Leaderless Resistance and the Truly Leaderless

A Case Study Test of the Literature-Based Findings

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12408446
AutoresMichael Sweeney (0000-0001-7704-9580, University of Massachusetts Lowell, autor de correspondencia)
Año2017
Volumen42
Número7
Páginas617-635
Fecha de publicación2017-11-22
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaStudies in Conflict and Terrorism (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1057-610X • E-ISSN: 1521-0731
EditorialTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/1057610x.2017.1407480
OpenAlexW2768755201
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas3
Referencias citadas36

The literature on leaderless resistance is conceptually cloudy. Nevertheless, such literature has bounded the theoretical framework of leaderless resistance around four criteria. These criteria are leaderless resistors cannot be members of organizations they represent; leaderless resistance is a tactical manifestation of an organization; the goal of leaderless resistance is to insulate members and leaders from prosecution; and leaderless resistance arises from organizational failure. Using a case study of the Phineas Priesthood, this work tests these boundaries via a directed content analysis of the Priesthood's ideological manifesto. This research finds that leaderless resistance is theoretically problematic and too often lone wolves and leader resistors are viewed equivalent when they are theoretically different. Scholars must theoretically differentiate between individuals who ascribe to leaderless concepts, organizations, or groups versus those who develop an ideological framework and exist outside a concept, organization, or group

Ideology · Political science · Resistance (ecology · Test (biology · Community Health and Development · Law · Political Conflict and Governance · Psychology · Social Psychology · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence