1. I found the Burnstein article to be one of the most interesting and thought-provoking articles of the year. I just love how it really was a tying-together of the whole course. I’ve since thought about his “continuum” idea and have come up with my own hypothesis. Let me know what you think! Nonviolent As you can see, I’ve taken the continuum idea and added another dimension to it, making it a compass, or x-y plane Informal Formal Y-Axis: Primary Tactics X-Axis: Organization (Internal) I say internal organization matters because, as we’ve talked about, each of the entities on the plane serve the same external function as organizations: citizen-based ways to affect public policy Violent

2. HYPOTHESIZED COMPASS Nonviolent Social Movement Interest Group Informal Formal Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group Violent -FRANK MANZO IV

3. The Set-Up: The benefit of this sort of hypothesis is that it accounts for the question we posed earlier in class: whether or not terrorist groups are interest groups. My response is no, but they are similar and thus in the same sociological/political family (i.e. on the same x-y graph). Nonviolent Social Movement Interest Group Informal Formal Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group More Violent groups will tend to employ, you guessed it, violence in their protests and will resort to disruptive tactics (disrupting commerce, taking hostages, etc.) as their “peaceful” means of protest Nonviolent groups are more likely to use conventional collective action and some forms of disruptive action (ex: sit-ins, civil disobedience, strikes, demonstrations, etc.) More internally Formal organizations will have a clearer, more “legal,” and more consistent message or charter, leadership, membership, fundraising, and funding than Informal organizations. Violent

4. -Social Movementsare Informal and Nonviolent. The face of this quadrant might well be Gandhi or Dr. King. -Interest Groups are Nonviolent but also more Formal. The face of this quadrant is a K-Street lobbyist. -Rioters employ Violent tactics and are Unorganized. The face of this quadrant might be Marx or a WTO protestor. -Terrorist Groupsare Formal, Violent organizations. The face of this quadrant might be Bin Laden. Nonviolent Social Movement Interest Group Informal Formal Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group Violent

5. EXAMPLES: Nonviolent ACLU Health Care for America Now Gandhi’s Movement Tea-Party Movement Social Movement Interest Group Gay Rights Movement NRA Change to Win Pro-Life Movement GreenPeace Informal Formal “Patriot” Movement Council of Conservative Citizens Anti-Globalization Movements Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group PLO Marx’s Proletarian Revolution KKK French Revolution Al Qaeda Violent

6. Grassroots Block Astroturf Block Nonviolent ACLU Health Care for America Now Gandhi’s Movement Tea-Party Movement Social Movement Interest Group Gay Rights Movement NRA Change to Win Pro-Life Movement GreenPeace Informal Formal “Patriot” Movement Council of Conservative Citizens Anti-Globalization Movements Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group PLO Marx’s Proletarian Revolution KKK French Revolution Al Qaeda Violent

7. Nonviolent ACLU Health Care for America Now Gandhi’s Movement Pro-System Block (Seek change within system) Tea-Party Movement Social Movement Interest Group Gay Rights Movement NRA Change to Win Pro-Life Movement GreenPeace Informal Formal “Patriot” Movement Council of Conservative Citizens Anti-Globalization Movements Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group Anti-System Block (Seek to change entire system) PLO Marx’s Proletarian Revolution KKK French Revolution Al Qaeda Violent

8. I can explain these examples more in detail if need be. For instance, take the “Patriot” Movement into account. These individuals are right-wing radicals who are mobilizing because they fear Barack Obama will take away their guns, liberties, and free market. As of right now, they are only known to be training but have the capabilities of turning violent. Thus, the threat of violence, the potential of violence, is taken into account here. This is just one example of how this compass could get very muddled, very quickly. Nonviolent ACLU Health Care for America Now Gandhi’s Movement Tea-Party Movement Social Movement Interest Group Gay Rights Movement NRA Change to Win Pro-Life Movement GreenPeace Informal Formal “Patriot” Movement Council of Conservative Citizens Anti-Globalization Movements Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group PLO Marx’s Proletarian Revolution KKK French Revolution Al Qaeda Violent

9. My biggest problem is that I’m not sure what the dividing lines are- i.e. at which point a social movement turns into an interest group, an interest group into a terrorist group, etc. Nonviolent ACLU Health Care for America Now Gandhi’s Movement Tea-Party Movement Social Movement Interest Group Gay Rights Movement NRA Change to Win Pro-Life Movement GreenPeace Informal Formal “Patriot” Movement Council of Conservative Citizens Anti-Globalization Movements Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group PLO Marx’s Proletarian Revolution KKK French Revolution Al Qaeda Violent

10. I’m also not sure what is a good entity to place at the equilibrium of the compass. I keep coming back to a (democratic) labor union local, because a such a union would have some formal leadership but also a strong informal presence of rank-and-file members and could easily go in a nonviolent or violent direction. Nonviolent Social Movement Interest Group Democratic union local? Informal Formal Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group Violent

11. Any Thoughts? Nonviolent Social Movement Interest Group Informal Formal Rioters or Revolutionary Movement Terrorist or Revolutionary Group Violent