Fragmentation and violence
Subtitle: internal influences on tactics in the case of the Palestinian national movement, 1918--2006
By: by Wendy Ruth Pearlman
Series: Collections of the Harvard University Archives
Published: 2007
Language: eng
Number of pages: 414
Description: What brings some self-determination movements to use violence and others nonviolence? What causes a movement to use violence on some occasions but not others? Mass-based, elite-driven, materialist, strategic interaction, and historicist explanations are insufficient due to their tendency to view movements as unitary actors. Research that emphasizes intra-movement dynamics such as outbidding and spoiling is likewise inadequate, as it rarely compares movements that do and do not experience schisms or do and do not use violence. To fill these gaps, this dissertation treats a movement's degree of internal cohesion as a variable and systematically analyzes how it affects tactics. Upon positing a conceptualization of cohesion appropriate for the study of nonstate actors, it argues that political unity increases the possibility of nonviolence because it enables collective coordination and restraint. By contrast, political fragmentation generates incentives and opportunities that increase the likelihood of violence. This dissertation evaluates these hypotheses in five empirical chapters, each of which analyzes the Palestinian national movement during a different era: namely, the British Mandate, the diaspora-based Palestine Liberation Organization, the first Intifada, the Oslo peace process, and the second Intifada. Qualitative analysis of events and decision-making within each historical period illuminates the mechanisms driving the hypothesized relationships, while comparison between periods demonstrates the power of the analytical framework as a whole. This research makes two contributions to the literature on conflict processes and social movements. First, whereas most scholarship focuses on how conflicts begin and end, this project illuminates the varied paths they take.

Second, whereas mainstream research invokes distinct approaches to explain armed and unarmed contentious politics, this project develops a framework that accounts for both.
Notes: "September 2007."

Thesis (Ph.D., Dept. of Government)--Harvard University, 2007.

Includes bibliographical references.