Republicanism in Mediated Society. A Comparative Analysis on Public and Private Evaluation Guided by the Theory of Symbolic Society

Article

Abstract

Philosophical and historical analyses of the relationship between the public and the private sphere suggest that contemporary men and women evaluate public affairs, politics and the state of society-at-large in the light of their private, particularistic concerns. That proposition is evaluated on the basis of the theory of symbolic society. This theory considers the process of detraditionalization as a shift in the mode of social control. From a situation in which the conduct of conduct is based on traditional roles, threat of scarcity and religious belief, societies shift to social control on the basis of, on the one hand a belief in an autonomous subject, on the other new socializing institutions like schools, mass media, advertising, consumption and therapy. When this theory is applied to the distinction between public and private sphere, three implications are drawn: (1) that the evaluation of the state of society and of personal life will be quite distinct; (2) that each of those evaluations is determined by different factors; and (3) that interpretative communities, created by similarities in the level of education and media use, have become more important for the evaluation of the state of society and less important for the evaluation of personal life. These hypotheses, which run counter the expectation that contemporary men and women evaluate public affairs in the light of their private concerns, are tested using multilevel analysis on comparative data of 18 countries (European Social Survey). The analysis shows how European modernization influences the structuring of evaluation of the private and public sphere in the sense predicted by the theory of symbolic society.

