European Journal of Political Research

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 115–147 | Cite as

Interesting but irrelevant: Social capital and the saliency of politics in Western Europe

  • Jan W. Van Deth
Article

Abstract

Many explanations of political involvement are based on the idea that higherlevels of resources will be matched by higher levels of political involvement. Yet these kind of interpretations seem to overlook the fact that resources potentially increase individual autonomy and widen the scope of alternative actions, and so facilitate a decrease of political involvement. The analyses presented here are based on the rather paradoxical expectation that we will find a higher level of subjective political interest and, simultaneously, a lower level of political saliency among people commanding relatively high levels of social capital or other resources. The empirical evidence available for Western European countries in 1990 and 1998 essentially confirms the notion of diverging consequences of social capital (and other resources) for political involvement. People combining high political interest with a low saliency of politics are labelled spectators here. For them politics has lost its obligatory character – it is interesting and probably important to follow what goes on in this area, but compared with other matters its relevance is relatively low. Besides, a strong gender bias still can be found for each and every aspect of political involvement.

Keywords

European Country Social Capital Empirical Evidence Alternative Action Gender Bias 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy. participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, B. (1995). Jihad vs McWorld. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  3. Basanez, M., Inglehart, R. & Moreno, A. (1996). Human values and beliefs: A cross-national sourcebook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, S. E. (1986). Apathy in America 1960-1984: Causes and consequences of citizen political indifference. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brehm, J. & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital, American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 999–1023.Google Scholar
  7. Butterfield, L.H. & Friedlaender, M. (eds.) (1973). Adams family correspondence, Vol. 3, April 1778 - September 1780. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. & Stokes, D.E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John W. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J.L. & Arato, A. (1992). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, R.J. (1996). Citizen politics in western democracies: Public opinion and political parties in the United States, Great Britain, West Germany and France, 2nd edn. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
  12. Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic use of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics. How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Elshtain, J.B. (1997).The displacement of politics(pp. 166–181) in J. Weintraub & K. Kumar (eds.), Public and private in thought and practice. Perspectives on a grand dichotomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gabriel, O.W. & van Deth, J.W. (1995). Political interest (pp. 390–411) in J.W. van Deth & E. Scarbrough (eds.), The impact of values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gash, B. (1988). Taboo topics. An international comparison between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany. Paper presented at the international congress of psychology, Sydney.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, S.B. & Segura, G.M. (1997). Cross-national variation in the political sophistication of individuals: capability or choice?, The Journal of Politics 59(1): 126–147.Google Scholar
  20. Haug, S. (1997). Soziales Kapital. Ein kritischer Ñberblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung, Working Paper No.15.Google Scholar
  21. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Inglehart, R. (1979). Political action: The impact of va1ues, cognitive level, and social background (pp. 343–380) in S.H. Barnes, M. Kaase et al., Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Inglehart, R. (1997a). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Inglehart, R. (1997b).Postmaterialist values and the erosion of institutional authority (pp. 217- 236), in J.S. Nye, P.D. Zelikow & D.C. King (eds.), Why people don't trust government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kaase, M. & Marsh, A. (1979). Political action: A theoretical perspective (pp. 27–56) in S.H. Barnes, M. Kaase et al., Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Kuttner, R. (1997). Everything for sale: The virtues and limits of markets. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  28. Lane, R.E. (1965).The politics of consensus in an age of affluence, The American Political Science Review 59(4): 874–895.Google Scholar
  29. Lane, R.E. (1982). Government and self-esteem: Should government be concerned with selfesteem?, Political Theory 10(1): 5–31.Google Scholar
  30. Loomis, L.R. (ed.) (1943). Aristotle. On man in the universe. Roslyn, NY: Black.Google Scholar
  31. Lupia, A. & McCubbins, M.D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Milbrath, L.W. & Goel, M.L. (1977). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  33. Mokken, R.J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis. With applications in political research. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  34. Monoson, S.S. (1994). Citizen as erastes. Erotic imagery and the idea of reciprocity in the Periclean funeral oration, Political Theory 22(2): 253–276.Google Scholar
  35. Nie, N.H. & Andersen, K. (1974). Mass belief systems revisited: Political change and attitude structure, Journal of Politics 36: 540–591Google Scholar
  36. Nye, J.S., Zelikow, P.D. & King, D.C. (eds.) (1997). Why people don't trust government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Putnam, R.D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital, Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65–78.Google Scholar
  39. Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America, Political Science and Politics 28(4): 664–683.Google Scholar
  40. Rauch, J. (1994). Demosclerosis. The silent killer of American government. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  41. Reese-Schäfer, W. (1994). Was ist Kommunitarismus? Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  42. Rosenberg, M. (1954). Some determinants of politica1 apathy, Public Opinion Quarterly 18: 350–366.Google Scholar
  43. Sabine, G.H. & Thorson, T.L. (1973). A history of political theory. 4th edn. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sandel, M.J. (1996). Democracy's discontent. America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Scheuch, E.K. (1965). Die Sichtbarkeit politischer Einstellungen im alltäglichen Verhalten, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 9: 169–214.Google Scholar
  46. Schmitt-Beck, R. & Schrott, P.R. (1994). Dealignment durch Massenmedien? Zur These der Abschwächung von Parteibindungen als Folge der Medienexpansion (pp. 543–572)in H.-D. Klingemann & M. Kaase (eds.), Wahlen und Wähler. Analysen aus Anlaß der Bundestagswahl 1990, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Stolle, D. (1998). Making associations work. Group characteristics, membership and generalized trust. Paper presented at the APSA Meetings, Boston.Google Scholar
  48. Topf, R. (1995). Beyond electoral participation (pp. 52–91) in H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (eds.), Citizens and the state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. van Deth, J.W. (1990). Interest in politics (pp. 275–312) in M.K. Jennings, J.W. van Deth et al., Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three western democracies. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter and Aldine.Google Scholar
  50. van Deth, J.W. (1991). Politicization and political interest (pp. 201–213) in K. Reif & R. Inglehart (eds.), Eurobarometer: The dynamics of European public opinion. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. van Deth, J.W. (1996a). Politisches Interesse und Apathie in Europa (pp. 383–402) in T. König, E. Rieger & H. Schmitt (eds.), Das europäische Mehrebenensystem. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  52. van Deth, J.W. (1996b). Social and political involvement: An overview and reassessment of empirical findings. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Oslo.Google Scholar
  53. van Deth, J.W. (1997). Introduction: Social involvement and democratic politics (pp. 1–23) in J.W. van Deth (ed.), Private groups and public life. Social participation, voluntary associations and political involvement in representative democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. van Deth, J.W. & Kreuter, F. (1998). Membership of voluntary associations (pp. 135–155) in J.W. van Deth (ed.), Comparative politics. The problem of equivalence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. & Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and equality. Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction (pp. 1–42) in J. Weintruaub & K. Kumar (eds.), Public and private in thought and practice. Perspectives on a grand dichotomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Weisberg, J. (1996). In defense of government. The fall and rise of public trust. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  58. Wood, R.L. (1997). Social capital and political culture. God meets politics in the inner city, American Behavioral Scientist 40(5): 595–605.Google Scholar
  59. Zahler, J.R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan W. Van Deth
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Political Science and International Comparative Social Research, and Mannheim Centre for European Social ResearchUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations