biblio.ugent.be

The UGent Institutional Repository is the electronic archiving and dissemination platform for all UGent research publications. Ghent University has implemented a mandate stipulating that all academic publications of UGent researchers should be deposited and archived in this repository. Except for items where current copyright restrictions apply, these papers are available in Open Access.

This item is the archived peer-reviewed author-version of:

Title: Participatory versatility in Flanders: A multiple correspondence analysis.

Authors: Lesley Hustinx & Henk Roose

In: Political Engagement of the Young in Europe: Youth in the crucible. Edited by Peter Thijssen, Jessy Siongers, Jeroen Van Laer, Jacques Haers & Sarah Mels.

To refer to or to cite this work, please use the citation to the published version:

Hustinx, L. & Roose, H. (2016). Participatory versatility in Flanders: A multiple correspondence analysis. Pp. 94-113 in: P. Thijssen, J. Siongers, J. Van Laer, J. Haers & S. Mels (Eds.). Political Engagement of the Young in Europe: Youth in the crucible. New York: Routledge.

1

Participatory Versatility in Flanders: A Multiple Correspondence Analysis

Lesley Hustinx1 and Henk Roose2

Department of Sociology

Ghent University

Abstract

In this chapter, Lesley Hustinx and Henk Roose explore repertoires of participation by means of a multiple correspondence analysis based on a representative sample of 1440 Dutch-speaking Belgians in 2009. Their findings first indicate that the participatory dimensionality generally reflects a political versus social divide. The participatory dimensions capturing political participation combine conventional and unconventional types of political participation, except for monitorial citizenship, which more one-sidedly represents unconventional modes of political involvement. Second, their results suggest that traditional modes of exclusion persist, even if political participation embraces both traditional and innovative forms. Finally, political disengagement is clearly associated with civic alienation.

Introduction

In the debate on social capital, a fundamental generational shift is claimed to cause a systematic

decline in civic engagement. According to Putnam (2000), America’s younger generations are

substantially less involved in social and political life than the “long civic generation,” the cohort of

men and women born between 1910 and 1940, and the growing civic disengagement can be traced

back to different socialization experiences in the formative years. Whereas older cohorts experienced

the economic deprivation of wartime as well as the great depression and the mutual efforts to rebuild

society, younger cohorts were raised in times of economic prosperity and a growing emphasis on

individual autonomy and self-expressive values. As such, today’s youth may miss a crucial

opportunity to develop certain virtues and skills to participate successfully in civic life throughout

adulthood.

1 lesley.hustinx@ugent.be , corresponding author2 henk.roose@ugent.be

2

However, the “decline thesis” has been critiqued for being focused too much on traditional measures

of participation, such as membership-based voluntary associations, and failing to acknowledge the

emergence of new styles of engagement (e.g., Dalton, 2008; Norris, 2003; Stolle & Hooghe, 2005).

Instead of a straightforward decline, a gradual transformation of modes of civic involvement would be

taking place, with a new generation of citizens who are involved in innovative action repertoires

outside the traditional, institutionalized channels of participation. Examples include the signing of

petitions and political consumerism. Advocates of the “transformation thesis” accept the claim that

established modes of participation are disappearing, but simultaneously argue that new civic

repertoires are replacing the traditional ones (Stolle & Hooghe, 2005). An important limitation of this

claim, however, is the implicit polarization between traditional and new repertoires of participation.

The notion of a replacement implies that old and new realities are somehow irreconcilable. Several

scholars have argued that, rather than avoiding institutionalized channels of participation per se, the

new civic generation’s style of involvement may be characterized increasingly by expanding and

blending established forms with newly emerging ones. Instead of replacing the old forms, the new

types of civic engagement allow citizens to broaden their radius of action (e.g., Dalton, 2008;

Sampson et al., 2005; Schudson, 2006).

In this paper, we aim to explore this “pluralization thesis” (Hustinx et al., 2012) in a more systematic

way. We start from the observation that although increasing attention has been paid to newly emerging

forms of participation, very few scholars have examined whether and how these are combined with

more traditional types of involvement (Hustinx et al., 2012; Stolle et al., 2005; Stolle & Hooghe, 2011;

Teney & Hanquinet, 2012). Based on data from a representative sample of the Dutch-speaking

population in Belgium in the year 2009, and using a multidimensional and relational technique of

analysis (multiple correspondence analysis), we will map existing repertoires of participation based on

a detailed set of participation variables. In addition, we will examine how these repertoires are linked

to the socio-economic profile of the participants, and to a number of civic value orientations. This will

allow us to evaluate existing repertoires of participation in terms of underlying patterns of inclusion

3

and exclusion, and in terms of their political and wider social significance (compare Stolle & Hooghe,

2011).