Keywords

Public sphere Private sphere Symbolic society Republicanism Comparative analysis 

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (1982). Theoretical Logic in Sociology (The Antinomies of Classical Thought: Marx and Durkheim 2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, J. C., & Mast, J. (2006). Introduction: symbolic action in theory and practice: the cultural pragmatics of symbolic action. In J. Alexander & B. Biesen (Eds.), Social Performance. Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics and Ritual (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Altheide, D. L. (1997). The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 647–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arendt, H. (1957). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bilandzic, H., & Rössler, P. (2004). Life according to television. Implications of genre-specific cultivation effects: The Gratification/Cultivation Mode. Communications, 29, 295–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boggs, C. (1997). The great retreat: decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-century America. Theory and Society, 26, 741–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raison Pratiques. Sur la théorie de l'action. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  11. Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chiricos, T., Escholz, S., & Gertz, M. (1997). Crime, News and Fear of Crime: Toward an Identification of Audience Effects. Social Problems, 44, 342–357.Google Scholar
  13. De Tocqueville, A. (2003 [1835]). Democracy in America and Two Essays on America (G. E. Bevan, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. Power and rule in modern society. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism. European Sociological Review, 21, 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Downs, A. (1957). Economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  17. Durkheim, E. (1970). L’individualisme et les intellectuels. In E. Durkheim, La science sociale et laction. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France : 261–278Google Scholar
  18. Durkheim, E (1975 [1907]). Textes: Religion, morale, anomie. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  19. Elchardus, M. (2009). Self-control as social control. The emergence of symbolic society. Poetics, 37, 146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elchardus, M. (2011). Classical republicanism and the contemporary voter: an empirical cultural sociology of the relationship between the private realm and the public sphere. Poetics, 39, 407–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elchardus, M., & De Keere, K. (2010). Institutionalizing the new self. A comparative analysis. European Societies, 12, 743–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elchardus, M., & De Keere, K. (2012). Social control and institutional trust: reconsidering the effect of modernity on social malaise. The Social Science Journal, 50, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elchardus, M., De Groof, S., & Smits, W. (2008). Rational fear or represented malaise: a crucial test of two paradigms explaining fear of crime. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eurostat. (2005). Statistical Office of the European Communities, on-line database, from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
  25. Feldman, S. (1981). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 446–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1984). Histoire de la sexualité. Le souci de soi. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  28. Frosh, P., & Pinchevski, A. (2009). Media witnessing: testimony in the age of mass communication. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Funk, C. (2000). The dual influence of self-interest and societal interest in public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 37–62.Google Scholar
  30. Gabriel, O., & Walter-Rogg, M. (2008). Social capital and political trust. In H. Meulemann (Ed.), Social capital in Europe: similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European Social Survey 2002 (pp. 219–250). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  31. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: the violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gilliam, F., & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: the impact of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  36. Habermas. (1989[1962]). The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT-Press.Google Scholar
  38. Halman, L. (2001). Source book of the 1999/2000 European Values Study Surveys. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  39. HBS. (2005). Household Budget Survey, Statistical Office of the European Communities, on-line database, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database
  40. Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2009). Penn World Table Version 6.3, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania: Center for International Comparisons (CICUP).Google Scholar
  41. Hume, D. (1960 [1739]). Treatise of Human Nature. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, economic and political changes in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: the human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. ITU. (2007). World Telecommunication Indicators/ICT Indicators database, from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ICTEYE/Indicators/Indicators.aspx
  45. Jowell, R., & Team, T. C. C.-o. (2006). European Social Survey 2006/2007: Technical Report., from http://essdata.nsd.uib.no/
  46. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewit, D. R. (1984). Sociotropic politics. British journal of Political Science, 11, 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lasch, C. (1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  49. Liska, A., & Baccaglini, W. (1990). Feeling safe by comparison: crime in the newspapers. Social Problems, 37, 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lowry, D. T., Nio, T. C. J., & Leithner, D. W. (2003). Setting the public fear agenda: a longitudinal analysis of network TV crime reporting, public perceptions of crime, and FBI crime statistics. Journal of Communication, 53, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Melossi, D. (1990). The state of social control: a sociological study of concepts of state and social control in the making of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  52. Meyer, J. W. (1988). Society Without Culture: A Nineteenth-Century Legacy. In F. Ramirez (Ed.), Rethinking the Nineteenth Century. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  53. Meyer, J. W., & Jepperson, R. L. (2000). The "Actors" of modern society: the cultural constitution of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18, 100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mutz, D. (1994). Contextualizing personal experience: the role of mass media. The Journal of Politics, 56, 689–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mutz, D. (1998). Impersonal influence: how perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Newton, K., & Pippa, N. (2000). Confidence in political institutions: faith, culture or performance? In S. Pharr & R. Putnam (Eds.), Disaffected democracies: what’s troubling the trilateral countries? (pp. 52–73). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ney, J. S., Zelikowen, P. D., & King, D. C. (1997). Why people don’t trust government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. O'Connell, M. (1999). Is Irish Public opinion towards crime distorted by media bias? European Journal of Communication, 14, 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  61. PISA. (2006). Programme for International Student Assessment: Science Competencies for Tomorrow's World,fromhttp://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html#Vol_1_and_2
  62. Pocock, J. G. A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment. Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Potter, J. W., & Chang, C. I. (1990). Television exposure measures and the cultivation hypothesis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Romer, D., K., J., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication 53, 88–104Google Scholar
  65. Rose, N. (1998). Inventing our selves. Psychology, power and personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sandel, M. (1996). Democracy’s discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Scott, J., & Nelson, P. (2007). Voting with a hand on the bible and not on the wallet: the 1996 Video Poker referendum in Louisiana. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 9, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Advances in Experimental social psychology, 24, 1–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sennett, R. (1974). The fall of public man. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  71. Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C., & Bullock, D. (1991). Reconsidering Pocketbook Voting: An Experimental Approach. Political Behavior, 13, 129-149.Google Scholar
  72. Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. The making of the modern identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Todorov, T. (1993). Eloge du quotidien. Essai sur la peinture hollandaise due XVIIe siècle. Paris: Adam Biro.Google Scholar
  74. Todorov, T. (2000). Eloge de l'individu. Essai sur la peinture flamande de la Renaissance. Paris: Adam Biro.Google Scholar
  75. Tönnies, F. (1975 ]1887]). Communities and associations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  76. UNESCO. (2008). Global Education Digest 2008, comparing Education Statistics Across the World, from http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/ged/2008/GED%202008_EN.pdf
  77. Williams, P., & Dickenson, J. (1993). Fear of crime: read all about it? The relationship between newspaper crime reporting and fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 33–56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology DepartmentVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations