Abstract
This chapter explores the evolving relationship between civic engagement and institutional politics. Building on Ricoeur’s distinction between the political (collective action ) and politics (conflictual power struggles), the interplay of civic engagement with institutional politics is conceived as relating to the way in which collective action influences political outcomes and policies. Civil society organizations play a crucial mediating role in integrating civic initiatives with state machinery. Such a role needs to be apprehended from an institutional perspective recognizing the role of institutions in sha** interests and calculations and acknowledging the influence of historical contexts as well as the multidimensional character of the historical divisions structuring civil society. Building on Rokkan’s concepts of ‘cleavage structure’ and ‘critical junctures’, the structuration of civil society can be seen as resulting from the transformations of the social structure and afferent identities. Recent critical junctures contribute to transforming the interplay between civic engagement and institutional politics—especially the ubiquity of digital platforms like social media. Such transformations have the potential to weaken political integration through traditional organizational channels. While digitalization and social media have expanded opportunities for civic engagement, they may contribute to a more ephemeral and less politically integrated form of civic participation. This raises concerns about the implications of these changes for democratic politics and the traditional role of civil society organizations in political processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Rosanvallon (2020) defines populism along fives characteristics: (1) a conception of the people, the people as one body; (2) a conception of democracy: direct, polarized, immediate; (3) a mode of representation: a leader embodying the people; (4) national protectionism; and (5) a regime of passion and emotions.
References
Barbera, S., & Jackson, M. O. (2019). A model of protests, revolution, and information. GSE working paper series working paper Barcelona.
Barrabási, A. L. (2003). Linked. Penguin.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid mondernity. Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1992). The risk society. Sage.
Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization. Polity Press.
Benett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. Yale University Press.
Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy. Technology in the evolution of political power. Cambridge University Press.
Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2012). Collective action in organizations. Cambridge University Press.
Bornstein, R. (2019). En immersion numérique avec les “Gilets jaunes”. Le Débat, 204(2), 38–51.
Boulianne, S. (2018). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
boyd, d. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics. Affordances, dynamics and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self. Identity, community and culture on social network sites. Routledge.
boyd, d., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(11).
Boyer, P. C., Delemotte, T., Gauthier, G., Rollet, V., & Schmutz, B. (2020). Revue économique, 71(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.3917/reco.711.0109
Calhoun, G., Parameshwar Gaonkar, D., & Taylor, C. (2022). Degeneration of democracy. Harvard University Press.
Christiansen, P. M., & Rommetvedt, H. (1999). From corporatism to lobbyism? Parliaments, Executives, and organized interests in Denmark and Norway. Scandinavian Political Studies, 23(3), 195–220.
Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1995). Civil society and political theory. MIT Press.
Collier, R. B., & Collier, D. (1991). Sha** the political arena: Critical junctures, the labor movement, and regime dynamics in Latin America. Princeton University Press.
Deegan-Krause, K. (2007). 538 New dimensions of political cleavage. In The Oxford handbook of political behavior (p. 0). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0028
Diamond, L. (2016). In search of democracy. Routledge.
Durkheim, E. (1973). Individualism and the intellectuals. In On morality and society, selected writings of E. Durkheim (pp. 43–57). The University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in La Revue Bleue, 1898).
Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1
Foucault, M. (1994). Dits et écrits: 1954-1988 (Vol. 4). Gallimard.
Franklin, M., Mackie, T. T., & Valen, H. (Eds.). (1992). Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in Western countries. Cambridge University Press.
Gethin, A., Martinez-Toledano, C., & Piketty, T. (Eds.). (2021). Clivages politiques et inégalités sociales. Une étude de 50 démocraties (1948-2020). EHESS-Gallimard-Seuil.
Gethin, A., Martínez-Toledano, C., & Piketty, T. (2022). Brahmin left versus merchant right: Changing political cleavages in 21 Western democracies, 1948–2020*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab036
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Polity Press.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 1360–1380.
Guerra, T., Alexandre, C., & Abrial, S. (2021). Enquêter sur les Gilets jaunes Sociologie politique d’un mouvement social à partir d’une enquête diffusée sur les réseaux sociaux. Statistique et Société, 9(1–2), 21–37.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms. MIT Press.
Halpin, D. R. (2014). The organization of political interest groups. Routledge.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1310279
Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Wilson, C. J. (2002). Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies, 35, 965–989.
Innis, H. A. ([1951], 2008). The bias of communication. University of Toronto Press.
Karpf, D. (2012). The MoveOn effect. Oxford University Press.
Kocka, J. (2004). Civil society from an historical perspective. European Review, 12(01), 65–79.
Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter align-ments: An introduction’. In S. M. A. R. Lipset (Ed.), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (pp. 1–64). The Free Press.
Little, A. T. (2015). Communication technology and protest. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1086/683187
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1996). Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance, 9(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00242.x
Milan, S. (2015a). From social movements to cloud protesting: The evolution of collective identity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1043135
Milan, S. (2015b). When algorithms shape collective action: Social media and the dynamics of cloud protesting. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 2056305115622481. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115622481
Mills, C. W. ([1959], 2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Müller, J. W. (2021). Democracy rules. Penguin Books.
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause. Policy feed-back and political change. World Politics, 45, 595–628.
Ragin, C. C. (1998). Comments on “social origins of civil society”. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 261–270.
Reckwitz, A. (2020). The society of singularities. Polity Press.
Ricoeur, P. ([1957], 1967). Le paraxoxe politique. In Historie et verité. Seuil.
Rokkan, S. (1961). Mass suffrage, secret voting and political participation. European Journal of Sociology, 2(1), 132–152.
Rokkan, S. (1966). Norway: Numerical democracy and corporate pluralism. In R. A. Dahl (Ed.), Political opposition in Western democracies (pp. 70–115). Yale University Press.
Rokkan, S. (1999). State formation, nation-building and mass politics in Europe. The theory of Stein Rokkan. Oxford University Press.
Rosanvallon, P. (2020). Le siècle du populisme. Histoire, théorie, critique. Editions du Seuil.
Rosanvallon, P. (2021). Les épreuves de la vie. Seuil.
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & Haddock, M. A. (2017). Explaining civil society development. A social origin approach. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sass, K., & Kuhnle, S. (2023). The gender cleavage: Updating Rokkanian theory for the twenty-first century. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 30(1), 188–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxac003
Schmitter, P. C. (1974). Still the century of corporatism? The Review of Politics, 36(1), 85–131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406080
Selle, P., & Wollebæk, D. (2010). Why social democracy is not a civil society regime in Norway. Journal of Political Ideologies, 15(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2010.513872
Simmel, G. (1950). Individual and society in eighteenth and nineteenth century view of life: An example of philosophical sociology. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press.
Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press.
Thompson, E. P. (1980). The making of the English working class. Penguin Books.
Wagner, A. (2000). Reframing “social origins” theory: The structural transformation of the public sphere. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(4), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000294004
Watts, D. J. (1999). Small worlds. The dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton University Press.
Weber, M. (1958a). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (1958b). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Enjolras, B. (2024). Institutional Transformations of the Interplay of Civic Engagement and Institutional Politics. In: Evers, A., von Essen, J. (eds) The Interplay of Civic Engagement and Institutionalised Politics. Palgrave Studies in Third Sector Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54231-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54231-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-54230-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-54231-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)