PART III: Levels and Forms of Protest
‘Who Cares?’
Political Participation and Apathy
Lecture 7
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
In this lecture…
1. Context of Contemporary Debates on Political
Participation and Apathy
2. Theories for explaining differential participation in
politics (why some people participate and why
others don’t):
i. Non-participation due to Apathy? Habermas’s ‘indifferents’
ii. The Resource-based Model of Participation
iii. The Social Capital Argument
Workshop: : Debate: Are young people politically disengaged?
Finding and interpreting survey evidence for ourselves.
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
1. Context of contemporary debates on
political participation and apathy
• From mid-1990s – talk of a ‘Crisis of Democracy’ in
Britain and America
• Surveys of participation in political science indicated a
general decline in political participation in conventional
democratic politics in Britain (Parry et al 1992) and
America (Verba et al 1995)
• 2001 UK General Election – 59% voted, lowest turnout
since 1918 (so 4 in 10 people didn’t bother). Up to 65%
in 2010 but still lower than 1945-1997 (when 70%+).
UK General Election Turnout 1945-2010
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
i. Non-participation due to ‘apathy’?
• Non-participation led to concerns about ‘apathy’ (which
periodically rears its head in democratic societies when
people fail to live up to ideals of participation)
• Apathy defined as a lack of interest in politics, an
indifference (‘not bothered’). Apathy is described in
attitudinal/social psychological terms
• Contemporary concerns over apathy amongst young
people in Britain in particular, who are especially
disengaged from formal politics
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
• 2005 UK General Election – 37% of 18-25s turned out
to vote (61% overall) (down from 39% in 2001).
• Electoral Commission Research Report (July 2002) on
Young People and Voter Engagement argued that
apathy amongst young people was a considerable
factor in lack of turnout in 2001 General Election.
• BSA Survey conducted in 2008 found that only 41% of
under 35s thought that it was your duty to vote. Young
people today less likely to have sense of civic duty
compared to 20 years ago
• But then students flood polls that couldn’t cope in 2010.
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
BUT: what produces political ‘apathy’?
• Marshall (2001) argues that formal politics alienates
young people, is not meaningful. ‘Apathy’ could actually
be ‘positive abstention’.
• Not ‘turning out’ of politics, but being ‘left out’ of politics
(O’Toole)
• Also, how you define political participation (e.g. relative
to some ‘democratic ideal’) shapes your interpretation
of what counts as political participation. Not apathy but
participation has shifted to other forms?
• So we need to know why people do not participate – is
it a lack of interest, or a lack of meaningful
opportunities? If they are disinterested, why is this?
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
Why are people apathetic? Habermas
and the ‘indifferents’ (1989)
• Non-participation/apathy related to the decline of the
public sphere (as an arena for rational-critical debate)
• Public sphere has become commercialised - a platform
for advertising, entertainment, little room for genuine
moral and political debate/engagement
• See also Eliasoph Avoiding Politics 1998, we do not talk
about politics, a ‘shrinking circle of concern’.
• Our contact with the state becomes narrowed to a
‘client’ of state services. We have an unpolitical,
indifferent and demanding attitude towards the state
• The ‘new indifferents’ (term from Riesman 1950) i.e.
political ‘consumers’
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
…they are not devoid of political opinions…But….these
political opinions are connected neither with direct
political self-interest nor with clear emotional ties to
politics…For the indifferents do not believe that by
virtue of anything they do, know, or believe, they can
buy a political package that will substantially improve
their lives. And so, subject to occasional manipulations,
they tend to view politics in most of its large-scale
forms as if they were spectators’ (Riesman, The Lonely
Crowd 1950).
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
• BUT: at election time, parties need us to vote,
especially floating voters and previous non-voters
• So according to Habermas, they have to ‘stage’ or
‘manufacture’ a public sphere for the election campaign
• The best way to sway these voters is to use the same
methods used to sway consumers – advertising, PR
• Politics is sold to us ‘in an unpolitical way’ – e.g.
leaders packaged as ‘personalities’, celebrities used to
market parties, TV and radio adverts, a popularity
contest
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
ii. The resource model of political participation
• The model adopted by the key political science surveys of
participation (Almond & Verba; Verba et al; Parry et al; and
explained by Brady et al 1995 on reading list).
• Surveys found clear patterns in participation by age, class,
gender, income. So why do some participate and not others?
• Roots in Rational Action Theory and Olson’s Collective
Problem (remember lecture 2!):
-
Rational actors calculate costs and benefits of their action in relation to their goals and
preferences
- Olson argued that it was ‘rational’ not to participate in collective action for ‘public goods’.
Why incur costs when you can ‘free-ride’ (Dahl – so the question is why would you
participate?)
- Those that do participate in collective action do so to gain ‘selective incentives’ (benefits
only they receive)
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
E.g. political science studies of participation adopt
idea of the ‘rational activist’:
• To answer Q. ‘why do some people choose to
participate in politics and others do not?’ we need to….
 Look at the costs of participation (benefits are so varied
that we should not focus on them)
 And ask, ‘what would be the costs of participating for
this person?’ (i.e. what are the limits on their choice)
 Their argument relates resources to participation
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
3 types of resources are key (Brady et al, 1995):
• Can/Can’t – the resources you need to participate, e.g.
money, time
• Want to/Don’t want to – engagement, motivation, civic
attitudes (rooted in prior resources)
• Asked/Not Asked – networks, recruitment, social
connection (also types of resources)
Example: a middle class person participates in conventional politics
more than a working class person. Why? They have more resources
available for participation (so less costly). Having more resources
means you also have more to lose through the political system. So
you have more rewards to gain through participation (can achieve
your goals).
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
iii. The ‘Social Capital’ Argument
• Robert Putnam (US Sociologist), Bowling Alone (2000)
• Direct engagement in politics in America has fallen sharply over the
last generation
• Why? Political disengagement due to a decline in SOCIAL CAPITAL
(young people esp. lack social capital)
• What is social capital?
‘refers to features of social organisation such as networks,
norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit’
(Putnam)
• Where does it come from? Community groups, voluntary
organisations, church, bowling leagues, Scouts (i.e. civil society
organisations).
• Why is it important? Social capital helps people work together
collectively, it solves the Collective Action Problem – e.g. through
fostering norms of reciprocity and trust. Without it people become
privatised and disengaged.
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester
Reasons for declining social capital?
‘There is reason to believe that deep-seated
technological trends are radically ‘privatising’ or
‘individualising’ our use of leisure time and thus
disrupting many opportunities for social-capital
formation. The most obvious and probably the most
powerful instrument for this revolution is
television…Television has made our communities
(or rather what we experience as our communities)
wider and shallower…’ (Putnam)
 Does community disconnection / lack of trust /
lack of norms of co-operation / TV etc. explain
disengagement with politics?
Combining the strengths of UMIST and
The Victoria University of Manchester