Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Political Psychology of Protest Sacr PDF

    Uploaded by

    tm_drummer
    21 views11 pages

    Original Title

    The_Political_Psychology_of_Protest_Sacr.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    21 views11 pages

    The Political Psychology of Protest Sacr PDF

    Uploaded by

    tm_drummer

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    ‘Special Section: Political Conflict and Social Change Original Articles and Reviews The Political Psychology of Protest Sacrificing for a Cause Jacquelien van Stekelenburg, Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands ‘Absract. We van cntentioustimes Why are peopl prepared to sacrifice weath 2 ‘lessant and caretiee eo” sometimes even theives for 3 common cause? This (question tings us to the india! kev of anabss, and therefore to pola ‘syhology People na perceivedwordindedthisiswhatapoltcal phology of [roles is abou ~ tying to understand why peopl wha ar inthe same Sedo polticalconguration respond so dfererty 1 wil strate ths pent with 3 ‘rervw ofstateof the-art theoretical approaches and up-to-dateempiraaleidence Discussed are gevanars, efcacyloricsm, idetifeation, notions, and seca ‘embeadedness Most recent approaches combine these concepts Into one rede! “emprising two routes: An efheney Yoke seer By sacl embeddedness ard 2 [pievancat wuts steered by cnet the werking of the modell llusates by ‘Empical evidence from contemporary avets such 25 migrants, callctve acion, Gemenstating disor, and Socal Media protests Fach of these ilustations ‘exemplifies how diferent aspocs ofthe sac political context as ual denticaton, (oupstatis and tual ect Indvidals potest behave As Such the paper aims to provide am oveview of politcal psychological work tat may ‘titute tothe understanding of eur contentious tee, Keywords: clectve action, gevancs, identity, eotions, social embdesness ‘Arab Spring, protests in Greace and Spain, Tea Pasty i the US, ret in London, conta squares accupied in hides ‘of towns Our times are contentious, indeed, Why do all these people protest? Why are these people prepared to ae ‘ice welth a pleasnt and carte life. or sometimes ‘even their lives fora cammon cause? These questions are ot new, they have intrigued savial scientists fora lone time. Yet for political peycholgists this contentious era di create renewed interest collective action. "Take the publications on collective action in the journal Polfcal Peschologs, wntil 2000 we saw an average of 2.3 papers ter year on collective action and ster 2001 i eipled ‘64 papers per yea!” We cern livein contentious times and politcal psychologists try to understand the psyholog ial aspects of this social and politcal change People ive in a perceived word. They respond tothe sword a they perceive and interpret it Indeed, this what 8 politcal psychology of protest is about — tying 10 Uundertand Why people who are seemingly in the sume socio-political configuraion respond so different. As polit ical psychology explaes the caues of the thoughts, feel. ings, and actions of people ~ and primarily how these are {influenced by sociopolitical contest it as alo to ler to the study of protest paticipaion® 1 will ilustate this point with an overview of state. cofthoan theoretical approaches and uptodate empirkal evidence. Discused ate grievances, effcacyeynicism, ‘entiation, emotions, and social embeddedness. Most recent approaches combine these concept into one model. ‘The working ofthe model will be illuatad by means of empirical evidence from a variety of comtemporary conten- tious actions: that is, migrans, collective action, Socal Media prtets, and demonstating.disporss, Each of these empirical lasrations exemplifies how diferent aspects of people's roniednes inthe socio political context Such as dual group ientiieaon, infrmal embeddedness {in-network and group staus alec indvidials™ protest betaine Mears basen the en ofa scart tm “cllective ato” is he joa Pola Pychaogy, lol amount ofits af which 9 were ® Oboe ctins ike sniloy and pal cence fave ptt a iy object wo, bt fn thi pape Fas one ‘ott pissing! spo and wil on ete fm soilay and peli sence wher app uropean Pyhtogi 201; Va. A}226236 ©2013 Hopes ising Figure 1. Model ofthe routes to protest Why People Protest Tn an answer to the question as to why poople profes, Til labore on five diferent antecedents of protest Ptcipation: (1) grievances, (2) efficay, (3) identi, (4) emotions, and (S) social erbedenes. These ante ‘cents ze combined into one model as depicted in Figure I. Note the crucial role of