Smelser’s Theory of Collective Behavior is altogether different from the book Scott published close to 30 years later. Extending across nearly 400 quite technical pages, it is in some ways a difficult read. The basic position is clear, though, from the opening 20 pages. Anyone wanting to understand the thrust of the argument can find it in the analysis presented there.

Smelser defines collective behaviour as “mobilization on the basis of a belief which redefines social action”. To theorize it, he adopts from economics “the logic of value-added”, breaking collective action into a series of developmental phases analogous to the stages in a production process. Crucially, “the earlier stages must combine according to a certain pattern before the next stage can contribute its particular value to the finished product”. As this happens, some options are closed down.

Smelser distills all this on page 14 of his book: “Many determinants, or necessary conditions, must be present for any kind of collective episode to occur. These determinants must combine, however, in a definite pattern. Furthermore, as they combine, the determination of the type of episode in question becomes increasingly specific, and alternative behaviors are ruled out as possibilities.”

The task is, then, to work out what are the important social determinants of collective behaviour, and how they must fit together. This is Smelser’s list:
(1) Structural conduciveness – in a broad sense, collective action must be permitted.
(2) Structural strain – there must be “ambiguities, deprivations, conflicts, and discrepancies”.
(3) Growth and spread of a generalized belief – a shared narrative must emerge.
(4) Precipitating factors – usually a specific event will spark action.
(5) Mobilization of participants for action – the role of leaders is extremely important.
(6) The operation of social control – counter-determinants can work both to prevent the occurrence of an episode of collective behaviour, and to respond to an actual outburst.

This systematic framework can be used to analyze any instance of collective action anywhere in the world. In the Myanmar case, there are of course many candidates stretching back across decades and decades of history. Undoubtedly, though, Burma’s seismic 1988 movement for democracy calls out for initial examination. It would be good to see the country’s reviving universities undertake a study of this kind.