Re-thinking Contemporary Political Behaviour

The Difference that Agency Makes

Sadiya Akram

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351582216
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Proposing a novel approach to understanding the contemporary political landscape, Akram draws on the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Margaret Archer on agency and argues the need for an in-depth engagement with concepts of agency to improve the reach and scope of political analysis.

Is the way that people engage with politics changing? If so, how well-equipped are we to document and explain the extent and range of the ways in which people are engaging in politics today? This book tackles these questions through a blend of theoretical reflection and empirical research, shedding new light on the relationship between arena and process definitions of politics, and how the social relates to the political. Hitherto unexplored features of agency such as the unconscious and the internal political conversation are shown to be critical in exploring how people mobilise today and how they make sense of their political engagement. Two in-depth case studies of the internal political conversations that individuals hold as well as an analysis of the 2011 UK riots are presented.

Making a case for the role of self-expression in politics, this book will be of use for graduates and scholars interested in British politics, political theory, social theory, political sociology, the theory and practice of political engagement and political behaviour.

Part I

1 Political participation

The debate so far

Introduction

This chapter introduces the key themes to be examined throughout this book. My primary focus is to provide a discussion of the alternative forms of political participation literature by outlining the main concerns of the recent more critical literature, many of which are explored in subsequent chapters, but to also highlight an important limitation and area that has not been addressed yet – the role of agency, where this book makes its contribution to these debates.

I begin by arguing that, while it is correct to posit that formal modes of political engagement have declined, such behaviour does not exhaust the political and that we must pay greater heed to alternative modes of political engagement and, in particular, to that which occurs online. To this end, a discussion of ‘what is politics?’, its boundaries and what counts as ‘political’ provides the broader frame for this chapter and highlights the importance of moving from ‘arena’ to ‘process’ definitions of politics. My discussion of the new forms of political participation literature emphasises two key distinctions which lay the ground for subsequent chapters in the book. First, how we can conceptualise the links between connective and collective action, and online and offline ‘political’ activity; and second, the relationship between duty norms and engagement norms, and between project identities and opposition or legitimating identities. In the final part of the chapter, I explore the putative rise of what Henrik Bang (2005, 2009, 2016; Bang and Sørensen, 2001) terms ‘the everyday maker’ (EM).

These debates provide the necessary context to what follows in subsequent chapters in Part I of the book, namely a detailed engagement with the concept of agency, an issue which has been sorely neglected in debates about political participation thus far. A concept of agency, I will argue, is central and critical for how we understand the spectrum of political behaviours. Yet, when agency is discussed in the extant literature, the discussion is often dependent upon a language of rationality deriving from rational choice theory, or reflexive and choice-dependent models of behaviour. Such models are problematic for a range of reasons explored in detail in Chapter 2. Chapters 3 and 4 highlight the utility of a more in-depth engagement with agency by considering the role of the unconscious and the internal conversation respectively. The empirical chapters of the book in Part II illustrate these conceptual issues drawing on case study material which shows the vibrancy of the informal sector and the difference that a concept of agency makes.

What’s changed? The decline thesis

Perhaps one of the key issues in the literature revolves around how large, and how fundamental, the changes in political participation have been. One of the key determinants of these changes is shifts in what is known as formal or conventional modes of political participation – namely voting, joining a political party or an interest group. A good place to begin is to document this side of the debate, which I term the decline thesis.

In Britain, voter turnout at general elections has been broadly in decline since the post-war period. We also know that this is a problem that particularly affects young people – and in terms of voting at recent elections for instance, young people continue to turn out in lower numbers than do their older contemporaries (Henn, Weinstein and Wring, 2002). After the post-war high of 83.9 per cent in the 1950 election, turnout declined to 59.4 per cent in the 2001 General Election. Despite increases in 2015, to 66.1 per cent and again in 2017, to 68.7 per cent, turnout remains much lower (The Electoral Commission 2018).¹ This pattern is broadly replicated across the world in countries where voting is not compulsory. For example, Fieldhouse, Tranmer and Russell (2007) draw on national election results and the 2002–2003 European Social Survey to show that the overall turnout rate for 22 European countries in elections between 1999 and 2002 was 70 per cent compared to 51 per cent for electors aged less than 25. Similarly, with regard to the USA, Macedo et al. (2005) argue that American voter turnout ranks near the bottom among democratic nations and Putnam highlights that participation in presidential elections has declined by ‘roughly a quarter over the last thirty-six years’ (Putnam, 2000, p. 32).

