Abstract
In view of the remarkable differences between persons who tend to self-empowerment in the areas of Corona and climate, the chapter introduces the distinction between instrumental and expressive self-empowerment. Instrumental self-empowerment describes deviant behaviour of persons who are positive towards democracy, who try to support their political goals by means of unconventional political participation (here: Fridays for Future). Expressive self-empowerment, on the other hand, is deviant political behaviour with which the respective person not only expresses her dissatisfaction with certain political measures and the incumbent government, but with the functioning of democracy and the political system as a whole (here: Corona self-empowerment). Subsequently, we examine to what extent expressive self-empowerment can be understood as manifestation of a deficit of political representation, which has led to the perception of social exclusion and loss of control at the individual level, which in turn has, inter alia, resulted in a greater openness to conspiracy theories and ultimately expressive self-empowerment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On the basis of surveys of participants of various demonstrations in Germany between 2003 and 2020, Daphi et al. (2021) come to a similar distinction. Their 'disenchanted critics' are characterized by low political trust, low satisfaction with democracy and low self-efficacy, thus resembling our expressive self-empowered. In contrast, the so-called confident critics display high political trust, high satisfaction with democracy and a high degree of self-efficacy, quite similar to our type of instrumental self-empowerment. Daphi et al. (2021) consider participants in Fridays for Future demonstrations as an example of 'confident critics', while Corona demonstrations were not investigated by Daphi and colleagues.
- 2.
According to a Politbarometer poll in May 2010, only 16% of those surveyed considered the euro crisis to be one of the two most important problems in Germany. In September 2011, this proportion had risen to 40 and 42%, in June 2012 it was at 41% and in August 2015 at 36%. Around the time of the Bundestag votes, public attention was sometimes even higher, for example in October 2011 at 63%, in July 2012 at 54% and in July 2015 at 49%. Between July 2011 and January 2013 (with the exception of the months of March and April 2012) as well as in March/April 2013 and in July 2015, and thus also in the period of the votes in question, the euro crisis even topped the list of the most important problems.
- 3.
This is at least true for the late 2010s. In the second half of the 2000s, especially after the far-reaching Hartz labor market reforms of the second Schröder government, there may well have been a perception of an economic and social policy party convergence, which was reflected in the formation of the Left in the (West German) party system.
References
Alexander, Robin. 2017. Die Getriebenen. Merkel und die Flüchtlingspolitik: Report aus dem Innern der Macht. München.
Anderson, Christopher J., André Blais, Shaun Bowler, Todd Donovan, and Ola Listhaug. 2005. Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bakker, Ryan, Seth Jolly, and Jonathan Polk. 2020. Multidimensional incongruence, political disaffection, and support for anti-establishment parties. Journal of European Public Policy 27(2): 292–309.
Behnke, Nathalie. 2021. Handlungsfähigkeit des Föderalismus in der Pandemie. Überlegungen zur Kompetenzverteilung anlässlich der ,Bundesnotbremse‘. Recht und Politik 57(3): 369–380.
Daphi, Priska, Sebastian Haunss, Moritz Sommer, and Simon Teune. 2021. Taking to the Streets in Germany – Disenchanted and Confident Critics in Mass Demonstrations. German Politics, online first DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2021.1998459.
Douglas, Karen M., Robbie M. Sutton, and Aleksandra Cichocka. 2017. The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science 26(6): 538–542.
Engler, Fabian, Svenja Bauer-Blaschkowski, and Reimut Zohlnhöfer. 2019 Disregarding the Voters? Electoral Competition and the Merkel Government’s Public Policies, 2013–17. German Politics 28(3): 312–331.
Federico, Christopher M., Allison L. Williams, and Joseph A. Vitriol. 2018. The role of system identity threat in conspiracy theory endorsement. European Journal of Social Psychology 48(7): 927–938.
Franzmann, Simon T. 2019. Extra-Parliamentary Opposition within a Transforming Political Space: The AfD and FDP under Merkel III between 2013 and 2017. German Politics 28(3): 332–349.
Freeman, Daniel, and Richard P. Bentall. 2017. The concomitants of conspiracy concerns. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 52(5): 595–604.
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.
Grant, Zack P. 2021. Crisis and Convergence: How the Combination of a Weak Economy and Mainstream Party Ideological De-Polarization Fuels Anti-System Support. Comparative Political Studies 54(7): 1256–1291.
