The Conditions of Direct Action in a Democratic Society

N 1960, northern Negroes were still largely unincorporated into political system in spite of fact that they had right to vote, to organize pressure groups, and to use most methods of routine politics.' Both structure of American politics and peculiarities of Negro social structure had prevented this. At national level, liberal politicians sympathetic to Negro grievances found it necessary to ally with Southerners in order to get other liberal legislation passed. At local level, Banfield and Wilson have argued that every stable political system deprived Negroes of power commensurate with their numbers.2 In addition, such features of Negro social structure as poverty, high geographical mobility, cultural emphasis on immediate gratification, lack of ethnic solidarity, black middle class vested interest in segregation, etc., further weakened Negro power by preventing concerted activity.3 In short, in spite of their numbers and access to routine political methods, Negroes were still deprived of power. James Wilson saw a possible solution to this situation in protest; the use of negative inducements (threats) that rely for their effect on sanctions which require mass action or response.4 Prior to time he wrote, few protest movements had been launched and even fewer had been successful. In 1960, however, one of major events in U.S. history occurred, rise of a black, direct action movement of profound impact, a movement that achieved through disorderly means picketing, boycotts, sit-ins, arrests a measure of incorporation blacks had not been able to achieve by routine methods alone. These events confront us with an important theoretical problem. If, at times, even in democratic societies, some groups can only be incorporated through direct action, how do such movements originate, and when will they be successful?