In a similar vein, all three of the UK’s main political parties have experienced a dramatic decline in membership levels since the 1960s (Pattie, Seyd and Whitely, 2004). The Democratic Audit, which conducts regular audits of political party membership in the UK highlights long term decline in membership of the mainstream political parties in the UK over the same period (Dunleavy et al., 2018). As a consequence, the share of the UK electorate belonging to a political party now ranks among the lowest in Europe (Driver, 2011).

Similarly, Van Beizen et al. (2011) estimate that, since the 1980s, party membership has declined by around 50 per cent or more in France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Ireland (also see Whiteley, 2010). Conventional forms of political participation are thus clearly declining, although explanations for why this is occurring differ, as is discussed below.

Explaining decline

A range of explanations have been offered as to why there has been a decline in conventional forms of political participation. Before I turn to these, it is important to first address a more fundamental question: what is the relationship between political participation and democracy?

Political participation is considered to be critical to democratic citizenship because, without public involvement in the process, ‘democracy lacks both its legitimacy and its guiding force’ (Dalton, 2008, p. 76). Political participation as a principle of a healthy democracy was notably enshrined in Almond and Verba’s (1963) model of ‘civic culture’ which has been very influential in defining what constitutes political participation. This model is based on a five-nation survey of mass attitudes and values and identifies three broad types of political culture: the participatory culture, the parochial culture and the subject culture. Almond and Verba argue:

A participant is assumed to be aware of and informed about the political system both in its governmental and political aspects. A subject tends to be cognitively ‘oriented’ primarily to the output side of government: the executive, bureaucracy and judiciary. The parochial tends to be unaware, or only dimly aware, of the political system in all its aspects.

(1963, p. 79)

This model associates political participation with engaging with the government or the political system and it is the loss of this engagement which is lamented by much of the literature on political participation. Clearly, there has been a decline in traditional forms of political participation and it is important to acknowledge that this is occurring (Putnam, 2000; Macedo et al., 2005; Stoker, 2006; Hay, 2007). However, this chapter emphasises that this is only a partial reading of trends in political participation today. Historically, this approach to political participation has held a narrow definition and understanding of political participation, which has two main features. First, it concentrates on a limited range of forms of political participation, which are primarily conventional and individualised, such as voting, election activity and political party and interest group membership. Only a minority of these forms are unconventional, for example, involvement in protest actions (Norris, 2002). Second, it emphasises citizen attempts to influence officials. As such, it operates with a narrow ‘arena’ definition of politics, which focuses on formal political institutions and neglects ‘process’ definitions, which are concerned ‘with the (uneven) distribution of power, wealth and resources’ (Hay, 2007, p. 73) which may occur in a range of institutional and social environments (Leftwich, 2004).

Putnam’s famous book Bowling Alone (2000) provides a good example of the literature’s explanation of the decline thesis in political participation. He argues that, since the post-war period, there has been a significant decline in political participation. This decline has led to disengagement with politics and disenchantment with political processes. Putnam’s view is that weaker civic engagement will lead to a weaker, and less effective and responsive, government. While Putnam’s empirical analysis of declining levels of political engagement is important, I would argue that he employs a narrow definition of politics, focusing exclusively on conventional forms of political participation. As in much of this literature, individuals are held responsible for their disengagement with the state and there is a neglect of new and alternative forms of political participation as valid forms of political behaviour.

Stoker’s passionate plea for a re-engagement with politics in Why Politics Matters (2006) is again typical of this approach to political participation. Stoker assumes widespread disengagement with politics, laments a decline in formal political engagement and is disparaging about new forms of political engagement. For example, while Norris (2002) describe signing petitions as a novel and important form of political participation, Stoker sees it as market-based consumerism: ‘what counts as politics for most people is not much more than an extension of their activities as a consumer’ (2006, p. 10). Given this view, it is clear that Stoker identifies individuals as being responsible for declining levels of political participation. Indeed, Stoker’s solution to the problem of disengagement is to argue that people should be more self-critical and reflective about their approach to politics and be more committed to formal politics and political institutions. At the political level, he argues for the importance of reforming wider political institutions and of a wider civic culture to enable people to engage in politics more effectively, without needing them to become ‘model citizens’.

