erik amna
TRANSCRIPT
E R I K A M N Å Y O U T H & S O C I E T Y
Ö R E B R O U N I V E R S I T Y , S W E D E N
P R E S E N T A T I O N A T T H E C I T I Z E N S H I P L E A R N I N G S E M I N A R
P O N T I F I C I A U N I V E R S I D A D C A T Ó L I C A D E C H I L E S A N T I A G O , 2 7 . I I I . 2 0 1 5
How the Development of Civic Engagement Challenge Theory
Getting heard and being listened to
� All over the world, we can ¡ Listen to their music and their lyrics ¡ Look at their artistic works in public
� and even beneath, inside and beyond their anti-political feelings of hate, distrust, disenchantment � also when embedded into seemingly individualistic solo
performances � There is a cry by many youths to be heard, included and
responded adequately to
How can civic engagement be understood?
� Weakened participation in traditional forms such as
parties, youth branches and membership-based CSOs
� Decreased voter turnout � Increased political distrust � Widening gaps of inequality � … particularly among young people
Scholarly disagreements
• Concept of ‘political participation’
• Implications for (representative) democracy
Pessimists
� Democracies are severly threatened � Young people’s avoidance of traditional
political activity constitutes a problem: ¡ Fewer and fewer will re-present them ¡ Fewer and fewer want to be re-presented by anyone
Optimists
� No crisis, just changed modes of engagement � Interest and civic engagement are stable
� Political consumption, Internet and ad hoc-actions widen the participatory repertoire � Even if they don’t compensate for the youths’
absence in political parties and youth branches ¡ Youths create new venues for political involvement
and helps democracies to survive
Our general research idea
� Let’s try to understand how civic engagement –attitudes, feeling, values, skills and behaviour– develops throughout adolescence and early adulthood!
Theoretical aims
1. Conceptualize young people as active agents 2. Integrate different contexts of everyday life 3. Take the ongoing changes in different contexts seriously 4. Conceptualize political participation broadly 5. Take a longitudinal perspective 6. Focus on processes and mechanisms rather than
correlations 7. Disentangle general socialization from specific ‘civic’
experiences when explaining differences in civic engagement
8. Develop new theoretical explanations of political socialization
(Amnå, Ekström, Kerr & Stattin, 2009)
PSP’s Multidisciplinary Staff Joint instrument and theory development by developmental psychology, media and communication, and political science
� Professors/Steering Group
¡ Erik Amnå, Mats Ekström, Margaret Kerr†, Håkan Stattin, � Associate Professors
¡ Maarten van Zalk, Metin Özdemir � Post docs
¡ Ali Abdelzadeh, Sevgi Bayram-Özdemir, Viktor Dahl , Yunhwan Kim, Silvia Russo, Adam Shehata, Sofia Sohl
� Doctoral student ¡ Oula Hussein
� External collaborators ¡ Jennifer Fitzgerald (Colorado), Connie Flanagan and Mike Xenox
(Wisconsin), Markus Prior (Princeton), Joakim Ekman (Södertörn), Behzad Fallazadeh (Heidelberg), Maria Ojala and Pär Zetterberg (Uppsala)
Samples
� A city of 130,000 inhabitants, similar to Sweden on immigration rate, income level, unemployment rate. ¡ Strategically selected schools ¡ Random selection of those who left school
� 13-30 year olds ¡ 1 000 individuals in each of the five cohorts ¡ + 2 of their best friends (snowball) ¡ + their parents (in seven languages)
� Incentives ¡ classes for 2 scheduled lessons ($120) ¡ individuals after school ($30)
� Paper and web
(Amnå, Ekström, Kerr & Stattin 2009, 2015)
Five findings to share with you
1. How political interest develops over time 2. When parents mean most 3. How Internet use affects citizen norms 4. Citizen participation as a two-dimensional concept 5. Why political interest not always or everywhere
translates into political participation
Theoretical implications
1. By the age of 20, PI as stable as during adulthood 2. PI starts to crystallize as early as the age of 16 – and it’s
steeper between 16 and 18 than between 13 and 15. 3. The impressionable years are – not between late
adolescence and young adulthood – but at the years of early adolescence (and possibly even before)
4. PI develops in two directions – increasing and decreasing. 5. Policy implications:
1. What are the potential obstacles preventing youth to cultivating their interest over time?
2. If interventions should be done, teachers, parents, and role models of other kinds should intervene between 13 and 15. N.B. Youths seem to drive their own civic development far more than theories have suggested!
(Russo & Stattin, submitted)
2. When do parents mean most?
� Many (incl. us) have assumed that it is when kids stay with their parents, parents mean most to them.
� Instead, we find that is at the beginning of their twenties kids talk most to their parents about news in general but also about political and societal affairs.
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
1.9 2
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Mean levels of Discussion with parents
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The percentage of persons who reported ”Often” or ”Now and then” on the question about dicussing “Poli&cs or societal issues”
%
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
Political Discussion
with Colleagues
Political Discussion
with Parents
Political Discussion
with Colleagues
Political Discussion
with Parents
e
e
WAVE I WAVE II
.39***/.27***/.28***
.18**/.30***/.23***
.32***/.18*/.41***
.54***/.60***/.60***
.19**/.26***/.20***
.04n.s./-.05n.s./.07n.s.
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
Apparently, the older young persons are, the more often they talk with their parents
about society and politics.
And these discussions increase the discussions with others.
Discussions do not stop by late
adolescence!
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
Overall, it seems as if…
� Over the ages from 13 to 28 young people increasingly talk to their parents about societal and political issues.
� Talking to their peers does not seem to replace discussions with parents about.
� From 13 to 28, young people become increasingly interested in society and politics.
� Their own interest drives their discussions with parents. But the other way around is also true: Talking to parents stimulate these persons’ interest.
