Skip to main content

How Much Societal Self-Empowerment is There?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Societal Self-empowerment in Germany

Abstract

Based on two representative population surveys, the chapter discusses the extent of societal self-empowerment in Germany in 2020. It turns out that almost two thirds of the respondents are willing to break the law in exceptional situations in order to follow their conscience. If, on the other hand, one asks whether one is allowed to take the law into one’s own hands or whether one must only adhere to rules if one agrees with them, if one is threatened with being caught or if the government also adheres to the rules, the agreement decreases significantly. However, the study of two concrete examples, the climate school strikes (3 items) and societal self-empowerment in the context of Corona measures (4 items), shows that societal self-empowerment is indeed socially relevant. Around a quarter of the respondents support the climate protests taking place during school time and thus violating the legal obligation to attend school, and at least six percent state that they have only sometimes complied with the Corona restrictions. However, it depends on the concrete subject whether people are willing to self-empower or not. People who participate in climate strikes therefore do not necessarily comply any less with the Corona restrictions—on the contrary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The differences between our two surveys are minimal on this question: In the first survey, 64% were of the opinion that one should be allowed to follow one’s conscience in exceptional situations, 25% said that one must always obey the law and 10.7% could not make up their minds. In the second survey, the corresponding values were 63.2%, 24.6% and 12.1%.

  2. 2.

    In 1990 and 1996, separate surveys were conducted in East and West Germany. These were taken into account as separate surveys in the calculation of the mean. However, the two parts of the country differed only marginally on this issue.

  3. 3.

    Again, the differences between the two surveys are marginal. In the first (second) survey, 18.3% (17.8%) thought that one could take the law into one’s own hands; 62.9% (64.1%) did not find this, 18.6% (17.7%) were undecided.

  4. 4.

    Since the majority of the FFF participants are likely to have been minors, but only people over the age of 17 were surveyed in our survey, we tried to better assess the extent of unauthorized behavior with the question of the participation of family members in the school strikes.

  5. 5.

    The numbers from both surveys are relatively similar: In the first (second) survey, 5.0% (5.1%) of the respondents said that they had participated themselves, 10.1% (6.8%) reported that a relative had participated and 83.9% (87.4%) said that no family member had participated in an FFF demonstration. In the first (second) survey, 48.3% (45.8%) of the respondents supported the demonstrations, 35.1% (37.9%) considered them to be wrong, 16.3% (15.6%) could not decide. Finally, 23.8% (20.2%) of the respondents in the first (second) survey found it correct that the demonstrations took place during school time, while 64.5% (69.5%) gave precedence to the compulsory school attendance. 11.5% (10.0%) were undecided.

  6. 6.

    Compare, for example, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/covid-19-pandemie-corona-demonstrationen-positionen-und.2897.de.html?dram:article_id=476457 (last accessed on 28.10.2020).

References

  • Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. 2022. Wichtige Probleme in Deutschland. abrufbar unter https://www.forschungsgruppe.de/Umfragen/Politbarometer/Langzeitentwicklung_-_Themen_im_Ueberblick/Politik_II/9_Probleme_1_1.xlsx (last accessed 18.03.2022).

  • Grande, Edgar, Swen Hutter, Sophia Hunger, and Eylem Kanol. 2021. Alles Covidioten? Politische Potenziale des Corona-Protests in Deutschland. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung: Discussion Paper ZZ 2021–601, available at https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2021/zz21-601.pdf.

  • Heinze, Anna-Sophie, and Manès Weisskircher. 2022. How Political Parties Respond to Pariah Street Protest: The Case of Anti-Corona Mobilisation in Germany. German Politics online first (doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2022.2042518).

  • Kirsch, Peter, Hanno Kube, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2022. Selbstermächtigung: Spaltung der Gesellschaft durch Misstrauen. Forum Marsilius-Kolleg 20: 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, Judith, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2020. Beeinflussen Klima-Schulstreiks die politische Agenda? Eine Analyse der Twitterkommunikation von Bundestagsabgeordneten. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 51(3): 667–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, Benjamin, Anne Leonore de Bruijn, Chris Reinders Folmer, Emmeke Kooistra, Malouke Esra Kuiper, Megan Brownlee, Elke Olthuis, and Adam Fine. 2020. Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the United States. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020–21. available at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3582626.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Kirsch .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kirsch, P., Kube, H., Zohlnhöfer, R. (2023). How Much Societal Self-Empowerment is There?. In: Societal Self-empowerment in Germany. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40865-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics