Looking Out My Back Door: The Neighborhood Context and Perceptions of Relative Deprivation



Canache, Damarys. 1994. “Looking Out My Back Door: The Neighborhood Context and Perceptions of Relative Deprivation.” Political Research Quarterly 47: 547-71.

Overview
Relative deprivation (not deprivation) is a contextual effect. Relative deprivation is a gap between individual wealth and surrounding wealth.

Support for violence peaks for individuals whose context emphasizes poverty; like when a poor person lives in a rich neighborhood. Violence is supported because they feel deprived relative to the rich. Poor people living in heterogenous neighboorhoods (equal mix of rich/poor) do not feel relative deprivation and also do not support political violence.

Fraternalistic deprevation: perceived deprivation between ingroup and outgroups.

Egoistic deprivation occurs within a single group.

Place in Literature
Durkheim first wrote how satisfaction is relative to the expectations within a context. Relative deprivation has been incomplete in past literature because past studies fail to measure deprivation RELATIVE to a context.

Relative deprivation seems to have an important role in political mobilization. It seems that if politics are all about groups, and group conflicts, then relative deprivation seems like a tool to elevate a groups passion and turnout.

Scratch notes
Perhaps political partisan mobilization can be described as a process that helps a person understand their given relative deprivation (which they did not realize before). Worker doesn't see their systemic deprivation until they realize through mobilization that they could have better. Democracy allows for relative deprivation. Deprivation is better if there is no hope for relative improvement? The danger of hope?

A person, who is deprived relative to a better state, is more willing to deprive others in the better state. I was more willing to tax the rich once I was mobilized.

The poor in a ruch area feel deprived, they feellike the haves don't deserve what they have. They deserved to be deprived.

When a person  and a their ingroup is relatively deprived, they are more likely to determine that an outgroup doesn't deserve what they have.

All political thinking is who has what and do they deserve it. When group A is deprived relative to group B (and by group B), they will conlcude that Group b does no deserve what it has.

When the poor is deprived relative to their expectations (by the rich), they will conlcude that the rich does no deserve what it has. The poor will want to tax the rich.

When white protestants are deprived relative to their expectations (by seculars and liberals), they will conlcude that seculars and liberals do not deserve what they have. White Protestants will want to vote against the seculars and liberals.

Perhaps campaigns that are most effective at conveying a message of relative deprivation will produce the highest turnout rate.

Formula for winning:

S ( size of linked group X percent of linked group members who feel relatively deprived ) > electorate/2

Republican partisans sincerely fear that Obamacare will make them and all of America worse off than before. They feel deprived relative to an expected state. Thus, they are willing to do unprecedented things like stop legislating and even shutting down the government.