Veröffentlichungsreihe der Abteilung Institutionen und sozialer Wandel des Forschungsschwerpunktes Sozialer Wandel, Institutionen und Vermittlungsprozesse des Wissenschaftszentrums Berlin für Sozialforschung FS in 90-203 THE NORMALIZATION OF THE UNCONVENTIONAL Forms of Political Action and New Social Movements Dieter Fuchs Berlin, September 1990 Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH (WZB) Reichpietschufer 50, D-1000 Berlin 30, Telefon: (030) 25 49 1-0 Zitierweise: Fuchs, Dieter, 1990: The Normalization of the Unconventional. Forms of Political Action and New Social Movements. Discussion Paper FS HI 90-203. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin. Zusammenfassung Unkonventionelle Formen politscher Beteiligung sind inzwischen zu einer Normalität in der politischen Kultur der Bundesrepublik geworden. Diese Normalisierung des Unkonventionellen ist nach den analysierten Umfragedaten kein Ausdruck einer funda­ mentalen Unzufriedenheit mit den etablierten Formen der Artikulation von Interessen. "Neue" und "alte" Formen politischer Beteiligung bilden in der Perspektive der Bürger kein gegensätzliches Verhältnis, sondern sind komplementäre Optionen, die situationsspezifisch eingesetzt werden. Ein Anpassungsdruck auf das politische System im Sinne eines strukturellen Wandels ist von daher gesehen eher unwahrscheinlich. Abstract Unconventional forms of political participation have become a normality in the West German political culture in the meantime. This normalization of the unconventional is, according to the survey data we analyzed, not an expression of a fundamental dissatisfaction with the established forms of interest articulation. "New" and "old" forms are not in a conflicting relationship, but are complementary options to be used depending on the situation. Seen from this perspective, it is unlikely that the political system will experience stress leading to a structural change. 1 1. Introduction One aspect of the political process in the Western democracies has undergone a fundamental change since the middle of the 60s. Up until this point in time, the average citizen’s articulation of political interests had been primarily limited to established forms of political participation in the context of representative institutions. The main expression of this participation was voting for a specific political party in periodic elections. In this form of political participation, the articulation of political interests was only possible as a generalized support for the political platform of the parties selected. This generalized support on the part of the electorate was specified by the political authorities and transformed into collectively binding decisions. Since then, new collective actors have emerged alongside of the parties and are playing an increasingly important role in the political process. These were first of all the various protest movements, which were subsequently replaced by the so-called new social movements (Roth 1985; Rucht 1989). The new social movements primarily used non- institutionalized forms of action to articulate their political interests. These action forms had two sources: they had either been reactivated from the tradition of the workers’ movement or were newly developed in the context of the movements themselves. They differ from institutionalized action forms primarily in the fact that they are aimed directly at the political authorities and express very specific interests. This creates a qualitatively new relationship between citizens and political authorities, which Inglehart (1989) characterizes as a change from "elite directed" to "elite challenging" politics. Kaase (1984) describes this development as a "participatory revolution". While the expansion of the political participation repertory of ordinary citizens through non-institutionalized or unconventional actions can be considered as an empirically established phenomenon (Bames/Kaase et al. 1979; Jennings/van Deth et al. 1989), the consequences of this phenomenon for the political system are still unclear. Is this a sign of a structural change in the intermediary system of politics, or is it only connected with a peripheral adJustment to a changing societal environment which does not affect the identity of the system? We cannot directly discuss this question on the basis of the survey data analyzed. We can only collect empirical evidence to find out whether this behavior is exerting a "stress" (Easton 1965) on the intermediary system of politics which could potentially lead to institutional changes. For the time being, we will be proceeding from the assumption that a pressure for the representatively constituted intermediary system to adJust would become greater to the 2 extent that the use of non-institutionalized forms of action by its citizens increases. From the backdrop of this assumption we will be attempting to trace the development of non-institutional or unconventional political participation over time in the Federal Republic of Germany. Then we will be looking at the question of whether the unconventional forms of participation and the new social movements which primarily use them are more likely to be seen as a supplement or a replacement for traditional politics. An integration into the existing institutional system would surely be easier if they are seen to be complementary than if they are considered as substitutive. 2. Trends of participation in unconventional forms of action We can rely on indicators developed in the Political Action Study to empirically determine participation in unconventional political action forms. A total of nine unconventional action forms were differentiated in the first wave of this study (Bames/Kaase et al. 1979). These were supplemented in the second wave by an additional action form - the participation in citizen action groups (Jennings/van Deth et al. 1989). The respondents indicated for each form of action whether they had already taken part in such an action, whether they would participate in an important situation, in an extraordinary situation, or whether they would not participate under any circum­ stances. In regard to these indicators there are data for 1974 and 1980 from the two waves of the Political Action Study. The battery of questions was later partially (1985/86 and 1988) or completely (1989) covered in three subsequent representative surveys, so that we have access to data for a total of five points in time covering a sixteen year period (s. Appendix). In table 1, the percentages of those surveyed who had already participated in the respective action form or who would participate under certain circumstances (in important or extraordinary situation) are presented for each point in time. Only people who had indicated that they would not participate under any circumstances were excluded. The percentages given in table 1 thus represented the greatest possible potential for participation in the individual actions. The basis for the percentages was all people surveyed who were 18 years and older and had given a valid response. In contrast to the Political Action Survey we did not form a Guttman scale, but left the answers untransformed. We did, however, list the individual actions in the same order as the Guttman scales made for the 1974 and 1980 data sets. That meant that the "easiest" forms of action were listed first and the "most difficult" at the end. In this 3 manner we obtained a hierarchy in the sense of a latent "difficulty dimension". Because the Guttman scale is a technical procedure, it reveals little about the content of the latent difficulty dimension determined. This would necessitate further systematic empirical analyses which have yet to be performed. With a closer inspection of the individual forms of action and their arrangement, there are a few theoretical possibilities which present themselves: it could, for example, be a latent dimension of risk or effort. A final decision over these questions has to be left open here. As the distribution of responses shows, however, ordering the action forms according to the latent difficulty criterion proved to be Justified. The potential for participation in the individual action forms is greater the higher they are located in the hierarchy and lesser the lower their standing. This holds true for all five points in time. Table 1: Unconventional Political Actions: Participation Potential (Percentage) 1974 1980 1985/86 1988 1989 Signing a petition 85,3 82,3 80,9 80,1 85,4 Legal unconventional Citizen action group - 77,2 74,7 75,0 79,2 actions Lawful demonstration 66,0 51,1 57,0 51,0 58,6 Boycott 53,0 44,4 50,3 47,5 55,2 Rent strike 29,5 27,9 - - 38,4 Civil disobedience Blocking traffic 26,5 23,5 - - 30,6 Wildcat strike 22,5 17,5 - - 21,2 Occupying buildings 16,8 13,8 - - 16,0 Political Violence against others 5,4 4,2 - ■ 4,4 violence Damaging property 3,4 3,1 - - 3,0 N 2243 2061 1843 3052 962 Notes: Percentage of respondents who answered that they have participated, would participate or might participate. Respondents with missing data were excluded. The largest relative gaps in regard to the quantity of the participation potential occurred between "boycott" and "rent strike" and between "occupying buildings" and "violence against others". In the first case, the gap is characterized by crossing the line between legality and illegality and in the second case by crossing the violence threshold. This empirical finding confirms our classifying the different unconventional actions into 4 three general categories based on theoretical