identifiesion ane em tio inthe mode. Tis identification with a group which makes people feel for ther aoup, be it grievances, feel ings of efficacy. cynicism, or shured emotions (2g, van Sekelenborg, Klandermans, & van Dijk, 2011). Beyond that rather than being. a separate motivational pathway, ‘ve argue that emotions mute or amplify existing motives (Klanderans, van der Tooe, & van Stekelenburg, 2008, san Stekelenbirg etal, 2011). Note that we donot vant to give the impression tha ll antecedents indirectly influ- ‘ence colctve ation through emotions. Infact, following the fundamental theoretical principles of collective action, cicary, cynicism, grevances, and embeddedness are fecrodied their direct motivational power. Thus, people are mote likely to participate in collective action i they ae more aggrieved. but less cynical, fel more effica- ‘Gow, and are embedded in civil society. For matter of dang, however, these direct effects ane lft out of the del In terms of relationships benscen the antecedents, we stored in efor work thatthe model groupe the ants ‘ents into two chistes ach buikling om a tight recpmcal ‘elaionship between te faces: Eificary and embeded ‘eS on the one side and political cynicism and grievances fn the other side (Klandrmans et a, 2008) Medes that hanged the order within these pais fted equally well (pote the two-headed arows) and the two clusters were fauly independent of cach ober. Hence. this makes for two routes to proest~ a social embeddednes: route Cynicism, respectively amplified or muted. by emotions (Gee Klandemmans et al. 2008 van Stekelenburg & ‘Klandormans, 2010, 2013). This raiss th imoressing ques. "(0 when an why people ae inclined to take the one he other route 1 protest? Base on the cases Til fllsrate the working ofthe model and wt route under ‘what context circumstances prevails. However a short exposé on coletve action participation and its antecedents ‘wll come fit. Collective Action Protesters are agzrived people who openly contest estab- ished autores and atlempt wo change existing power structures. They form the tip of larger masses who feel at their iteress anor vals are violated (Klandermams & egerna, 1987, van Stkelenbure & Klandermans 2009). Hence, protesters ar aggrieved Put mo all aggrieved peo- ple protest (Klandermans. 1997). Infact, passivity in the face of imperiled interes or violated valves is more often the rule rather than the exception (Marwell & Olive, 1983), Neato inactivity there ia vast anay of behaviors ‘hat poaple mightexhibit asa reaction experienced grev- ances Wright, Taylor, and) Mozhaddam (1990) have pro- posed a framework based on thee distinctions The fist botween imcton ant setion, the second harween actions Aireced at improving one's personal condition ndvida action) and actions directed at improving the conditions of Sne's group (collcve action). The third distinction is betwen actions that confomn tothe norms ofthe existing social system (normative ation like petioning and taking pat in a demonstration) and those that violate existing Soeial ues (nan-nomatve ation like illegal potest and civil sobedience) Fellovng Wriht and colengacs (190), Iwill we fe toms “colle aon” and “rotes™ a interchanges: “Responding 0 ‘memati ina donvataged grou Pom scopes eat pte.” 203 Hoge ing apes Pcl 213 Vb 124-284 26 4. van Stckelenburg: The Political Pychology’ of Protest ee Ee ‘From a social psychological viewpoint such taxonomies of urtciption ae relevant because one may expect (Stfernt forms of participation to involve different motive: tional dynamics. Motivational dynamics of participation can be distinguished on two dimensions: time and efor! (Klandermans, 1997) Seme forms of participation are lim- intime of of once-only kind and involve lite effort risk ~ giving moncy signing a peiten, or taking part in § peace demonstration. Other forms of paticipation ate ‘ito short lived but involve considerable effet or Fisk — sitin, a ste-occupation, a strike. Ptcipation can also be Indefinite but litle demanding paying. a membership feo 10 an organization or being on call for 10 nights 3 ‘month, Finally, there ae forms of participation that are bath enduring and taxing lke being a member on a commitiee of A volusteer in a movement orzaization, This distinction ‘coums for the modivatinal dynamics undeying difer- Catal forms of participation. Inde, why does one person 0 to 4 damonsiation while others say at home? Or why se many mor: people prepared to Signa petiion than 10 0 en strike? Or why isthe one persn inlined to use vio lence to pursue the group goals, while others are