Expanding repertoires of participation

The “decline-versus-transformation” thesis has stirred a vivid academic debate among scholars of

political and social participation. As already indicated, proponents of the decline thesis have been

criticized for focusing too one-sidedly on traditional forms of participation, and failing to acknowledge

the emergence of innovative modes of involvement (Stolle & Hooghe, 2005; Dalton, 2008). A

fundamental shift in the types of participation would be occurring along two main axes: changes in the

modes or channels of participation on one hand, and changes in the substantive issues addressed on the

other hand (Norris, 2003; Stolle & Hooghe, 2005). First, it is claimed that citizens today, and in

particular members of younger generations, no longer feel attracted to highly institutionalized and

hierarchical organizations with fixed membership structures. Instead, they prefer more loosely

structured and decentralized networks that allow for more informal and sporadic “easy-entrance, easy-

exit” modes of involvement (Norris, 2003). Typical examples are consumer politics, donating money

to a good cause, or signing online petitions. Second, new repertoires of participation have shifted the

focus of attention from institutional affairs and group-based loyalties to cause-oriented actions that

focus on specific issues or policy concerns. An important characteristic is that they blur the traditional

distinction between the public and the private sphere by mobilizing citizens around a variety of

identity and lifestyle issues, such as a personal concern about the quality of food or the emotional

involvement with the family of asylum seekers living next door (Bennett, 1998; Micheletti, 2003;

Micheletti & Stolle, 2007).

As a consequence, rather than a steady withdrawal from social and political life, the new modes of

involvement seem to reflect a new type of postmodern, critical citizen, who remains interested in

societal affairs, and strongly supports basic democratic and egalitarian values, but is critical of

conventional systems of representation and mediation, and prefers to participate in more horizontal

4

and autonomous ways (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005; Norris, 1999, 2003). Schudson’s

(1998) notion of “monitorial citizenship” captures this transformed citizenship practice. The

monitorial citizen avoids institutionalized and routine-based forms of participation, instead critically

monitors the system from a distance, relying heavily on information provided by the mass media, and

only intervenes when deemed imperative, typically relying on individualized repertoires of action. The

monitorial citizen by no means is a passive or alienated citizen; on the contrary, he/she still shows high

levels of political and social interest and internal efficacy (see also Hooghe & Dejaeghere, 2007; Stolle

& Hooghe, 2005).

Advocates of the transformation thesis tend to emphasize that new types of participation are replacing

traditional ones, suggesting that old and new realities are somehow irreconcilable. Recently, however,

scholars have argued that instead of replacing the old forms, the new types of civic engagement allow

citizens to broaden their radius of action (Dalton, 2008; Hustinx et al., 2012; Sampson et al., 2005;

Schudson, 2006; Stolle et al., 2005; Stolle & Hooghe, 2011). The idea of expanding repertoires of

action has already been expressed by classical scholars of participation. Barnes and Kaase (1979)

argued that “conventional” participation on one hand, and emerging “non-institutionalized” types of

involvement on the other hand, did not need to be mutually exclusive but were (somewhat) convergent

(p. 152). They focused on “the study of modern political versatility” and observed that in the 1960s

and 1970s, emerging protest politics indeed operated jointly with conventional institutionalized

participation.

Recent empirical research suggests that the thesis of expanding repertoires of participation is also

highly plausible in present-day societies. First, a comparative study of political consumerism among

university students found no evidence of the so-called “crowding out” of traditional forms by new

forms of participation (Stolle et al., 2005). Stolle et al. (2005) found that political consumers have

more experience with unconventional forms of participation (demonstrations, culture jamming, and

civil disobedience), yet they do not avoid more conventional forms of participation. They concluded

that “political consumerism reveals itself not as an entirely new phenomenon, but as part of an array of

activist performances that serve to broaden the spectrum of politics” (p. 260). Furthermore, recent

5

analysis of Belgian and Scandinavian population data showed that only a minority of respondents

could be classified as “monitorial citizens”; very few participated exclusively in unconventional forms

of participation (Dejaeghere & Hooghe, 2006; Hooghe & Dejaeghere, 2007). Next, based on

crossnational survey data, Stolle and Hooghe (2011) found no evidence for the claim that emerging

forms of participation would crowd out the old or more mainstream ones, hence the cumulative pattern

as already described by Barnes and Kaase (1979) still holds. Finally, in a recent study among

university students in Belgium and the Netherlands, Hustinx et al. (2012) revealed five distinct

repertoires of participation, and supported the pluralization thesis by showing that young citizens are

not exclusively engaged in new monitorial ways, yet also expand their civic repertoire by combining

traditional and new forms in more complex ways. These authors advanced the concept of the “civic

omnivore,” characterized by an expanded civic repertoire.

