Politics and society in comparative perspective – seminars
Seminar 1:
Both articles address one of the three aspects of a cleavage:
- They look at the aspect of being part of a group and disliking the
other group
- Is there such a thing as an identity component in the new cleavages
Differences between both articles:
- The Steiner article is much more closed and bias could come into
play due to winners and losers. However, the Zollinger articles is
much more open.
- Both articles are case studies, two different countries (Germany and
Switzerland). In Switzerland there is a clear cleavage and also clear
new left and far right. In Germany, the political landscape is less
divided.
Conclusion of both articles:
- Is there a cleavage between the winners and losers of globalization?
The cleavage between winners and losers of globalization might
exist, but it is not as clear-cut or rigid as it is sometimes
portrayed in discussions of political polarization. It is far more
complicated.
Questions 1 - What is the goal of Steinberg et al in their article? What do
they seek to achieve?
- Whether citizens think they are winners or losers. Are we witnessing
a new full blown cleavage.
Question 2 - Why, according to Steinberg et al, is ‘group identity’—and
hence identifying with a group/self-categorizing—an important component
of a full blown cleavage?
- The identity is the stuff that binds. It plays a role in the formation
and durability of political cleavages. A shared identity glues together
individuals, facilitates in group communication and allows parties to
appeal to this identity.
Question 3 - How does cleavage theory structures individuals’ political
behavior, according to Steinberg et al?
- The self-categorization has an explanatory role
Question 4 - What is a key limitation of the data with regard to the model
Steinberg et al forward infigure1?
, - The issue of causation
- The direction of the arrows
Question 5 - How many respondents self-categorize as ‘losers of
globalization’? Would you consider this a substantial amount? Why?
- 19%, this is substantial. Losers is negative, human tendency to avoid
negatively connotated social categories.
Question 6 - When dealing with the socio-structural components of self-
categorization on the new ‘integration-demarcation’ cleavage, the authors
refrain from including all factors (education, class, income, sector) in a
single model. Why?
- x
Question 7 - Do objective (based on socio-structural variables) and
subjective (based on self-categorization) categorizations of group identity
map perfectly?
- No, they do not.
- Example: 9% of the winners identify as losers.
Question 8 - Discuss Figure 5 in your own words. What conclusions do the
authors draw? What are the consequences of the differential
effect(iveness) of objective and subjective group identity for politics and
society writ large?
- The winners and losers of globalization are further away from each
other when tested for self-categorized. But for objective socio-
economic they are much closer to each other, the same goes for
vote intention.
Question 9 - In the concluding section, the authors highlight several
limitations as well as opportunities for future research. Amongst others,
the authors refer to elite rhetoric appealing to and amplifying group
identities as a plausible explanation for the remarkable finding that
subjective self-categorization outperforms its socio-structural roots in
determining issue attitudes and the vote (for particular parties). Can you
give real world examples of such elite rhetoric (from your own country)?
- Populist politicians use elite rhetorics, they say “I do this and this for
the people that are left behind”.
Question 10 - What is the key similarity and the key difference when
comparing the study by Zollinger with the study of Steiner et al?
Seminar 1:
Both articles address one of the three aspects of a cleavage:
- They look at the aspect of being part of a group and disliking the
other group
- Is there such a thing as an identity component in the new cleavages
Differences between both articles:
- The Steiner article is much more closed and bias could come into
play due to winners and losers. However, the Zollinger articles is
much more open.
- Both articles are case studies, two different countries (Germany and
Switzerland). In Switzerland there is a clear cleavage and also clear
new left and far right. In Germany, the political landscape is less
divided.
Conclusion of both articles:
- Is there a cleavage between the winners and losers of globalization?
The cleavage between winners and losers of globalization might
exist, but it is not as clear-cut or rigid as it is sometimes
portrayed in discussions of political polarization. It is far more
complicated.
Questions 1 - What is the goal of Steinberg et al in their article? What do
they seek to achieve?
- Whether citizens think they are winners or losers. Are we witnessing
a new full blown cleavage.
Question 2 - Why, according to Steinberg et al, is ‘group identity’—and
hence identifying with a group/self-categorizing—an important component
of a full blown cleavage?
- The identity is the stuff that binds. It plays a role in the formation
and durability of political cleavages. A shared identity glues together
individuals, facilitates in group communication and allows parties to
appeal to this identity.
Question 3 - How does cleavage theory structures individuals’ political
behavior, according to Steinberg et al?
- The self-categorization has an explanatory role
Question 4 - What is a key limitation of the data with regard to the model
Steinberg et al forward infigure1?
, - The issue of causation
- The direction of the arrows
Question 5 - How many respondents self-categorize as ‘losers of
globalization’? Would you consider this a substantial amount? Why?
- 19%, this is substantial. Losers is negative, human tendency to avoid
negatively connotated social categories.
Question 6 - When dealing with the socio-structural components of self-
categorization on the new ‘integration-demarcation’ cleavage, the authors
refrain from including all factors (education, class, income, sector) in a
single model. Why?
- x
Question 7 - Do objective (based on socio-structural variables) and
subjective (based on self-categorization) categorizations of group identity
map perfectly?
- No, they do not.
- Example: 9% of the winners identify as losers.
Question 8 - Discuss Figure 5 in your own words. What conclusions do the
authors draw? What are the consequences of the differential
effect(iveness) of objective and subjective group identity for politics and
society writ large?
- The winners and losers of globalization are further away from each
other when tested for self-categorized. But for objective socio-
economic they are much closer to each other, the same goes for
vote intention.
Question 9 - In the concluding section, the authors highlight several
limitations as well as opportunities for future research. Amongst others,
the authors refer to elite rhetoric appealing to and amplifying group
identities as a plausible explanation for the remarkable finding that
subjective self-categorization outperforms its socio-structural roots in
determining issue attitudes and the vote (for particular parties). Can you
give real world examples of such elite rhetoric (from your own country)?
- Populist politicians use elite rhetorics, they say “I do this and this for
the people that are left behind”.
Question 10 - What is the key similarity and the key difference when
comparing the study by Zollinger with the study of Steiner et al?
