost always s u f f i c i e n t t o end r i m d i s c u s s i o n f o r t h e moment. For r e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e a c t i o n t o .occur, t h e group must adopt an a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e t a s k frame, one t h a t s u p p o r t s an a t t a c k on t h e MHRC. T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e frame i s p r e d i c a t e d on t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e un- impeded o p e r a t i o n of t h e a u t h o r i t y system w i l l r e s u l t i n an i n j u s t i c e . Its g e n e r a l o u t l i n e i s c l e a r enough i n t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r : that the MHRC i s o r d e r i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o m i s r e p r e s e n t t h e i r o p i n i o n s i n o r d e r t o h e l p a l a r g e o i l company win a l e g a l c a s e a g a i n s t a l o c a l gas s t a t i o n . m a n a g e r who spoke o u t a g a i n s t h i g h p r i c e s . How do groups m a n a g e - t o g a i n a commitment t o t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e frame? It i s i m p o r t a n t f o r p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s t o e s t a b l i s h r i m d i s c u s s i o n a t t h e coordinator's f i r s t .transgression. It t a k e s i m a g i n a t i o n , q u i c k t h i n k i n g , and courage f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s t o have t h e p r e s e n c e of mind C o challenge s o e a r l y . They must respond r a p i d l y t o u n a n t i c i p a t e d b e h a v i o r and immediately r e c o g n i z e t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e c o o r d i n a t o r ' s req u e s t and t h e r i m p r e s e n t e d . There may o n l y be a b r i e f moment i n which t h e t r a f f i c r u l e s of i n t e r a c t i o n a l l o w one t o i n s e r t a q u e s t i o n o r comment. Almost immediately, some p a r t i c i p a n t s may b e g i n complying, g i v i n g t h e t a s k frame renewed mementum. D4-38 But there is no reason why all participants need to seize the momemt. One exemplar or leader with the presence of mind may tentatively begin a line of questioning that is picked up by-others and soon develops into an alternative frame. If the alternative frame is not immediately accep- ted by everyone, at least it has been established as a competitor to the one offered by the coordinator. When a participant successfully engages the coordinator in justifying what is happening, this person is implicitly asserting the right of group members to participate in the definition of appropriate behavior. This assertion frequently sparks others to demand similar rights and this genie, once out of the bottle, is.difficult to put back. The more that discussion and argument centers on the nature and purposes of the MHRC, .theworse off the coordinator is in maintaining his fragile task , frame. Groups may succeed in sustaining a rim discussion, but they are likely to drop back into compliance if unable to articulate an alternative. In some groups, the articulation is fragmentary and incomplete; it is implied by the participants1 questions rather than explicitly asserted. However, in groups that eventually mobilize for struggle, the articulation of an alternative frame is quite explicit as in this example from the early resisting groupquoted above: "These are the procedures .. .It began the coor- dinator, Rytina. "That's illegal . . . That's illegal!" shouted Rebecca. The coordinator bulled his way forward. "These procedures have been designed by fully competent professionals." "Designed!" Linda retorted. "That tape didn't even show that you were asking me to pretend." C a r l jumped i n , "Do t h e s e p r o f e s s i o n a l p e o p l e know t h a t what y o u ' r e i n f a c t d o i n g i s suborning perjury? ... 11 A f t e r some e n s u i n g ~ d i s c u s s i o n , .Carl c a s t h i s e y e s down and began calmly, "What's e x a c t l y t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h i s c o u n t r y , man, i s t h a t p e o p l e a r e i n t o s e l l i n ' t h e i r p o i n t s of view, t h e y ' r e i n t o k e e p i n ' t h e i r mouths s h u t ; t h e y ' r e i n t o s a y i n ' what t h e y d o n ' t mean--for money. I a i n ( t going t o do i t . " The t a s k frame o p e r a t e d t o s u p p r e s s r i m d i s c u s s i o n and, t h e r e b y , reduces t h e opportunity f o r a r t i c u l a t i n g t h e a l t e r n a t i v e . But t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e provided w i t h s p e c i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r i m d i s c u s s i o n i n two s c e n e s where t h e y a r e given s h o r t "breaks." These s c e n e s a r e i m p o r t a n t p r e c i s e l y because of t h e i r exemption from t h e t a s k frame. It i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o c h a l l e n g e t h e working consensus e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e c o o r d i n a t o r i n o r d e r t o h o l d r i m d i s c u s s i o n s i n c e group members a r e f r e e t o t a l k about a n y t h i n g t h e y want. Group s u p p o r t i n a more l i m i t e d s e n s e i s s t i l l r e q u i r e d , s i n c e a p a r t i c i p a n t may i n t r o d u c e a r i m q u e s t i o n o n l y t o f i n d t h a t o t h e r s change t h e subject--but such sup- p o r t i s much e a s i e r t o o b t a i n when i t d o e s n ' t i n v o l v e c h a l l e n g i n g t h e t a s k frame i n a c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h t h e c o o r d i n a t o r . It i s s t r i k i n g t h a t t h e groups which r e a c h complete r e s i s t a n c e d o n ' t r e a l l y need t h e b r e a k s . They f o r c e a . r i m d i s c u s s i o n and r e g i s t e r p u b l i c d i s s e n t a g a i n s t t h e MHRC p r o c e d u r e s a t t h e c o o r d i n a t o r ' s f i r s t t r a n s g r e s s i o n , b e f o r e t h e f i r s t b r e a k s c e n e h a s even o c c u r r e d . When t h e b r e a k s c e n e o c c u r s i t c a n be u t i l i z e d t o move f u r t h e r . The groups t h a t d i s s e n t e a r l y a l r e a d y have a s i g n i f i c a n t accomplishement. The s u c c e s s f u l r i m d i s c u s s i o n and p u b l i c o b j e c t i o n s t o MHRC p r o c e d u r e s a r e a i D4-40 matter of g e n e r a l knowledge. It i s now a p u b l i c m a t t e r t h a t s e v e r a l mem- Recognition of t h i s b e l i e f remains p a r t of t h e group!s even when i n d i v i d u a l s r e t u r n t o t h e c o o r d i n a t o r ' s t a s k . 14 - b e r s of t h e group b e l i e v e t h a t t h e MHRC i s , t o s a y t h e l e a s t , u n t r u s t worthy. J A * frame The subsequent b r e a k a l l o w s t h e group t o move on from a d i s c u s s i o n of what i s happening 1 t o a d i s c u s s i o n of what t o do about i t . L Other g r o u p s , u n a b l e e a r l i e r t o g e t f r e e of t h e t a s k frame, a r e u n a b l e To e f f e c t i v e l y t o u t i l i z e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y provided by t h e b r e a k scenes. b e s u r e , p r o g r e s s i s made i n t h e s e s c e n e s . j Rim discussion is frequent and t h e group members move toward e s t a b l i s h i n g a n a l t e r n a t e frame. How- 1 e v e r , t h e y must sometimes d e a l w i t h t e n s i o n s t h a t have developed a s i n d i v i d u a l s p u r s u e d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s f o r coping w i t h t h e encounter. - - Some .q-,- .. .,members have a l r e a d y become c o m p l i c i t i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s and have a c q u i r e d a s u b t l e s t a k e i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e l e g i t i m a c y of t h e t a s k frame a s a j u s t i - - ' ... ' . I 1 f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r e a r l i e r compliance. . . . . .:'.: I n sum, t h e u s e f u l n e s s of t h e b r e a k ' . depends on t h e p r i o r s t a t e of r e a d i n e s s of t h e group. It h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l t o s h a r p e n t h e d i v i s i o n between t h e p o t e n t i a l c h a l l e n g e r s and t h e a u t h o r i t y , I P?; I I I 1 but it a l s o has t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r sharpening i n t e r n a l d i v i s i o n s i n t h e i group. 8 .1 I The p a r t i c i p a n t s are s t r a n g e r s t o each o t h e r -~elations. when t h e e n c o u n t e r begins. They have l i t t l e i n common and p o s s e s s no collective capacity for action. R Y e t some of t h e g r o u p s a r e a b l e t o m o b i l i z e t o t h e p o i n t of a t t a c k i n g t h e MHRC. To a c h i e v e t h i s t h e group members must b e a b l e t o c r e a t e a n a l t e r n a t i v e s t r u c t u r e t h a t can s e r v e a s a v e h i c l e o r c a r r i e r f o r c o l l e c t i v e action. T h i s n a s c e n t movement o r g a n i z a t i o n h a s two important f e a t u r e s of an a l t e r n a t i v e a u t h o r i t y system: 1. It p r o v i d e s some mechanism, however i n f o r m a l , f o r s e l e c t i n g c o u r s e s of a c t i o n . The mechanism may b e one of i n d i v i d u a l s f o l l o w i n g t h e 4 I l e a d of some exemplar,or a c o n s e n s u a l l i n e of a c t i o n a r r i v e d a t through 1 discussion. i1 I n e i t h e r c a s e , t h e group i s a b l e t o make c o l l e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s . 