not? Hence, collective action takes different forms and motiva- ‘ional dynamics underying them may well fer. Grievances Atte heat of every protest are grievances. be ithe expe ‘ence of illegitimate inequality, felings of relative dep ation, feelings of injustice, “moral indignation about some sate of affairs or a sudlenly imporod grievance (Klundermans, 19971 Mlegiimate inequality is what rela tive deprivation and social justice theeres ave about Su daly imposed gevances refer to an unexpected heat inwwad upon people's sights or circumstances (Wald, 198). Felines of relative deprivation result from compar {son of one's situation with a standard ~ be it one's past Someone ele’ situation, or a cognitive standard such as ‘quity or justice (Folger, 1986). If comparison results in the conclosion that one i wt receiving what one deserves, aperson expaiences relative deprivation, Runciman (1966) refered to relative deprivation based on personal compari Sons as eguistie deprivaion and to relative deprivation Ihsed on group comparisons as fratemalisc depavatcn, Research suggests tat frteralsic deprivation i particu larly imporunt for engagement in pest (Major, 1994; ‘Manin, 1986), On the hisis of & meta-analysis, van Zommeren, Postmes, and Spears (2008) conclude tht the cognitive component of relative deprivation (as reflected inthe observation that one receives les than the standard ‘of comparison) has less influence on action participation than the affective compenent (as expressed by such eelings ax dissatisfaction, indignation, and discontent sbout these ‘utcomes). Next t0 relative deprivation. social psycholo- {Bs have applied soca justice theory to theorize on gre ances and protest (Tyler & Smith, 1998). Social justice Tierature distinguishes between two classes of justice jude urge Poco 013 Vol I9a}2I4 ‘ments; Disritutive and proceduml justice. Distributive Justice is similar to relative deprivation: it refers to de i= ‘ness of outoomes, Prceal esti rf to thefaimess of ‘decision-making procedures and the relational aspects of the social process (being treated with respect, dignity, ‘tc Tyler & Smith, 1998). People care more about how they are teated than about oucomes do authorities treat them with respect. can authentics be trusted to do well © their people? Tn more general terms, intxgroup conflicts can be framed as coiicts on principles or conflicts on matrial Ineests (van Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2008). This distinction is important in the context of protest because ina conflict of interests people are mor inclined take an insumentl route to protest io enforce changes, whereas 4 conflict of principles more likely lads to protein Which people express their views and indignation (van Stckslenburg. Klandermans. & van Dijk, 2009). Efficacy and Cynicism Grievance theories came under attack in the 1970s by scholar arguing that grievances donot provide a sulfcint reason to participate in protest Indeed, grievances abound while prtes does not. Therefor, they continue, the key ‘question to addess is: Why do some aggrieved people Focome metilized, while thers do not? Sodologists snd politcal scientists suggested availablity of resources (MeCarthy & Zak, 1977) and the presence of political ‘opportunities (McAdam, 1982) as key to priest motiliza- tion. Groups with more resources and epportuitis are ‘more Hal to mébilize. The social psychological answer 1o the question as to why some people become mobilized, while others do nt is efficacy. icy reer 1 the ind vidua’s expectation that itis possible © alter conditions cr Policies through protest Gamson, 1992) Far the perception Df the posit of change to take hold people ned to per ‘ceive the group to be able to ute and fight for the sue ‘and they must perceive the paliieal context as receptive for the claims made by their group. The frst refers to group efficacy: The belief that grouprelated problems can be Solved by collective effons (Bandura, 1997), and the sec ‘ond refers to policaleffeaey: The feting that politcal Sctions an ave. an impact onthe. politica process (Campbell, Gurn,& Mille, 1954). Related to political efi ‘cy i plioaleynicion ~ defined asthe opposite of poit- ‘eal efficacy and inversely related to trast im government (eg, Cappella & Jamiesen, 1997), Identity In the 1980 it became clear that instrumental motivation rocking in efficacy is nota suficent reason to participate in protes. Increasingly, the significance of collective Hlentity as a factor stimulating paticipaion in_protest was emphasized Sociologists were among the fist 10 (©2013 Hope abing J. san Stekelenburg: The Politi 1 Psychology of Protest 207 cmphasize the impartance of collective identity in protest Faticiation. They argued that the generation of a collec- tive idem is crucial fora movement to emerze (Melueci, 1989; Taylor & Whiter. 