A Conceptual Map of Political Participation

Symposium
A conceptual map of political participation
Jan W. van Deth

Universität Mannheim, Seminargebäude A5, Mannheim, 68131, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract How would you recognize a mode of participation if you see one? Owing to
the rapid expansion of political activities in the last decades this question has become
increasingly difficult to answer. Neither the development of all-embracing nominal defini-
tions, nor deductive analyses of existing modes of participation seem to be helpful. In
addition, the spread of expressive modes of participation makes it hard to avoid purely
subjective definitions. The aim of this discussion paper is to develop an operational defini-
tion of political participation, which allows us to cover distinct conceptualizations system-
atically, efficiently and consistently. This goal can only be arrived at if the conventional
-
approach of presenting nominal definitions to solve conceptual problems is left behind.

Instead, available definitions are included in a set of decision rules to distinguish three main
variants of political participation. A fourth variant is distinguished for non-political activ-
ities used for political purposes. Together, the four variants of political participation cover
the whole range of political participation systematically without excluding any mode of
political participation unknown yet. At the same time, the endless expansion of the modes
of political participation in modern democracies does not result in an endless conceptual
expansion. Implications for research and various examples are discussed.
Acta Politica (2014) 49, 349–367. doi:10.1057/ap.2014.6; published online 9 May 2014
Keywords: participation; engagement; democracy; concept formation
‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean’, Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that’, said Humpty Dumpty,
‘I always pay it extra’. (Carroll, 1871, pp. 186–187)
Introduction: The Challenges of Endless Expansions
Casting a vote, boycotting some product, donating money, running for office, forward-
ing emails, contacting an alderman, attending a political poetry slam – the list of modes
of political participation is long and gets longer almost daily. The continuous expan-
sion of available modes of participation in the last decades underlines the relevance of
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0001-6810 Acta Politica Vol. 49, 3, 349–367
www.palgrave-journals.com/ap/
van Deth
political participation for democracy and democratization: participation is the elixir of

life for democracy. Yet especially discussions about the increase of opportunities for
political involvement are accompanied by growing conceptual ambivalences in at least
two ways. First, conclusions about the changing nature of participation differ widely
depending on the concept used. Summarizing the consequences of applying similar
concepts for different phenomena, Hay notices:
… those with the most restrictive and conventional conceptions of political
participation identify a strong and consistent pattern of declining political
participation and engagement over time, whilst those with a more inclusive
conception discern instead a change in the mode of political participation.
(2007, p. 23; emphasis in original)
In other words, actual conclusions about important changes in democratic societies
depend on the participation concept used. Dalton (2008) studied political action in
the USA and highlights the importance of depicting changes in political participation.
His main conclusion is that: ‘… the trends in political activity represent changes in
the style of political action, and not just changes in the level of participation’ (Dalton,
2008, p. 94). The two, however, cannot be disentangled so easily because meaning-
ful conclusions about ‘styles’ and ‘levels’ require a common understanding of
‘political participation’ at different points in time. If no such common understanding
is available, conclusions should be restricted to distinct arguments about the ‘level’ of
participation for each ‘style’ separately. Another example is provided by Fox’s
(2014, p. 502) critique of an empirical study on participation in Britain using a
concept of participation that is ‘… too restrained in the light of social changes and
technical advancements’ and, therefore, we cannot be sure that ‘… a realistic and
valid assessment’ of participation and its decline in Britain has been captured. As
these examples show, the assessment of changes in political participation and
democratic developments are not primarily contingent on theoretical approaches or
empirical findings, but on the ways in which political participation is conceptualized.
A second conceptual ambivalence is also related to the expansion of the modes of
participation. Many newer, ‘creative’, ‘personalized’, ‘individualized’ or ‘conscious’
modes of participation such as political consumption, street parties or guerrilla
gardening are non-political activities used for political purposes. Only the expression
of political aims or intentions transforms these activities into modes of political
participation: boycotting a brand of athletic shoes is, as such, not a political activity,
but it can easily become one if the shopper explicitly expresses her intention that her
refusal should be understood as an utterance for legislation restricting child labour.
Yet accepting intentions and aims of people as a necessary criterion to characterize
political participation would imply an extreme form of subjectifying our main
concepts. In this way, literally every mode of behaviour would classify as political
participation: we only have to ask the individual concerned whether she considers
repairing her bike, signing a petition or buying a brand of shoes as ‘politically’
350 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0001-6810 Acta Politica Vol. 49, 3, 349–367
Conceptualizing participation
motivated and all these activities become specimens of political participation.