2. I t e x e r t s a c l a i m on group members f o r t r e a t i n g i t s c o u r s e s of a c t i o n as b i n d i n g . The presumption of compliance t h a t w a s i n i t i a l l y h e l d by t h e c o o r d i n a t o r i n t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r s h i f t s t o t h e group. When t h e group s e l e c t s a l i n e of a c t i o n , t h e i n d i v i d u a l members f e e l some o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t i t even i f t h e y a r e n o t f u l l y convinced of i t s d e s i r a b i l i t y . The b a s i s of t h e g r o u p ' s c l a i m on t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s n o t h i e r a r c h i c a l . It d o e s n o t rest on t h e c l a i m s of t h e a g e n t i c r o l e b u t on a web of volun- t a r i l y a c c e p t e d and shared o b l i g a t i o n s . The a g e n t i c r o l e may come i n time i f t h e n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n t u r n s i n t o a formal o n e , b u t a t t h i s s t a g e , i t s claim f o r support is consensual. I t stems from t h e i m p l i c i t commit- ments t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s have s p o n t a n e o u s l y made t h r o u g h p u r s u i n g a l i n e of behavior i n t h e encounter. How do groups c r e a t e s u c h n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n ? One c a n g e t a glimpse of t h i s p r o c e s s i n o p e r a t i o n i n t h e e n c o u n t e r s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e beginning of t h i s paper. "Come on, f e l l o w s , d o n ' t l e t them f i r e l i t t l e J o e , " Simons s h o u t s t o t h e o t h e r members of t h e assembly shop. t o an i d e n t i f i a b l e There i s a n a p p e a l h e r e c o n s t i t u e n c y and t h e a p p e a l h a s a moral i m p e r a t i v e . Simons i s o u t on a limb. If l i t t l e J o e , c a n b e dragged o f f and f i r e d with- o u t any c o l l e c t i v e r e s p o n s e , Simons' own'job i s c e r t a i n l y i n danger. One can imagine h o w d e f l a t i n g i t would b e t o t h e n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n i f everyo n e watched i n s i l e n c e a s l i t t l e J o e w a s l e d away. P a s s i v i t y i s a re-. j e c f i o n of t h e i m p l i c i t c l a i m of o b l i g a t i o n i n Simons' s h o u t . I n t h e Berkeley e n c o u n t e r , Dick Roman d i r e c t e d s i m i l a r s h o u t s t o t h e crowd: "Don't move o u t of t h e way." Those b y s t a n d e r s w i t h i n t h e sound of h i s v o i c e w e r e t h e c o n s t i t u e n c y i n t h i s c a s e and o n e c a n n o t e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e here: t h e b y s t a n d e r s are n o t i n a n a g e n t i c r o l e . They a r e l o o s e r and more a v a i l a b l e f o r m o b i l i z a t i o n t h a n a r e t h e auto- workers o r MHRC p a r t i c i p a n t s . But t h e a p p e a l t o them h a s t h e same moral Roman w a s t a k i n g r i s k s and even e n c o u n t e r i n g o p p o s i t i o n i n imperative: h i s shouting. The p o l i c e might s u d d e n l y d e c i d e t o a r r e s t E m f o r c r e a t i n g a public disorder. The b y s t a n d e r s f a c e d a s t a r k c h o i c e of s t a n d i n g by and r e j e c t i n g t h e moral c l a i m o r r e s p o n d i n g t o i t by s u p p o r t i n g t h e c a l l f o r collective action. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e y d i d n o t heed t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a l l b u t responded moments l a t e r t o s i m i l a r . a p p e a l s t o s i t down around t h e police car. P a r t of t h i s p r o c e s s i s c l e a r l y t h e development of a s e n s e of group loyalty or solidarity. p o r t a n t mechanism Engaging i n common p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e i s an im- f o r creating it. E a r l y d i s s e n t and r e s i s t a n c e i n t h e MHRC encounter a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t i n t h i s r e g a r d . The p a r t i c i p a n t who b e g i n s d i s s e n t i n g o r r e s i s t i n g i s t h e p o i n t man i n a p o t e n t i a l c h a l lenge. Keynoting t h e i n t e r a c t k o n i n t h i s way o n e i s vulnerabl'e t o repu- d i a t i o n by t h e group, i s o l a t i o n , and r e t a l i a t i o n by t h e c o o r d i n a t o r . + t ~ i k k&king