1992) Simla, social psycho logical studies report consisiendy that the more, people identify witha group the move they ar inctinad to protest ‘behalf of that group (ez, Reicher, 1984; Simen ta 1998; Suyker, Omens, & White, 2000). Also metaranalyt «ally this relation confined (an Zomoren ota 2008)- ‘Why is gmup ienication sich a powerful motiva ioral push to protest? First of all, identification with others fs accempanicd by an awareness of similarity and shared fate with those who belong tothe same eateory. Further mow, the “sengih” ofan wentty coms fom i affective lr argument the me” the more “feel for us" ‘sronger Tam motivated 10 parciute on bebalf of the _goup. Collective identification, especially the mow polti- {zed form of it. intensifies feelings of efficacy sce Simon al, 1998, van Zomeren et al, 2008) Next 0 shared fate, ‘hard emotions and enhanced efficacious, identifica from personal social denity the group nom of partic Jaton becomes salem: the moee one iemifies with the {70up, the more weight this soup neem will cry and ‘the more t wil elt in an “inner obligation” to participate cn behalf of the group. Together these dynamics explain ‘why group identifica functions as a "stepping stone” to 8 politicized identity. Tyically, politicization of identi- ties Hogi with the atarenes of shard gievances. Next, ‘av extemal enemy is aed forthe group's predicament, and claims for compensation are leveled against this ‘enemy. Unles appmprite compensation is grated, the power siugale continues and gradually the group's ela Somship to its social environment tansfoms. If in the ‘course ofthis stnggle the group seeks to win the support of thind parties such as moee powerful auhores (e, the national government) of the general public Wdenities fully poltcize (Simon & Klandermans, 2001). Recent work on multiple identities (ef. Kurz, 2002) emphasizes that people can hold many different identities athe sume time, which may push in the same direction ‘ce may come into conflict When ovo ofthe soups pople entity wit end upon opposite sides of «contoversy (or ‘example, union members who are faced With the deision to stke aginst their company). people might find them- selves under onss-presure (Orgema & Klandermans, 1994), Indeed workers who go on strike or movement ‘etivss who challenge their government ae often accused ‘of being disloyal o the company or the country. Goncsler and Brown (2003) coined the tern “dual identity” to point {0 the concurrent workings of identities These authors argue that entiation witha subordinate entity (43 ete ‘deity doesnot necessarily exclude identification with a supmortinate emt (nation identi) Infact, they bold (©2013 HogetePalog that a “dual identity” isthe desiable configuration as it ‘with one's own grup 10 ‘who display a dual ienifiation tend w be mote sified ‘th their situation than those who do not display sich Emotions ‘The study of emrions hs become a popular research area in the social pycholoey of pate. Sach was notalways the cise. As rational were the sate ofthe at emo tions were often reared as some peripheral “enor ter” in motivational theories. Ange i seen as the prototypical protest emetion (van. Stclenburg Klandemans, BOAT). For tose of ws who have Been part of protest events ‘or watched reprts.on potest event inthe news mei, tis is hardly surprising Indeed tis had to conceive of protest, detached from ange. van Zomeren et al. (2008 show that ‘group-based anger isan important motvar of protest pa~ ticipation, There exists a relation to eicacy: People who Perteived the ingroup as tong are more hic Wo expe fence ager and desire to take action; people who perceive the ingroup as weak are mor likly to fel fearful and to ‘move avay from th outgroup (Devos, Silver, Mackie, 2000; Klandermans, van ver Toorn, & van Siekelenture, 2008). Anger moves pecple to adopt a mere challensing ‘luionship with autonies than subordinate emotions Such as shame and despair (Tayler, 2009) or fear (Klandermans et al, 2008) Social Embeddedness Individual grievances and fesings are tansfermed into shared grievances amd flings within social networks, Sori embeddedness ~ the quantity an types of relation. ships with ote ~can have a form of formal relationships asin party memberhip of being a member ofthe labor tion ef. Klandermans ea, 2008), infernal elaonships, such fens, famiy collegues, and virtual relationships such active participation in blogs, sia mia et. (van Stekelenburg & Boekkooi, 2013). The effect of imtraction jn networks on the propensity to participate in polis is ‘crtingenton the anwant of political discussion that occurs jn social networks and the information that people are able to gather about politics as a result (McClurg. 