In sum, these findings point to the importance of studying citizen participation as a multifaceted

phenomenon (Teney & Hanquinet, 2012). Today, we are likely to discern increasingly diverse and

complex participatory repertoires that combine institutionalized and non-institutionalized, collective

and individualized, and public and private types of participation. Some scholars warn that expanded

typologies will lead to “a theory of everything” (van Deth, 2001), blurring the distinctions between

political and non-political activities. While some authors still strictly focus on expanding

(institutionalized and non-institutionalized) ‘political’ forms; others see the contours of an “engaged

citizenship” that includes both political and wider social participation (Dalton, 2008). Ekman & Amnå

(2012) introduce the notion of “latent” forms of political participation to include “pre-” or semi-

political” forms of civic participation. They argue that this notion is crucial for understanding new

forms of political behavior and the prospects for political participation. Besides political action that

consists of deliberate attempts to influence people in power, a lot of citizens are engaged in activities

that entail involvement in society, beyond the immediate concern for one’s family and friends, which

can be conceptualized as civic engagement or social involvement. According to Ekman & Amnå, these

“potentially political” activities should not be overlooked, especially not when it comes to discerning

6

or explaining different forms of engagement among different groups in society, such as youth, women,

or immigrants (Ekman & Amnå, 2012).

Who participates? Shifting patterns of inclusion and exclusion?

This brings us to the consequences of emerging forms of participation. A key question concerns the

inclusionary potential of innovative action repertoires (Stolle & Hooghe, 2011). Are traditional

patterns of exclusion along the lines of gender, education, and income reproduced, or do new forms of

participation lower the threshold for previously excluded groups? In other words: do they provide

more equal participation opportunities (Marien et al., 2010)?

Stolle and Hooghe (2011) formulate 3 hypotheses. First, new forms of participation might engage the

same kind of people: male, higher educated citizens with more resources and civic skills. Second, new

forms of participation might amplify existing inequalities, as these forms might require even more

material and intellectual resources, thus are practiced by an even more select part of the population.

Third, it could also be argued that the new repertoires engage a wider group of participants hence

reducing existing inequalities. For example, given that these new forms are less time-consuming, less

hierarchical, and less organized, and focus more on lifestyle-related or private issues, they may be

more appealing to young people and to women.

Based on cross-national European data covering 3 decades, ranging from 1974 to 2002, and focusing

on conventional and unconventional political acts, the authors conclude that substantially more people

are involved in new forms of participation than they ever have in conventional politics (except voting).

In addition, they document an increasing inclusion of women and young people into these types of

actions. Thus, new and unconventional forms of citizen action provide new channels of participation

for groups that were hitherto underrepresented in the political arena. However, many excluding

mechanisms were found to persist: just like the traditional forms, new and unconventional political

acts also require education, political interest, and embeddedness in associational networks. Other

studies (Marien et al. 2010; Oser et al., 2013) drew similar conclusions: emerging types of

7

participation reduce, or even reverse, gender and age inequalities, but reinforce traditional modes of

exclusion based on education and socio-economic status.

Theories of the postmodern, “critical” or “monitorial” citizen also predict that it mainly concerns a

young and higher educated group of people. Based on empirical data from Belgium and the

Scandinavian countries, Dejaeghere & Hooghe have examined this assumption (Dejaeghere &

Hooghe, 2006; Hooghe & Dejaeghere, 2007). In Belgium, monitorial citizens are highly educated –

both in comparison with the full population and compared to conventionally active citizens, but while

they on average are also younger, a substantial part of young people also appear not interested in

politics at all. In the Scandinavian countries, the group of monitorial citizens is not extremely young,

and here again, young respondents more often claim that they are not interested in politics. Also the

educational level of the Scandinavian monitorial citizens is not that much above the population

average. The highest percentage of higher educated citizens is found among participants in

conventional activities, such as the membership of political parties or trade unions. Thus, the new,

monitorial action repertoire does not seem to attract more young people, and the evidence regarding

education is mixed and context-dependent.

3. Integration or alienation?

A final question relates to the consequences of emerging forms of participation for democracy. Given

that the new types of participants are claimed to turn away from conventional channels of

participation, and adopt highly critical attitudes towards traditional political institutions, this can pose

a threat to the democratic functioning of society (Stolle & Hooghe, 2005, 2011). As Stolle and Hooghe

(2005) argue, democratic political systems rely on routine and broad forms of support, which seem to

be under threat with a large number of monitorial citizens. In addition, the authors note that the

traditional intermediary function of voluntary organizations, such as political parties and trade unions,

which aggregated the interests of individual citizens to influence the political decision-making

process, is weakening when they are losing members. It still remains an open question whether “the

new action repertoires enable citizens to influence political decision making efficiently. Political

8

systems might fall below the threshold of ‘democracy’, if the collective pressures of citizens on

decision making are exerted only sporadically and without a stable organizational force” (Stolle &

Hooghe, 2005, p.167). Furthermore, if citizens increasingly withdraw from traditional intermediary

organizations, this raises questions concerning the formation of trust relations and other civic

orientations (Putnam, 2000).

Previous research (Dejaeghere & Hooghe, 2006; Hooghe & Dejaeghere, 2007, Stolle & Hooghe,

2011) has indicated that citizens who participate in new action repertoires are not necessarily more

critical towards or distant from the political system. In Belgium, Dejaeghere & Hooghe (2006)

concluded that monitorial citizens have a higher level of trust in political institutions compared to the

whole population; however, their trust level is lower compared to conventionally active citizens. They

found no significant relation with social trust levels. In the Scandinavian countries, Hooghe and

Dejaeghere (2007) found that monitorial citizens should not be equated with critical citizens; on the

contrary, they score quite high on political trust and to a similar extent as traditionally active citizens.

Also with respect to social trust, both monitorial and traditionally active citizens score quite high.

Thus, these findings do not support the image of a critical or alienated citizen that distances

him/herself from conventional channels of participation and representation.

In their analysis based on European Social Survey data, Stolle and Hooghe (2011) distinguish between

“unconventional” political acts (participation in demonstrations and illegal actions) and “innovative”

forms of participation (signing petitions and political consumerism). The findings revealed that while

political distrust was a significant factor for unconventional political forms, innovative forms of

participation were supported by more political trust in national institutions. Both types of participants

however embraced anti-hierarchical values more than citizens engaged in conventional politics.

Method

In this paper, we aim to further explore the “pluralization thesis” and its consequences by using a

representative sample of the adult population in Flanders and an advanced statistical technique that is

able to disclose underlying or latent dimensions, viz. multiple correspondence analysis.

9

Data

The data used in this study were collected as part of the “SCV-Survey,” a survey on social and cultural

dynamics in Flanders (Belgium), administered by the Flemish Government. Since 1996, this face-to-

face survey has been conducted annually among a representative sample of approximately 1500

Dutch-speaking Belgians between 18-85 years in the Flemish and Brussels regions. This article uses

data from the survey conducted in 2009 (N=1,440), which contains a comprehensive module on social

and political participation in Flanders and also probes a number of key democratic attitudes or

dispositions.

Method of analysis

The method we apply is Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA), a geometric modeling technique

that discloses underlying structures in categorized data by representing both the variable categories as

well as the individuals as points in a multidimensional Euclidean space (Le Roux & Rouanet, 2010).

The MCA of the dimensionality of participation will be performed with 36 variables and 91 modalities

(i.e., answering categories of the 36 variables). These variables and modalities are presented in Table

1.

***Insert Table 1 about here***

In addition, we use variables measuring democratic attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics.

These variables will be related to the patterns of participation that we discern in the data. Democratic

attitudes include both positive and negative indicators, that is, indicators of value orientations that

document integration, or a lack thereof, in the political or social system (compare Hooghe, 2003):

utilitarian individualism, generalized trust, trust in government, interest in politics and political

powerlessness. Socio-demographic variables include age, gender, educational attainment, and

employment status.

Findings

10

The analysis is conducted in 2 steps: first, we will investigate the structure or multidimensionality of

participation, in order to reveal existing repertoires among the general population in Flanders. We

construct a Euclidean space based on the different types of participation variables as listed in Table 1,

which will contribute to the construction of the participatory space and its dimensionality. Second, we

will relate these repertoires to democratic attitudes and socio-demographic variables. These

supplementary variables are plotted into the space without contributing to its structure, but they add

contextual meaning and facilitate interpretation. They enable an exploration of our expectations.

Dimensions of participation

The first step in the MCA consists of determining the number of axes that define the space of

participation, and interpret these axes based on the modalities that make a relevant contribution to the

axes, that is, modalities that have a contribution higher than the average contribution. With 79% the

first axis is the most important one. The second and third axes both add 7%—amounting to a total of

93% (see Table 2).

***Insert Table 2 about here***

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the clouds of modalities that contribute most to the construction of the

three axes. In Appendix 1, the respective Tables are shown.

***Insert Figure 1 and Figure 2 about here***

Axis 1: Political engagement versus political disengagement

There are 26 modalities that meet the criterion of contributing above average to the orientation of the

first axis. These categories stem from 21 variables. The axis is unbalanced: the contribution of

modalities on the left is 70.14%, while on the right it equals 8.24%. The left side of Fig. 1 depicts

modalities that indicate participation in political activities of various sorts—institutionalized and more

individualized. It also includes social participation (or ‘latent’ political participation) in the form of

volunteering, associational membership and donations to organizations; however, these modalities

11

contribute less to Axis 1. The right side of Axis 1 is defined by modalities that indicate non-

participation in political activities, albeit of a more limited range that the participation variables on the

left side. The first axis thus represents a political engagement versus political disengagement

dimension, whereby political engagement is characterized by a versatile participatory repertoire

including both conventional and unconventional political activities.