on b e h a l f b2,£ t h e gkoup' a s s e r t s a moral claim. If o t h e r s respond t o t h a t c l a i m by j o i n i n g i n s u p p o r t of t h e c h a l l e n g e r , an i m p o r t a n t s o l i d a r y bond i s c r e a t e d . The more t h i s p r o c e s s c o n t i n u e s and becomes g e n e r a l , t h e s t r o n g e r t h e s e n s e of comradeship t h a t develops. The r e s u l t of t h i s development i s a s e n s e of l o y a l t y and a w i l l i n g n e s s t o a b i d e by t h e commitments t h a t t h e group makes. E a r l y i n t e r n a l disagreement can b e e q u a l l y d e v a s t a t i n g t o t h e development of a n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n . One o r two i n d i v i d u a l s p u b l i c l y repudia- t i n g t h e c l a i m s of a c h a l l e n g e r c a n b e a v e r y h a r s h blow when t h e c l a i m s a r e s t i l l a t such a f r a g i l e and d e l i c a t e p o i n t . I f s u p p o r t on a r i s k y c o u r s e c r e a t e s a p o s i t i v e bond, r e j e c t i o n on s u c h a c o u r s e c r e a t e s a s i m i l a r b u t a n t a g o n i s t i c bond. One way t h a t g r o u p s avoid s u c h a f i a s c o i s by a c a r e f u l p r o c e s s of t e s t i n g t h e w a t e r b e f o r e jumping i n . They check each o t h e r o u t t o g a i n a s e n s e of f i r m n e s s and r e l i a b i l i t y of commitments. They o b s e r v e what o t h e r s s a y and do a s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n u n f o l d s and g a i n a s e n s e of who i s r e a d y t o s u p p o r t what s t a n c e s i n t h e i n t e r a c t i o n . We do n o t mean t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s i s a c o n s c i o u s p r o c e s s b u t we do b e l i e v e t h a t t h e part i c i p a n t s a r e t u n i n g i n t o many s u b t l e c u e s , v e r b a l and n o n v e r b a l , t h a t s u g g e s t who can b e counted on and t o what e x t e n t . I f t h i s p r o c e s s i s t o move f o r w a r d , some members of t h e group need t o t a k e r i s k s by committing themselves t o a p u b l i c l i n e of c h a l l e n g e b e f o r e t h e y know whether t h e y w i l l r e c e i v e backing from t h e group. Some do t h i s c a u t i o u s l y s o t h e y c a n draw back e a s i l y enough i n t h e a b s e n c e of s u p p o r t . But a s members show i n c r e a s i n g v e r b a l commitment t o a n a l t e r n a t i v e frame, c h a l l e n g e r s grow b o l d e r . Those who a r e keynoting t h e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e c o o r d i n a t o r i n t h i s p r o c e s s are committing t h e group t o a l i n e of action. A t v a r i o u s p o i n t s , members a r e f a c e d w i t h a s t a r k c h o i c e of e i t h e r s u p p o r t i n g t h e n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n by f o l l o w i n g i t s l i n e o r supp o r t i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y system t h a t t h e c h a l l e n g e r s a r e a t t a c k i n g by complying with t h e coordinator. Everytime t h e n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n p a s s e s such a t e s t i t grows i n s t r e n g t h b u t e v e r y test a l s o p r e s e n t s t h e p e r i l t h a t some group members w i l l r e p u d i a t e i t . A n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n f r e q u e n t l y d e v e l o p s t h r o u g h a p r o c e s s of a c c r e tion. A sub-group of c h a l l e n g e r s forms and g r a d u a l l y wins a d h e r e n t s u n t i l i t i n c l u d e s t h e e n t i r e group. More moderate group members who e a r l i e r sought common ground between t h e c o o r d i n a t o r and t h e r e b e l s sometimes j o i n t h e r e b e l l i o n i n t h e l a t e r s t a g e and even assume l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s i n conf r o n t i n g t h e c o o r d i n a t o r on b e h a l f of t h e group. A n a s c e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e n , must have g e n e r a t e d some l o y a l t y from group members and found some way of managing i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t . But no Some- amount of s o l i d a r i t y t e l l s a group what must b e done and how t o do i t . one must l e a d t h e group t o an a c t i o n i t can t a k e t o t h w a r t t h e a u t h o r i t y - system. fl P e o p l e must f i g u r e o u t where and when t h e group c a n meet i f t h e c o u r s e of a c t i o n c a l l s f o r such a meeting. - T h e y must f i g u r e o u t how t o g e t i n touch w i t h each o t h e r i f t h e g r o u p ' s p l a n s r e q u i r e i t . These a r e mundane t a s k s and y e t p l a n n i n g f o r s t r u g g l e s e e m s - t o c a l l . f o r t h g r e a t energy and euphoria. United r e s i s t a n c e i s a heady e x p e r i e n c e i t s e l f , b u t a t t h i s p o i n t t h e group i s s t i l l i n a s t a t e of c o n s i d e r a b l e t e n s i o n as i t m a i n t a i n s a tenuous r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y . on t o a t t a c k t h e MHRC b r e a k s t h i s t e n s i o n . Moving Energy seems t o b e r e l e a s e d i n t h i s p r o c e s s a s t h e group f i n d s a p u r p o s e f u l d i r e c t i o n . What i s t h e s o u r c e of t h e energy and e u p h o r i a t h a t h a s so o f t e n been reported i n accounts of r e b e l l i o u s c o l l e c t i v e action? In traditional c o l l e c t i v e b e h a v i o r t h i n k i n g , t h e e u p h o r i a i s a p r o d u c t of n e g a t i v e and p a t h o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s of groups p r o c e s s : d e i n d i v i d u a t i o n , d i f f u s i o n and b l u r r i n g of i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , s h o r t - c i r c u i t i n g and o v e r s i m p l i f i - . . ,. c a t i o n , s c a p e g o a t i n g , o r even an i r r a t i o n a l group mind. -- I - . -- I n c o n t r a s t , we s e e i t a s a r i s i n g from a p r o c e s s of a f f i r m a t i o n : - -s o l i d a r i t y i n s t r u g g l e a f f i r m s t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e and t h e i r s e n s e of themselves a s p e o p l e who can defend t h e i r p r i n c i p l e s . I Such a f f i r m a t i o n i s heightened by r e l i e f when s t r u g g l e marks t h e end of i n d e c i s i o n , e v a s i o n , doubt about t h e g r o u p ' s c a p a c i t y t o a c t t o g e t h e r , .-- - -- - - -- .- J and fear of repression. The more that the participants had been troubled by the injustice, the more they are relieved by the prospect that they can stop it. As they overcome the barriers to mobilization, they experience the heady sense that they have taken a decisive step and seized control. A key issue among different perspectives on collective behavior is how the enthusiasm we discuss is related to a group's capacity to cope realistically with its problems. In the classical perspective, euphoria arises from a process in which participants are swept away by false fears, and then false hopes, based on beliefs that oversimplify and dramatize the nature of their problem and its solution. It arises in struggles that have symbolic richness but little efficacy. But, in the MHRC situation we find that enthusiasm may be generated by reasonable definitions of the situation and practical suggestions for struggling aginst the authority. And once generated, enthusiasm contributes to participants' readiness to undertake the practical tasks involved in investigating and challenging the,MHRC. A high rate of volunteering for such tasks was most notable in groups of our participants who afterwards reported a sense of euphoria. When struggle generates great ,excitement':it may well facilitate the pooling of commitments and resources necessary to act collectively and efficaciously. Relations with the Coordinator. For a group to mobilize, the authority must be deauthorized, thereby destroying the claims of the agentic role on the potential challengers. This is difficult to do in the MHRC encounter, because the coordinator is ever present and , active. When he is not physically in the room, participants know he is watching them on the monitor in the adjoining room. Personal attacks on the agents of authority can aid in mobilizing for a struggle but such attacks can also backfire. It is easier to challenge an authority system when its agents are personally obnoxious than when they are firm but civil. Challenges often produce social control errors by higher agents of authority that can be exploited by potential challengers to encourage resistance and struggle. If authorities act with civility, however, personal attacks can easily backfire. In the MHRC encounter, for example, many participants show a tendency to humanize the encounter. _The coordinator is distant, makes no play for sympathy, and does not ever raise his voice or attack group members. In contrast, he is sometimes attacked and made the target of ridicule for his apparent moral obtuseness. He sometimes gets flustered and there can be little doubt that the participants perceive when they are giving him a hard time. Resistance and struggle are undercut when people begin feeling sorry for the coordinator in his unfortunate job. Such understand- able and honorable reactions are, in this instance, demobilizing. They present challengers with the temptation to comply on humanitarian grounds. If the coordinator is just a poor soul trying to do an unpleasant and difficult job, why not go along with what he asks to spare him further humiliation? Besides the danger of provoking a sympathetic reaction, personal attacks on the coordinator are too encounter-centered for an effective struggle against the MHRC. For successful struggle, deauthorization must reach a point at which the coordinator becomes an irrelevancy. Successful resistance, even by a single person, is an important step in reaching this point. If anyone suspects concealed sanctions, he is disabused of this notion. The coordinator reveals no effective means for insuring compliance. Resistance breaks the magic spell: henceforth, those who continue to operate in the agentic role do so with recognition of an alternative. To attack the MHRC, group members must reach the point where they simply ignore the coordinator as they make their own plans. flunky no longer concerns them. This MHRC If he intrudes on their conversation, this is taken as a signal for the group to meet someplace where.it can discuss its plans without danger of being overheard by an MHRC spy. The ultimate relationship with the coordinator is no relationship, when a group is mobilizing for an attack on the MHRC. Conclusion The study of encounters with unjust authority is important for understanding resource mobilization. Encounters provide occasions in which events can alter the consciousness of participants about the operation of an authority system. They provide occasions on which solidarities and collective commitments can change rapidly and the strength of commitments to struggle can be assessed. They provide occasions in which social control errors by authorities may occur or be provoked, leading to the delegitimation of the authority system. The MHRC encounter offers special advantages for understanding thegeneralcase. By mimimizkng the role of external sanctions, it allows us to view more clearly the operation of the social psychological forces that maintain compliance. By drawing on previously unorganized participants, it allows us to view the emergence of organization. We do not suggest that what happens in encounters emerges de novo. -- On the contrary, we argue that in encounters as well as in sustained mobilization, participants invoke long standing principles and adopt familiar techniques of dealing with injustice. The MHRC encounter makes these processes of mobilization especially visible. Beyond these theoretical advantages, there are practical ones. The number of participants is small enough,so that one can follow the interaction.and even record it on video-tape. .It takes place, as does any encounter, in an encapsulated time frame, but, in the MHRC encounter, the boundaries of this time frame are controlled. Most important of all, the underlying structural situation can be repeated, allowing .. each set of participants to write, spontaneously, their own script of the encounter. Variations can be systematically introduced into these repetitions. 9 In the 33 groups that we have watched, with numerous replays.of critical scenes, we have witnessed many that have moved in an hour from a collection of unacquainted strangers to a group that is planning an attack on the MHRC. The process we have observed appears in many ways as a microcosm of mobilization. Potential- challengers grapple at the level of the encounter with prdbletis that are functional analogues of the problems that sustained movement ~rganizationsface in the larger process of resource mobilization. To be explicit, potential challengers in the encounter face the problem of overcoming the hegemony of the task frame. This is an. analogue of challenging dominant beliefs or ideologies that support the existing structure. During certain historical periods, some of these system-maintaining beliefs hold virtually unchallenged .sway. Potential challengers must break through the hegemony' that such belief systems hold in their constituency if they hope eventually to giin :.. a commitment to a rebellious counter-ideology. Those intellectuals who articulate counter-ideologies have their facsimile among MHRC participants who articulate the alternative frame. Potential challengers in the encounter face a series of problems of internal relations in the process of creating a nascent organization, and social movement organizations face an analogous set. Movement organizations must be built on the same two essential characteristics of an alternative authority system: a