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
We want to highligt
� Parents play an important socializing role for young people's political development, but they have not received appropriate research attention after adolescence.
� Physical proximity to parents seemingly does not matter much when it comes to societal and political discussions with their parents. A better determinant may be psychological proximity after young people leave home.
� Alternative socialization agents seemingly do not replace parents.
� Future studies should focus on the "content" of parent—youth discussion.
(Stattin, Hussein and Kim, submitted)
3. How Internet use affects citizen norms
� News and information are central in political socialization.
� But, not all social media facilities – such as Facebook, Twitter and blogging – enable forms of social interaction and creative production that have an overall positive impact on young people's public orientation.
(Ekström. Shehata and Olsson, 2013; Shehata, Ekström and Olsson, submitted)
Diverse impact of media use
� Traditional news media use primarily contributes to
the development of DC qualities – such as political knowledge and political trust
� Creative online media use promotes AC qualities – such as cause-oriented online and offline activism as well as internal efficacy
(Ekström. Shehata and Olsson, 2013; Shehata, Ekström and Olsson, submitted)
4. Political engagement consists of two dimensions
� Participation cannot be fully understood without an understanding of its opposite: passivity
� While participation has been researched in various aspects, political passivity has been ignored as a multi-dimensional phenomenon
� Passivity deserves attention separately from political un-engagement
� Distinguish between ‘civics’ and the specific ‘politics’: ¡ …ways in which ordinary citizens try to influence the political
decision-making process � Combining political interest and political
participation led to a new typology (Amnå, 2010; Ekman and Amnå, 2012)
Non-partici-pation
Civil participation (Latent political
participation)
Manifest political participation
Act
ive
(a
nti-
poli
tica
l)
Pas
sive
(a
-pol
itic
al)
Involvement (attention)
Civic
engagement (action)
Formal political
participation
Activism
(extra-parliamentary participation)
Legal Illegal I n d i v i d u a l f o r m s
Non
votin
g N
ews a
void
ance
D
isaf
fect
ion
Non
votin
g Pa
ssiv
ity
Uni
nter
est
Political interest
Activities based on societal and political interest
Electoral participation and contacts
Extra-parliamentary actions; signing petitions
Politically motivated unlawful acts
C o l l e c t i v e f o r m s
Ref
lect
ed n
on-
polit
ical
lif
esty
le
Non
-ref
lect
ed
non-
polit
ical
lif
esty
le
Life-style related political acts
Community work
Membership in parties, trade unions, associations
Network based acts, NSM, strikes
Demonstration, riots, guerilla knitting, occupations
Can we trust the standbyers’ promises to get engaged ‘when needed’
What if it is all about young people’s ‘lip-service’ to please politically correct
settings/researchers?
Standby citizens
¡ Citizens who are disposed to act, knowledgeable, efficacious, competent
¡ They have positive feelings for politics ¡ They have made plans for themselves including a future
political engagement ¡ In every aspect, they are closer to the active ones than to the
unengaged and the disillusioned ¡ If they move, the move significantly to the active group – and
not to any of the other groups ¡ At the individual level, the reasons for stepping in seem to be a
decreased satisfaction with democracy
(Amnå and Ekman, 2014)
5. Why does not interest always and everywhere translate into participation?
� Theory suggests that political interest drives political participation.
� However, we know both for individuals and for societies that interest are substantially higher than participation.
� So, how can the discrepancy be explained. ¡ Individual factors about identity, personality and efficacy ¡ Political factors regarding the qualities of democracy and the
trustworthiness and responsiveness of political institutions
Political explanations of ‘passivity’
� Two alternative sources (Gamson, 1984) ¡ Trust ¡ Distrust
� The Standby Citizen-concept builds upon the former assumption ¡ Does the very qualities of a country’s democracy ironically hamper
citizens to not step in? � Hyp.: The shares of standby citizens correlate with the
quality of democracy and government ¡ Measurements: democracy index, perceptions of corruption,
inclusiveness, and government functioning � A cross-country analysis using data from European Social
Survey (ESS)
In (other) words
(Amnå, Abdelzadeh, Ekman and Kim, 2014)
� Positive correlations between shares of standby citizens and almost all measures of maturity of democracy
� So, standby citizens are not exactly ¡ Schudson´s (1996) ‘monitorial citizens’ (content but
sceptical), ¡ Norris’ (1999) ‘critical citizens’ (rather active than passive), ¡ Hibbing and Theiss-More’s (2002) citizens of a ‘stealth
democracy’ (lacking a trust in politicians), ¡ Barnes’ et al (1978) ‘spectators’ (passivated and disinterested
by distanced political institutions). � Rather, standbyers support the system due to favourable
evaluations of the democratic and governmental qualities of the current political regime
What will this take us normatively?
� Is the development of the Standbyer phenomenon ¡ A failure of a democratic development in the light of the Active
Citizenship (Pessimism)? ¡ A reservoir for a democracy that will be used for avoiding crisis
(Optimism)? � So far we have showed that even in short term young
standbyers in one mature democracy seem to actually step in when their satisfaction with the democracy decrease
� Yet, I wouldn’t dare to trust the standbyers. They (we?) may step in too late, when anti-democratic forces already have grown too strong to defeat.
Welcome to follow and join us!
!
Youth & Society (YeS): http://www.oru.se/yes
3/30/15 45
Ideals of a good democracy
� Representative democracy (Schumpeter, 1942) ¡ Voting is everything ¡ Citizen apathy is functional for the system
� Participatory democracy (Pateman, 1970) ¡ A strong democracy = high political participation also in
between elections � Deliberative democracy (Dryzek, 2007)
¡ Participation is not enough, it is the quality of the discussions that matters
¡ Participatory budgeting (Pateman, 2012)