2003). [Networks provide space forthe creation and dissemination ‘of discourse critical of authors, and they ovide a Way for active oppeiion to these atthorites to grow (Paxton, aap Phi 13; Nok 184228284 Ds J. van Sickslesburg: The Political Peyhology of Protest 2002) nother ors, hs where people talk polities and ‘this where the Fatt ofthe soe political work con ‘tre and people are makilized for protest Beng ite (pated ina netwod increases the chantor that cme wl bo {treted witha mobilizing message and that people are kept 1o toi promises 1 paricipate(Klaemaas & Ovpem, 1087). For example: People with fends or aajutininces that ae already ative within social movements are more ely ake past in movement scons than others (Gould, 1998, Klandomans, 1997). Social networks function a communicason channels, discursive processes take place {0 form consensus that makes up thr symbolic rescues ‘a calecive sense-making (Ganson, 192; Klandernans, 1988, and poeple ar inormed of wpeoming events an ‘social capil as tt and loyalty accumulate in networks {to provide individals withthe resources needa to invest, in protest (Klandermans et al, 2008), Empirical illustrations In what follows empirical ilstations are provided from thee different case of collective ation: (1) why mans ote (2). why people participate in Sol Mea pros, [213 why daspran protest. These cas show the work ing of the made. and exemplify how diferent aspects of ‘eopl’sroteness in the sociopolitical context such as ial group identification, embeddedness in informal net. ‘works, ant gmoup stu affect wheter people past or sot an if they Uo whether they lake the embedledness ‘ute secred By efficacy athe grievances route stared by eynesm. Why Migrants Protest ‘Migants cccupy a delicate position in their “hos scie- ‘ies: They are expected to asimilte imo the host citre, And fare to do so is consdered a sgn of lack of toyaly. ‘Migs loyaly to the coumty of reéence is placed under even moe doubt if they engage in pote. Uinler ‘Sich ccimetaees 8 rele what agave mans ‘ould do. Shook! they say avay from collective action empl thelr plevances, or tt Uke any other citizen by Soicing ther discomten!? To answer those quesins, We ‘Gveyed Morpecans and Tus in Amsterdam and Tuts in'New York ‘ot. This effect was stronger for migrants wh felt poii- cally effecve. Moreover. migrants who reported greater pole efficacy displayed more anger in esponsetounfir ‘meaument stemming from their etait. while migrants ‘who reported less plital efficacy were more Hlsly 10 fxperince Tear In tum, migranis who dispuyed anger ‘ther than fear paicipated more exensively in protest Cynic both worked fo reduce and reiforce action pat= ‘icipaion depending on wheter it went togethr wih ccived umes. The last ative were howe who combine Dolcal eyiciem sith the fecling that ey are weued fay: the most ative were the who combine eyricism with tbe feling that they. ae treated unfairly. Adal ‘deny ~ concurrent entation with Tukish/Moroccan “Menity and Dutch/American ideatity ~ peared inde healthy sociopolitical constellation, Migrants who ic played a dua Metifcation were more ssid with ther ‘Suation than those who didnot display such wemiy, but (they wore divalsfed they were mere Mksly to putiepate ‘in rotst. Finally. embedded migrants ~ both ebm and rotate organizational embaddednss ~ were more Tey to paricyue in pots than these who were not Di cussions shout politics within these netwosts ~ panicularly ‘tic etwerks~ increased eficary and ransomed ind ideal srievances ino shared grievances and anges, which translated in protest participation, These fing formed the basis for our model as depicted in Figure 1 witha socal cmbedeiness route tered by effctey and a grievances toute decred hy eyici, respectively amplified or muted by emotions Te the model resticted to this specific sample of migrant, or can tbe pneralized to oer migrants or even ivan in gener? AB forthe dberval dict effects of |evances efficacy, embodies, tent and emotens, ‘se are not unigue for migrants, Dur the inate of mbeddedoes and ds deny might be more specific for mmiganis. However. ey might alo be ss exceptional han ‘hey appear. eople whe ensape in rote tendtobe embed.

    You might also like