mechanism for selecting courses of collective action, and a claim on constituents for supporting these action commitments. To create a commitment to a movement organization, it helps to have a sense of group loyalty or solidarity in the underlying constituency. it. Common political struggle is an important mechanism for creating For a movement organization to sustain a long-term challenge, it must find some way of dealing with internal conflict. Frequently, movement organizations must take risks by choosing courses of action where support is uncertain and the action demands greater sacrifices than their constituency may be ready to make. Movement organizations grow by passing such tests or decline by flunking them. To be effective, movement organizations must be able to manage the logistics and coordinating tasks of mobilization. Sometimes their constituency is bursting with angry energy, ready and eager to act but without coordination. Spontaneous strikes and other sudden, uncoordinated acts of rebellion may leave the movement organization vulnerable to counterattack and in a state of internal chaos. If this energy is successfully channeled by the movement organization into effective collective action, the mutually reinforcing cycle of of commitment and collective efficacy described above for nascent organizations may be set in motion for full-fledged movement organizations. Potential challengers in the encounter must deauthorize agents of the authority system and undermine their claims for loyalty from the participants. Movement organizations frequently contend with authority systems over claims for the loyalty of the same constituency. When these claims conflict,.themovement organization must undermine the authority's claim for compliance if it is to gain support in rebellious collective action. Dissent and resistance are important steps in the process of deauthorization. Dehumanization of the target can be and often is used to make an attack on agents of an authority system psychologically easier to sustain. In suggesting that mobilization processes obseri.able in encounters have analogues in larger mobilization processes, we do not mean to suggest perfect isomorphism. Study of encounters will not shed much light on how social movement cadre build organization over time among dispersed constituents, or how they act on long term strategies for dealing with allies and enemies. Participants in encounters may plan to:~cal17meetings,conduct investigations, activate outside authorities, sustain commitment despite pressing concerns in everyday life, and so forth; but social movement organizers must actually cope with the difficulties inherent in such tasks. In sum, we make a double plea for studying encounters. Particular encounters turn out to be watershed events in the growth and decline of important social movement organizations. The dynamics of such events and their relationship to the larger process of mobilization need to be understood. But there is an important further reason for the systematic study of encounters. The parallels between the problems faced in an encounter and those faced in a sustained challenge are rich enough to suggest that many of the solutions may follow a similar process. If so, encounters are important because they allow us to study the process of mobilization in mhiature. Table 1 A f f i d a v i t R e s i s t a n c e and M o b i l i z a t i o n f o r A t t a c k Affidavit Resistance Mobilization for struggle Yes Complete Incomplete 72% (10) 18% . ' ( 3 ) 14 N = 31a F i s h e r Exact Prob. = a .oo&' A f f i d a v i t r e s i s t a n c e and l a t e p r o t & s t i s n o t r e a l l y meaningf u l f o r t h e two e a r l y r e s i s t i n g groups. from t h i s and subsequent t a b l e s . mobilized f o r s t r u g g l e . They are excluded Both groups e v e n t u a l l y Table 2 Early and Late Protest and Affidavit Resistance Late Protest Early Protest Affidavit Resistance No Yes - Complete 72% (10) 24% Incomplete 28% 76% (13) (4) (4) oder rate- High 42% (5) 58% (7) 12 N = 31 Fisher Exact Prob. = .01 38% Low - (5) 67% (4) 62% (8) 33% (2) 13 6 Table 3 E a r l y and L a t e P r o t e s t Late Protest High Moderate Low E a r l y :Prot'est \ Yes - No - 43% ( 6 ) 35% ( 6 ) Footnotes I The account here is drawn from Kraus (1947) and described, along with other similar encounters, in Brecher (1972). 2 For a complete description of the basic fabrication and an extensive series of variations, see Milgram (1974). The quoted material is from Milgram. 3 It may not always be easy to know how participants view an authority system, since there are powerful reasons why people comply in spite of negative feelings. Clearly, one cannot infer their view of authority simply by observing their behavior but must rely on other, independent evidence. 4 Since the Milgram encounter is not collective, this distinction among collective encounters is irrelevant to it. A recent article by Aveni (1977) on "The Not-So-Lonely Crowd" would suggest that, in the Berkeley incident, the crowd in Sproul Plaza may have contained more organization than would at first appear. At the very least, it is likely that many small friendship and acquaintance clusters linked crowd members to each other in significant ways. 5 For example, 11 of the groups had a "mobilizing agent" in them -- a confederate who attempted to fulfill certain mobilizing functions for the group. . - 6 Signing in the case of one of the apparently compliant groups is misleading. This group successfully resisted early and decided c o l l e c t i v e l y t o s i g n t h e a f f i d a v i t , having only given t r u e opinions throughout. I t ' s a l s o worth n o t i n g t h a t s i x of t h e 12 d i v i d e d groups were ones i n which o n l y one o r two p e o p l e s i g n e d . ' I ~ h i ss e c t i o n draws h e a v i l y on t h e work of Erving Goffman, p a r t i c u l a r l y Frame A n a l y s i s (1974). 8 Before t u r n i n g from t h e d i s c u s s i o n of frame t o o t h e r - p r o c e s s e s , i t i s worth n o t i n g a p e c u l i a r i t y of t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r : the fact that t h i s e n c o u n t e r i s a f a b r i c a t i o n may b e and sometimes i s s u s p e c t e d the participants. by Some s u g g e s t , w i t h v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of s e r i o u s n e s s and c o n v i c t i o n , t h a t t h e y e x p e c t t o b e t o l d t h a t t h e y a r e on candid camera o r i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment. S u s p i c i o n of t h i s s o r t a b o u t t h e t a s k frame i s n o t o f t e n an i s s u e i n n a t u r a l encounters. It i s a complex problem t h a t must b e c o n f r o n t e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g o u r d a t a b u t w i l l n o t concern u s i n t h i s p a p e r . In some e a r l y r u n s , t h e problem was q u i t e s e r i o u s , b u t s u s p i c i o n was r a r e l y voiced i n l a t e r runs. B e l i e f i n a f a b r i c a t i o n h a s a complicated r e l a t i o n s h i p t o r e b e l lious collective action. On t h e one hand, i t can have a m o b i l i z i n g e f f e c t by d i m i n i s h i n g any p o s s i b i l i t y of n e g a t i v e s a n c t i o n s f o r noncompliance. On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e e n c o u n t e r i s merely a f a b r i c a - t i o n , t h e n t h e r e i s no r e a l i n j u s t i c e i n a l l o w i n g t h e unimpeded operat i o n of t h e a u t h o r i t y system and no r e a s o n n o t t o go a l o n g . To com- p l i c a t e m a t t e r s f u r t h e r , p a r t i c i p a n t s may n o t simply adopt o r r e j e c t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e MHRC e n c o u n t e r i s a f a b r i c a t i o n , b u t may e n t e r t a i n i t w i t h v a r i o u s d e g r e e s of p r o b a b i l i t y a l o n g w i t h t h e b e l i e f that the encounter is real. Such a dual frame suggests some caution in action while one awaits further information. Although suspicion of a fabrication is not relevant to encounters in general, it must be confronted and disentangled in any interpretation of the frames being used by MHRC participants. 9' The major disadvantage is that fabrications raise quite serious and troubling ethical questions which we will address at length elsewhere. References A. Aveni, "The Not-So-Lonely Crowd: Friendship Groups in Collective Behavior."SociometryVol. J. Brecher, "Strike!" 40, No. 1 (March, 1977), pp. 96-99. Fawcett Publications, Inc., Greewich, Connecti- cut, 1972. E. Goffman, "The Presentation of Self in Everyday ~ife." Doubleday Anchor Books, New York, 1959. E. Goffman, "Frame Analysis." Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974. M. Heirich, he Spiral of ~ o nlict: f Berkeley, 1964." Columbia University Press, New York, 1971. H. Kraus, "The Many and the Few." Plantin, Los Angeles, 1947. . S Milgram, "Obedience to Authority." Harper and Row (Harper Colophon) , New York, 1974. S. Milgram, "Obedience" (A Filmed Experiment). Library, 1965. New York University Film Chart 1 Patterns of Response COM- INCOMPLETE PLETE COMPLETE 314 012 3/4 INCOMPLETE 0/2 COM- INCOMPLETE PLETE 112 COM- INCOMPLETE PLETE PROPORTlON 111 215 MOB1LIZED COM- INCOMPLETE PLETE ' 011 016 COM- INCOMPLETE PLETE 2/2 1/2