Reversely, no political participation would be witnessed if she visits the ballot box
for purely personal or private reasons. Unattractive as these implications are, simply
neglecting the goals or intentions of citizens as a defining feature of political
participation would throw out the baby with the bath water. How, then, can we
arrive at a fruitful conceptualization of political participation taking the expressions
of people involved into consideration without being forced to follow the same
procedure for a clearly political phenomenon such as voting?
The continuous expansion of the modes of participation has confronted many
researchers with the dilemma of using either a dated conceptualization excluding
many new modes of political participation or stretching their concepts to cover
almost everything (cf. van Deth, 2001). Fox’s (2014) question – ‘Is it Time to Update
the Definition of Political Participation?’ – can be answered affirmatively, but how to
avoid that the endless expansion of the modes of participation results in endless
conceptual expansions? The aim of this article is to contribute to this discussion by
developing an operational definition of political participation, which allows us to
cover distinct conceptualizations systematically, efficiently and consistently. This
goal can only be arrived at if the conventional approach of presenting nominal
definitions to solve conceptual problems is left behind and the role of aims and
intentions of participants is explicitly dealt with.
Defining Political Participation
Political participation can be loosely defined as citizens’ activities affecting politics.

The simple appearance of this definition is deceptive. The list of specimens of political
participation is virtually endless and includes such divergent phenomena as voting,
demonstrating and boycotting – but also guerrilla gardening, volunteering, flash mobs
and even suicide protest. Usually, participation is considered to be an abstract concept
(measured as a continuum) covering these specific modes of participation as manifesta-
tions or expressions (or positions on a continuum). The term ‘repertoire’ refers to a
range of things that someone can do; that is, a repertoire of political participation
compromises all available activities affecting politics (cf. Tilly, 1995, pp. 41–48; Tilly,
2008, pp. 14 –15). All these depictions – abstract concept, latent construct, continuum,
repertoire – move beyond the analysis of a particular mode of political activity and
focus on a more general or abstract idea of political participation.
The idea that political participation is not just an enumeration of some specific
modes or activities underlies all available definitions of political participation.
Nonetheless, political participation has been defined in many ways (cf. Brady
(1998) or van Deth (2001), and more recently Fox (2014) for overviews of the
literature). Four points seem to be common and relatively unproblematic.1 First,
political participation is depicted as an activity (or ‘action’) – simply watching
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0001-6810 Acta Politica Vol. 49, 3, 349–367 351
van Deth
television, visiting websites or claiming to be interested in politics does not constitute

participation.2 Second, political participation is understood as something done by
people in their role as citizens, not as, say, politicians or professional lobbyists. Third,
political participation should be voluntary and not enforced by law, rules or threats.
A fourth common aspect is that political participation deals with government, politics
or the state in a broad sense of these words (‘political system’, ‘policy process’) and
that it is neither restricted to specific phases (such as policy making, or the input side
of the political system) nor to specific levels or areas (such as national elections or
contacts with public representatives and officials).
An enlargement of the conceptual area is most clearly visible in the definition
presented by Norris (2002, p. 16) who claims that activities ‘… to impact civil
society, or which attempt to alter systematic patterns of social behaviour’ are
specimens of political participation. Adding these kinds of activities to actions
dealing with government and politics implies an immense expansion of the concept
political participation. Especially authors following the revival of Tocquevillean and
communitarian ideas in the last two decades stress the gains obtained by using this
expanded approach and commonly refer to ‘civic engagement’ instead of political
participation. In their report on citizenship and democracy to the American Political
Science Association, Macedo et al (2005, p. 6) start with the remark: ‘We do not
draw a sharp distinction between “civic” and “political” engagement because we
recognize that politics and civil society are interdependent’. For them ‘… civic
engagement includes any activity, individual or collective, devoted to influencing the
collective life of the polity’ (Macedo et al, 2005, p. 6; emphasis in original). Applying
a similar approach, Zukin et al (2006, p. 52) point to the broad repertoire of
engagement among young people in America where ‘… the boundaries between
political and civic engagement are not clear ones’. A closer look at their definition of
‘civic engagement’ underlines the arbitrariness of a demarcation between the two
types of participation: ‘… civic engagement is defined as organized voluntary
activity focused on problem solving and helping others’ (Zukin et al, 2006, p. 7).
Many specimens of ‘problem solving and helping others’ are evidently distinct
from political participation: repairing your bike and lending a pound of sugar to your
neighbour should not be covered by this label.3 However, Zukin et al stress the need
of activities to be organized in order to be examples of civic engagement, which
brings us very close to Norris’ idea of political participation as an ‘… attempt to alter
systematic patterns of social behaviour’. Macedo et al, however, do not stress the
need for organized or social behaviour, but return to the aim of the activities as
included in older definitions of political participation. Whereas Zukin et al point to
activities ‘… to affect change’, Macedo et al prefer a more specific aim ‘… devoted
to influencing the collective life of the polity’. In this way, the conceptual distinction
between political participation and civic engagement disappears: apparently, any
organized action or social behaviour or any activity aimed at change or at influencing
collective life is covered by these broad approaches.4
This brief exploratory journey into the definitional area of political participation
already shows the conceded as well as the disputed zones. Political participation is an
abstract or general concept that covers voluntary activities by citizens usually related
to government, politics or the state. In addition, these activities can be aimed at
solving community problems or, in even more general terms, they can be ‘attempts
to alter systematic patterns of social behaviour’ being ‘devoted to influencing the
collective life of the polity’ or aiming to ‘induce significant social reform’. Other
authors prefer even broader concepts by simply referring to participation as ‘a cate-
gorical term for citizen power’ (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216) or to all activities aiming ‘…
to influence or to chance existing power structures’ (Brough and Shresthova, 2012).
No clear lines of demarcation are visible and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that
political participation can be almost everything (cf. van Deth, 2001).
An Operational Definition of Political Participation
Searching for common aspects among available definitions of political participation