Hobolt, Sara B., Julian M. Hoerner, and Toni Rodon. 2021. Having a say or getting your way? Political choice and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research 60 (4): 854–873.
Imhoff, Roland, Felix Zimmer, Oliver Klein, João H.C. António, Maria Babinska, Adrain Bangerter, Michal Bilewicz, Nebojša Blanuša, Kost Bovan, Rumena Bužarovska, Aleksandra Cichocka, Sylvain Delouvée, Karen M. Douglas, Asbjørn Dyrendal, Tom Etienne, Biljana Gjoneska, Sylvie Graf, Estrella Gualda, Gilad Hirschberger, … and Jan-Willem van Prooijen. 2022. Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01258-7.
Infratest dimap. 2016. ARD DeutschlandTREND. April 2016. Eine Studie im Auftrag der tagesthemen, available at https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend-529.pdf.
Jankowski, Michael, Anna-Sophie Kurella, Christian Stecker, Andreas Blätte, Thomas Bräuninger, Marc Debus, Jochen Müller, and Susanne Pickel. 2022. Die Positionen der Parteien zur Bundestagswahl 2021: Ergebnisse des Open Expert Surveys. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 63(1): 53–72.
Jörke, Dirk, and Veith Selk. 2015. Der hilflose Antipopulismus. Leviathan 43 (4): 484–500
Kofta, Mirosław, Wiktor Soral, and Michał Bilewicz. 2020. What breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 118(5): 900–918.
Koroma, Dennis, Maria I. Pestalozzi, and Hansjörg Znoj. 2022. How Social Exclusion, Embitterment, and Conspiracy Beliefs Mediate Individual’s Intention to Vaccination against COVID-19: Results from a Moderated Serial Mediation Analysis. Psychopathology 55(2): 93–103.
Merkel, Wolfgang. 2017: Kosmopolitismus versus Kommunitarismus: Ein neuer Konflikt in der Demokratie, in: Philipp Harfst, Ina Kubbe, and Thomas Poguntke (eds.): Parties, Governments and Elites. The Comparative Study of Democracy. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 9–23.
Oppelland, Torsten. 2019. Profilierungsdilemma einer Regierungspartei in einem fragmentierten Parteiensystem: Die CDU während der Amtszeit der Regierung Merkel III, in: Reimut Zohlnhöfer, and Thomas Saalfeld (eds.): Zwischen Stillstand, Politikwandel und Krisenmanagement. Eine Bilanz der Regierung Merkel 2013–2017, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 63–85.
Patzelt, Werner J. 2017. Der 18. Deutsche Bundestag und die Repräsentationslücke. Eine kritische Bilanz. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 15: 245–285.
Ridge, Hannah M. 2022. Just like the others: Party differences, perception, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics 28(3): 419–430.
Rooduijn, Matthijs, Wouter van der Brug, and Sarah L. de Lange. 2016. Expressing or fuelling discontent? The relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies 43: 32–40.
Schäfer, Armin, and Michael Zürn. 2021. Die demokratische Regression. Die politischen Ursachen des autoritären Populismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Heike Klüver. 2019. Party convergence and vote switching: Explaining mainstream party decline across Europe. European Journal of Political Research 58: 1021–1042.
Torcal, Mariano, and Pedro C. Magalhães. 2022. Ideological extremism, perceived party system polarization, and support for democracy. European Political Science Review 14: 188–205.
van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, and Karen M. Douglas. 2017. Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations. Memory Studies 10(3): 323–333.
Whitson, Jennifer A., and Adam D. Galinsky. 2008. Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception. Science 322(5898): 115–117.
Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, and Fabian Engler. 2015. Politik nach Stimmungslage? Der Parteienwettbewerb und seine Policy-Implikationen in der 17. Wahlperiode, in: Reimut Zohlnhöfer, and Thomas Saalfeld (eds.): Politik im Schatten der Krise. Eine Bilanz der Regierung Merkel, 2009–2013. Wiesbaden: Springer, 137–167.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kirsch, P., Kube, H., Zohlnhöfer, R. (2023). Discussion: Between Representational Gap and Conspiracy Belief. In: Societal Self-empowerment in Germany. Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40865-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40865-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-40864-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-40865-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)