Axis 2: Political representation versus formal social participation

Axis 2 is defined by 21 modalities resulting from 19 variables. The axis is balanced: the contribution

of modalities on the left is 37.92%, and 40.64% of those on the right side. The left side of Axis 2 is

composed of modalities that represent a mode of political participation that is focused on political

representation. However, it should be noticed that the types of activities are broader than the

‘conventional’ or institutionalized channels of representation, namely being a candidate at elections

and attend political meetings (and to a lesser extent be a member of an advisory board). It also

includes voicing one’s opinion through internet/the mass media. Interestingly, the left side of the axis

is also characterized by non-membership in family and youth associations, and no material support for

a good cause – suggesting a divide between political and social involvement for this participation

repertoire. The right side of Axis 2 includes modalities that indicate more classical forms of social

participation in associations and volunteer organizations. It concerns all types of volunteer activities

combined with a rich associational life.

Axis 3: Informal and care-oriented social participation versus monitorial citizenship

Axis 3 is defined by 29 modalities resulting from 18 variables. The axis is balanced; the modalities on

the left contribute 39.92%, those on the right side 33.84%. The left side of Axis 3 represents a

typically female and traditional repertoire of participation, consisting of intense informal contacts with

family and neighbors, providing childcare, and conducting service-oriented volunteer work. This

repertoire of participation thus seems closely linked to the personal and local life world. The multiple

former memberships indicate that this type of participant has a history of formal social participation

but withdrew from most of these associations.

12

The right side of Axis 3 is characterized by a very different type of participation that seems to align

with the image of a postmodern, monitorial citizen. It includes political activities like following the

news on Internet, signing petitions, and boycotting products for ethical or environmental reasons –

which also could be considered as more informal, non-institutionalized types of participation yet of a

different sort than the care-oriented activities on the left side of the axis. These monitorial activities

are combined with formal memberships of student, sports and youth associations, suggesting a young,

leisure-oriented participant.

Supplementary variables

In Figures 3 and 4, we add socio-economic background variables and civic value orientations as

supplementary variables, in order to contextualize the participatory space and its dimensionality.

***Insert Figure 3 and Figure 4 about here***

2.1. Political engagement versus political disengagement (Axis 1)

What the general distinction between political participation and political disengagement (Axis 1)

concerns, in Figure 3, it first can be noted that very traditional patterns of inclusion and exclusion

appear: age, gender, education, employment status and church practice divide the politically engaged

and non-engaged in predictable ways. This is remarkable given that the left side of the axis represents

participation in both conventional and unconventional or more innovative political activities.

First, both the youngest (18-24 years) and oldest (65+) age groups are positioned on the politically

disengaged side of Axis 1. The age group of 25-34 years old, which still can be considered to consist

of young adults, is positioned at the political participation side, so is the mid age group (35-64 years).

Second, a clear gender divide appears: females are positioned on the political disengagement side of

Axis 1, males on the political engagement side. Political (dis)engagement thirdly relates to educational

differences: higher education is associated with political participation, lower education with political

disengagement. Income does not differentiate, but employment status does: employed persons are

positioned on the political participation side of Axis 1; all non-active categories (inactive, retired,

13

housekeeper, student) are situated on the political disengagement side. Finally, church attendance

versus non-attendance is in line with the division between political participation and political non-

participation.

What concerns the question of how (new) repertoires of participation relate to democratic and civic

attitudes; the division between political participation and political disengagement is clearly reflected in

citizens’ value orientations. All modalities that point to a lack of, or weak, civic value orientations, are

positioned on the political disengagement side of Axis 1: strong utilitarian individualist values, a low

level of social trust and trust in government, a weak political interest and a strong feeling of political

powerlessness. A reversed value pattern is found on the political engagement side of Axis 1. Thus,

non-participants generally seem to be more politically and socially alienated than participants.

2.2. Political representation versus formal social participation (Axis 2)

The socio-demographic variables do not differentiate much on Axis 2. Additional analysis points to

some outliers in the oldest age category: the oldest age groups are slightly overrepresented at the

bottom side of the Axis (political representation). Among the civic value orientations, interest for

politics differentiates among both sides of the axis. Not surprisingly, political representation is

associated with a higher interest in politics.

2.3. Informal and care-oriented social participation versus monitorial citizenship (Axis 3)

Age and education most clearly divide the participatory space along the third axis, as shown in Figure

4. The positioning of the age categories indicates that the youngest age groups (18-24 years and 25-34

years) are more likely on the monitorial citizenship side of Axis 3. The age group of 35-44 years is

also positioned on the monitorial citizenship, while people aged 45+ are situated on the informal, care-

oriented side. Educational attainment is also clearly linked to Axis 3. As could be expected, the higher

education categories are positioned at the monitorial citizenship side of Axis 3. Lower educated

people, on the other hand, are more likely at the informal care-oriented side of Axis 3. Gender

differences here seem not so pronounced, although male respondents are positioned at the monitorial

citizenship side of Axis 3, and females at the informal care-oriented side of Axis 3. Income does not

14

differentiate, employment status does: students are clearly positioned at the monitorial citizenship side,

so are employed persons but to a lesser extent. Retired persons and housekeepers, on the other hand,

are firmly situated at the informal, care-oriented side of Axis 3. An unemployment status (inactive)

does not differentiate between the two sides. Informal, care-oriented participation, finally, is

associated with frequent church attendance, while people who never go to church are situated at the

monitorial citizenship side. The intermediary church categories do not differentiate between the two

sides of Axis 3.

What concerns the civic value orientations, no clear link can be observed what concerns utilitarian

individualism, generalized trust, and interest in politics. Monitorial citizens are likely to have more

trust in government and do not feel politically powerless. Political powerlessness on the other hand is

high for informal, care-oriented participation.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we considered the ongoing debate on present-day repertoires of participation, and more

specific the competing theses of a decline, transformation, or expansion of participation. The notion of

increasing ‘participatory versatility’ was already advanced by the classical scholars of participation,

Barnes and Kaase (1979), and based on our analysis, also applies to contemporary patterns of

participation. To explore these patterns, we made use of multiple correspondence analysis, an

advanced statistical technique that has been applied very rarely in the study of political participation.

We also opted to explore the dimensionality of participation based on a comprehensive set of political

(conventional and unconventional) and social types of participation – thus going beyond the

conventional distinction between political and non-political activities to examine in a more exploratory

way how different forms are combined. We also included social-demographic variables and

democratic attitudes in our analysis to assess the inclusionary and democratic potential of emerging

repertoires of participation.

What concerns the repertoires of participation, our findings indicate that the participatory

dimensionality generally reflects a political vs. social divide. While Axis 1 reflected participatory

15

versatility at its broadest, the participatory space was predominantly defined by political participation

variables, while social participation variables contributed less to the axis. The second axis further

showed a clear divide between political and social repertoires of participation: political representation

versus formal social participation, and the third axis also revealed a very traditional non-political

repertoire of participation, namely informal and care-oriented participation. The monitorial citizenship

dimension (Axis 3) represented the only exception, combining low-profile political participation with

focused associational life.

If we examine more closely the participatory dimensions capturing political participation, it can be

noted that these combine conventional and new types of political participation, except for monitorial

citizenship, which is more one-sidedly focused on unconventional modes of political involvement. In

sum, our findings do not support the claim that a new type of “engaged citizenship” that combines

both political and social participation (Dalton, 2008) is materializing. Rather than “potentially

political” in nature (Ekman & Amnå, 2012), social participation generally emerges as distinctly non-

political from our data. The “expansion” of participation seems to occur within the realm of the

‘political’, blending conventional and unconventional types of participation. Using MCA nevertheless

enables us to discern various types of expansion, that is, different political repertoires of participation.

Second, what concerns patterns of in- and exclusion, our results suggest that traditional modes of

exclusion persist, even if political participation embraces both traditional and innovative forms.

Indeed, the general divide between political engagement – with both conventional and unconventional

types of participation – and political disengagement corresponds to well-established patterns of in- and

exclusion along the lines of age, gender, education, etc. Monitorial citizenship as a new repertoire of

participation attracts a younger, yet higher educated crowd, but gender differences are not so

pronounced. We could not differentiate between the repertoires of political representation and formal

social participation – both may require similar resources. In general, we are inclined to conclude that

expanding repertoires of participation do not seem to mobilize larger segments of the population, with

the exception of a particular group of well-educated youngsters.

16

Finally, in relation to civic value orientations, political disengagement is clearly associated with civic

alienation. Otherwise, we did not find a lot of differentiation for different sorts of political and social

participation. Political representation is linked to political interest, and monitorial citizenship is linked

to trust in government and feelings of political efficacy. For the latter, we thus find no indication for

political alienation.

17

Reference list

Barnes, S., & Kaase, M. (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five Western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Bennett, W. L. (1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. Political Science and Politics, 31, 741-761.

Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies, 56, 76-98.

Dalton, R. (1999). Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Pp.57-77 in P. Norris P. (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dejaeghere, Y., & Hooghe, M. (2006). Op zoek naar de “monitorial citizen.” Een empirisch onderzoek naar de prevalentie van postmodern burgerschap in België [In search of the monitorial citizen: An empirical study on the prevalence of post- modern citizenship in Belgium]. Res Publica, 48, 393-420.

van Deth, J. W. (2001). Studying political participation: Towards a theory of everything? Paper presented at the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, Grenoble, 6–11 April 2001.

Ekman, J. & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283-300.

Hustinx, L., Meijs, L. C.P.M., Handy, F. & Cnaan, R. A. (2012). Monitorial citizens or civic omnivores? Repertoires of civic participation among university students. Youth & Society, 44 (1), 95–117.

Hooghe, M. (2003). Participation in voluntary associations and value indicators: The effect of current and previous participation experiences, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(1), 47-69.

Hooghe, M. & Dejaeghere, Y. (2007). Does the “monitorial citizen” exist? An empirical investigation into the occurrence of postmodern forms of citizenship in the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 249-271.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Le Roux, B. & Rouanet, H. (2010). Multiple Correspondence Analysis, SAGE, Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Volume 163, CA: Thousand Oaks.

Marien, S., Hooghe, M., & Quintelier, E. (2010i. Inequalities in non-institutionalised forms of political participation: A multi‐level analysis of 25 countries. Political Studies, 58(1), 187–213.

Micheletti, M. (2003). Political virtue and shopping: Individuals, consumerism and collective action. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2007). Mobilizing consumers to take responsibility for global social justice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611, 157-175.

Norris, P. (2003, November 27-28). Young people and political activism: From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice? Report for the Council of Europe Symposium: “Young People and Democratic Institutions: From Disillusionment to Participation,” Strasbourg, France.

Oser, J., Hooghe, M. & Marien, S. (2013). Is online participation distinct from offline participation? A latent class analysis of participation types and their stratification. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 91-101.

18

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Sampson, R.J., McAdam, D., MacIndoe, H. & Weffer-Elizondo, S. (2005). Civil society reconsidered: The durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 673-714.

Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American public life. New York, NY: Free Press.Schudson, M. (2006). The varieties of civic experience. Citizenship Studies, 10, 591-606.Stolle, D. & Hooghe, M. (2005). Inaccurate, exceptional, one-sided or irrelevant? The debate about the

alleged decline of social capital and civic engagement in Western Societies. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 149-167.

Stolle, D. & Hooghe, M. (2011). Shifting inequalities? Patterns of exclusion and inclusion in emerging forms of political participation. European Societies, 13(1), 119-142.

Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26, 245-269.

Teney, C. & Hanquinet, L. (2012). High political participation, high social capital? A relational analysis of youth social capital and political participation. Social Science Research, 41(5), 1213-1226.

19

Table 1: Relative frequencies for variables and modalities of political and social participation

Political participationYes No

Institutionalized/conventionalAttend political meeting (v171_4) .17 .83Be a candidate in elections (v171_9) .03 .97Be a member of advisory board municipality (v171_10) .06 .94Collect information decisions government (v171_11) .11 .89Contact with government (v189) .42 .58Vote federal elections 2007 (v174) .88 .12

Non-institutionalized/unconventionalSign petition (v171_1) .62 .38Boycott ethical or environmental reasons (v171_2) .19 .81Participate in demonstration (v171_3) .26 .74Voice opinion personally (v171_5) .19 .81Donate money social/political action (v171_6) .14 .86Voice opinion in mass media (v171_7) .09 .91Join discussion group/forum on internet (v171_8) .04 .96Be a member of action committee (v171_12) .06 .94

Seldom Weekly DailyWatch news on television (v178) .07 .10 .83Listen to news on radio (v179) .20 .07 .74Read newspaper (v180) .32 .20 .48Follow news on internet (v181) .59 .12 .29

Social participationNever Former Current

Membership associationsLeisure/mutual supportMembership youth association (v134_1) .48 .48 .04Membership amateur arts association (v134_5) .81 .12 .08Membership hobby group (v134_6) .86 .08 .07Membership women movement (v134_7) .88 .06 .06Membership socio-cultural association (v134_8) .88 .05 .07Membership sport club (v134_9) .50 .28 .22Membership neighborhood committee (v134_12) .90 .05 .05Membership family association (v134_16) .77 .10 .12Membership local pub (v134_17) .90 .06 .05Membership student association (v134_24) .83 .14 .03

Advocacy/interestMembership labor union (v134_14) .45 .17 .38Membership Parent/school association (v134_21) .87 .09 .05Membership environmental association (v134_2) .86 .07 .07

ServiceMembership Red Cross (v134_18) .88 .05 .08

Yes NoVolunteering

Volunteering (v121) .18 .82Volunteering service organizations (v122_1-v122_17) .12 .89Volunteering leisure/mutual support (ibid.) .10 .90Volunteering advocacy/interest (ibid.) .05 .95

Financial and material supportFinancial support service/health (v128a1-v128a9) .40 .60

20

Financial support advocacy/interest (ibid.) .14 .86Material support good cause (v129) .75 .25Give blood (v130) .07 .93

Informal social participationFinancial support family (v131) .18 .82Material support family (v132) .11 .89

Seldom Monthly Weekly DailyTalk with neighbors (v162) .11 .17 .37 .35Meet friends (v163) .15 .29 .38 .18Meet family (v164) .11 .23 .46 .19Childcare (v127) .56 .21 .11 .12

Table 2: Eigenvalues, raw variance rates and modified rates for the first 5 axes.

Axes 1 2 3 4 5

Eigenvalues (λ) .1346 .0599 .0586 .0467 .0406

Raw variance rates 8,81% 3,92% 3,83% 3.06% 2,66%

Modified rates .79 .07 .07 .02 .01

21

Figure 1

Figure 2

22

Figure 3

Figure 4

23

Appendix 1

Axis 1. Contributions: Political engagement vs. political disengagement.

Variables Contribution of variables

Modalities Contribution of modalities

Left Right Left Right

Attend political meeting 7,50 Yes No 6,22 1,28

Collect information on decisions of government 7,14 Yes - 6,34 -

Voice opinion personally 6,57 Yes No 5,29 1,28

Voice opinion in mass media 6,55 Yes - 5,97 -

Participate in demonstration 5,71 Yes No 4,26 1,46

Donate money social/political action 5,47 Yes - 4,69 -

Be a member advisory board municipality 5,25 Yes - 4,92 -

Boycott for ethical/environmental reasons 4,53 Yes - 3,68 -

Contact with government 4,36 Yes No 2,52 1,84

Be a member neighborhood action committee 4,26 Yes - 3,87 -

Sign petition 3,83 Yes No 1,45 2,38

Be a candidate at elections 3,22 Yes - 3,11 -

Be a volunteer service organization 2,90 Yes - 2,56 -

Be a member parent/school association 2,88 Former - 1,54 -

Give financial support advocacy organization 2,79 Yes - 2,41 -

Be a member socio-cultural association 2,69 Current - 1,69 -

Be a member student association 2,56 Former - 2,01 -

Join discussion group/forum Internet 2,42 Yes - 2,32 -

Be a volunteer advocacy organization 2,32 Yes - 2,20 -

Be a volunteer leisure organization 2,08 Yes - 1,87 -

24

Give financial support service/health organization

2,04 Yes - 1,22 -

87,07 70,14 8,24

Axis 2. Political representation vs. formal social participation

Variables Contribution of variables

Modalities Contribution of modalities

Left Right Left Right

Be a candidate at elections 9,34 Yes - 9,05 -

Be a volunteer service organization 8,19 - Yes - 7,25

Be a volunteer leisure organization 7,89 - Yes - 7,09

Be a member family association 7,26 Never Current 1,17 6,02

Join discussion group/forum Internet 5,72 Yes - 5,50 -

Be a volunteer advocacy organization 5,55 - Yes - 5,27

Attend political meeting 5,42 Yes - 4,50 -

Voice opinion in mass media 4,82 Yes - 4,39 -

Be a member youth association 4,78 Never Current 1,80 2,20

Be a member parent/school association 4,52 - Current - 4,08

Be a member women movement 3,32 - Current - 2,88

Give material support for a good cause 2,42 No - 1,81 -

Voice opinion personally 2,07 Yes - 1,67 -

Be a member advisory board municipality 3,83 Yes - 3,59 -

Collect information on decisions of government 3,09 Yes - 2,74 -

Be a member Red Cross 2,78 - Current - 2,53

Be a member sport association 2,34 - Current - 1,77

25

Listen to news on the radio 2,13 Seldom - 1,70 -

Be a member socio-cultural association 2,09 - Current - 1,55

87,56 37,92 40,64

Axis 3. Informal and care-oriented social participation vs. monitorial citizenship

Variables Contribution of variables

Modalities Contribution of modalities

Left Right Left Right

Follow news on Internet 11,28 Seldom Daily

Weekly

4,60 4,75

1,93

Provide childcare 7,99 Weekly Seldom 3,23 4,49

Be a member student association 7,23 - Current Former

- 5,06

1,37

Be a member women movement 6,34 Former

Current

- 4,04

1,58

-

Watch news on television 5,58 - Weekly - 3,83

Be a member sport association 5,49 Never Current Former

2,75 1,55

1,19

Talk with neighbors 5,28 Daily Seldom

Monthly

2,64 1,57

1,02

Be a member worker/employer association 4,12 Former - 3,43 -

Be a member family association 4,01 Former - 3,59 -

Be a member socio-cultural association 3,58 Former - 2,11 -

Meet family members 3,49 Daily - 2,79 -

Listen to news on the radio 3,23 - Seldom - 2,07

Give financial support to family members 3,18 Yes - 2,61 -

26

Be a member neighborhood committee 3,15 Former

Current

- 1,39

1,44

-

Sign petition 2,65 No Yes 1,65 1,00

Be a member youth association 2,52 - Current - 2,01

Boycott for ethical/environmental reasons 2,47 - Yes - 2,00

Be a volunteer service organization 2,30 Yes - 2,03 -

83,89 39,92 33,84

27