In contrast, Hay (2007) disputes the thesis that there is a rising tide of apathy in Western democracies and shows that a significant proportion of those that have withdrawn from formal politics are engaged in other modes of legitimate political activity. He defends a broader and more inclusive conception of the political that is far less formal, less state-centric and less narrowly governmental than in most conventional accounts. However, he also accepts that there has been a rejection of traditional politics by many people and that this stems from their distrust of politicians and of the political process.

Interestingly, unlike much of the mainstream participation literature which lays the blame for declining political participation at the hands of a non-voting electorate, Hay (2007) holds politicians, economists and the political and economic system accountable. He identifies an increase in the number of policy areas where politicians have abdicated responsibility, whether through choice or force of circumstance. Hay’s main explanation for declining levels of political participation suggests that a process of ‘depoliticisation’ has occurred, which is a consequence of the dominance of a neo-liberal ideology that values market-based decision-making over democratic solutions involving an active and participating electorate. Arguably Hay, provides a more balanced critique of the current situation in political participation. However, an argument that still emphasises the growth of widespread depoliticisation is, despite its protests, still firmly rooted on an arena- and state-focused approach to political participation. Once we broader our definition, it becomes clearer that, while participation is changing, this does not necessarily imply a crisis of participation itself as advocated by the decline thesis.

Putting the politics into political participation

Before we can proceed, it is worth clarifying my understanding of the ‘political’, particularly given that a common criticism is that some of the literature discussed above operates with a narrow definition of the ‘political’ (Marsh, O’Toole and Jones, 2007).

In discussing ‘politics’, the most common distinction is between arena and process definitions (Leftwich, 2004, p. 3). Arena definitions see politics as occurring within certain, limited ‘arenas’: historically, Parliament, the executive, the public service, political parties, interest groups, elections and so on (Leftwich, 2004, p. 3; Hay, 2007). More recently, Norris’s (2002) work has broadened the focus of ‘arena’ politics significantly to consider arenas previously seen as non-political.

However, Norris (2002), whose work has been important because it emphasises the extent to which contemporary political participation involves new agencies, repertoires and targets, still focuses upon the impact of action on the formal political arenas. For her, social movements are ‘involved’ in politics because they combine ‘traditional acts such as voting and lobbying with a variety of alternative modes, such as internet networking, street protest, consumer boycotts and direct action’ (Norris, 2002, pp. 190–1). In contrast, she argues that many activities, which are often termed ‘lifestyle politics’ such as helping at women’s shelters or raising funds for voluntary organisations, are important socially and economically, but are not ‘political’.

In my view, and following Bang (2005, 2009) and others, this is a mistake and we need a broader understanding of politics. At the same time, process definitions of politics are too loose (Leftwich, 2004, p. 3), with politics seen as occurring in all organisations and contexts, and thus wherever people interact. This presents a major boundary problem, given that if everything is political, then the term loses any definite focus. If we return to Norris’ example, a women’s shelter may not be in and of itself ‘political’, in Norris’ sense, because the individual acting is not attempting to change policy. However, it may be what Rowe (2015, 2017) terms a ‘proto-political action’, so that in a particular context, given a particular stimulus, it may develop into an action within the political arena.

One way forward, as Rowe (2015, 2017) suggests, is to think in terms of a continuum between ‘non-political’ actions in the broader social arena and actions in the specifically political arena. Here, proto-political actions are located at various points towards the centre of the continuum. They can sometimes be social, in this case involving providing shelter and care for abused women, but will become political if, and when, those involved attempt to change legislation, judicial attitudes or police behaviour. The idea of a proto-political action is a potentially important concept because it can help to bridge the dualism inherent in the extant literature on political participation.

The interaction between politics inside and outside the political arena is an interactive one; we are thus dealing with a duality, not a dualism. Citizens do not engage in a mutually exclusive way either in the political arena or outside that arena – which some of the extant literature would see as non-political. As such, and this is a point I return ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• PART I
• PART II
• Index