does not seem to result in an encompassing conceptualization. A more pragmatic
approach is needed based on the identification of indispensable requirements for
some phenomenon to be recognized as a specimen of political participation. In other
words, the key question is not what a comprehensive (nominal) definition could look
like, but: how would you recognize a mode of participation if you see one?
In his seminal work on taxonomies and classifications, Hempel (1965) pointed to
two general requirements for operational definitions, which seem to be very helpful
for a fresh approach to the conceptualization of political participation.5 First, he states
that an operational definition should provide ‘… objective criteria by means of which
any scientific investigator can decide, for any particular case, whether the term does
or does not apply’ (Hempel, 1965, p. 141; see also Sartori, 1970, p. 1045). With
modes of political participation now ranging from casting a vote to buying athletic
shoes and public suicides this is a very useful proposal. As we have seen several of
these criteria are used already – what is needed is a systematically developed set of
decision rules to answer the question whether we depict a specific phenomenon as
political participation. Second, Hempel states that these decision rules have to be
unambiguous, but especially that they have to be efficient. In a hierarchical ordered
classification, each subgroup is ‘… defined by the specification of necessary and
sufficient conditions of membership’ (Hempel, 1965, p. 138). Following this recom-
mendation for political participation, we need to develop a minimalist definition6 of
the concept before more complex variants are considered.7 This baseline set of
decision rules, then, can be used to develop further sets of decision rules to define
distinct conceptualizations of political participation systematically.
Suppose we have some phenomenon of which we want to know whether the term
political participation does or does not apply. This question can be answered for any
van Deth
phenomenon by going through the various steps depicted in Figure 1. The initial
three rules cover the relatively unproblematic aspects of political participation
mentioned in the previous section. These aspects are explicitly included here to
systemize the set of decisions to be taken. Already with the positive option of the
fourth rule we reach a minimalist definition of political participation as a voluntary
activity by citizens in the area of government, politics or the state (rules 1+, 2+, 3+ and
4+).8 These rules can be briefly summarized in the following way:
Rule 1: Do we deal with behaviour?

Nominal definitions of participation all start with references to behavioural
aspects. Yet stressing the behavioural nature of any phenomenon eventually to be
labelled as a specimen of political participation does not avoid all ambiguities.
Specific abstentions of activities – for instance, boycotting certain products, staying
away from the ballot box, refusing to donate money – are, strictly speaking, no
instances of activities or actions. Nonetheless, many people ‘… regard their own
decision not to participate in formal politics as itself a highly political act’ (Hay,
2007, p. 26). In case abstentions are used in similar ways as activities, these
‘activities’, too, should be treated as a satisfactory fulfilment of the requirement
formulated in this first step. That is, only the refusal to buy truly obtainable products,
to stay at home on an actual election day or to refuse to pay charges are accepted
as specimens of relevant ‘activities’ here.
Rule 2: Is the activity voluntary?

The next step is to make sure that the activity is optional; that is, it should not
be a consequence of force, pressure or threats, but be based on free will. Exami-
ning a person’s free will is highly problematic in empirical research and even the
existence of such a condition is seriously challenged on various grounds (cf. Harris,
2012). For these reasons, a negative formulation emphasizing the absence of obser-
vable coercion – including unreasonable high costs – seems to be more practical.
Examples of these coercions are, first of all, legal obligations or mandatory tasks,
but also economic or social extortions. However, paying taxes, standing in a traffic
jam or appearing in court are all examples of involuntary acts with (potentially)
political consequences that should be excluded from the concept of political
participation.9
Rule 3: Is the activity done by citizens?

Most definitions explicitly refer to citizens in order to differentiate the relevant
behaviour from the activities of politicians, civil servants, office-bearers, public
officers, journalists, and professional delegates, advisors, appointees, lobbyists,
and the like. Essential as the accomplishments of these functionaries and officials
might be for the political system, using the concept political participation in these
instances would stretch the range of relevant behaviour to cover conceptually
Figure 1: A Conceptual map of political participation (minimalist, targeted and motivational definitions).
van Deth
and functionally very different phenomena. Therefore, the term ‘citizen’ is explicitly
incorporated in many definitions to underline the non-professional, non-paid,
amateurish nature of activities (Barber, 1984, p. 152; Stoker, 2006, chapter 9). Some
authors use the term ‘citizen participation’ to avoid any misunderstanding (Callahan,
2007; Michels, 2012).
Rule 4: Is the activity located in the sphere of government/state/politics?

Obviously, the adjective ‘political’ is a crucial part of any conceptualization of
political participation. Circular definitions are widely available and easily recognizable
by the inclusion of terms such as politics, political system, public policy or policy
process in definiens and definiendum. Somewhat more informative are references to
‘government’, ‘government agencies’ or ‘public representatives and officials’.
Although ‘politics’, ‘government’ or ‘democracy’ are essentially contested concepts
(Gallie, 1956) and citizens vary widely in their ideas about ‘politics’ and ‘political’
(Fitzgerald, 2013), no conceptualization of political participation can avoid the
question whether the activities considered are located in the political sector of society;
that is, the sector directed by government under the jurisdiction of state power. As we
want to arrive at a minimalist definition of political participation first, this rule should
be based on the most straightforward condition available. The institutional architecture
of the political system (‘polity’) seems to fulfil this requirement.
These four decision rules already suffice to reach a minimalist definition of political
participation. By focussing on the locus (or arena) of participation – rather than on
outcomes, outputs, intentions and so on – as the defining characteristic, all amateurish,
voluntary activities located in the sphere of government/state/politics are specimen of
political participation as defined by this minimalist definition (Political Participation-I
in Figure 1; rules 1+, 2+, 3+ and 4+). These modes of participation include activities
such as casting a vote (both in elections and referendums), submitting an official
petition or supporting a party or candidate, but also being active in forums such as
‘participatory budgeting’ (cf. Pateman, 2012). Frequently used terms for activities
meeting the requirements of the minimalist definition are ‘conventional modes of
participation’ (cf. Kaase and Marsh, 1979), ‘institutional modes of participation’ (cf.
García Albaceta, 2011; Hooghe and Quintelier, 2013) or ‘elite-directed action’
(Inglehart and Catterberg, 2002).
In any vibrant democracy, new modes of political participation are introduced
outside the regular government/state/politics sphere continuously.10 In fact, many of
these forms explicitly challenge the status quo or the legitimacy of state authorities
and institutions.11 This expansion of the political repertoire establishes a major theme
in research on political culture and participation (cf. Inglehart, 1990). Hay (2007,
p. 75) points out to forms of political participation that ‘… take place outside of the
governmental arena, yet respond to concerns which are formally recognized
politically and on which there may well be active legislative or diplomatic agendas’.
In case the activity concerned is not located in the sphere of government/state/politics

(rule 4−), a further rule is required:
Rule 5: Is the activity targeted at the sphere of government/state/politics?

Activities that are not located in the government/state/politics arena can be
considered as modes of political participation if they are targeted at that sphere.
Many of these modes are used to attract attention to problems that either have not
been perceived as problematic or have not been recognized as problems requiring
governmental/state involvement so far. Certainly, in the initial stage of their
application these modes intend to challenge the conventional understanding of the
scope and nature of politics in a society. Labels such as ‘contentious politics’ (Tilly,
2008, p. 5) or ‘elite-challenging politics’ (Inglehart, 1990, pp. 338–340; Inglehart
and Catterberg, 2002) underline this feature.
By using the target of voluntary activities, a second main type of participation is

conceptualized: targeted political participation (Political Participation-II; rules
1+, 2+, 3+, 4− and 5+). Although targets are crucial for this type of participation, the
decisive point is that this feature refers to the targets of the activities considered and
not to the aims or intentions of activists. Targeted political activities are covered by,
for example, the Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive definition of ‘peaceful
demonstrations’ as: ‘… any peaceful gathering of more than 100 people for the
primary purpose of displaying or voicing their opposition to government policies or
authorities’ (Banks (2009) as cited by Teorell, 2010, p. 168). This definition shows
clearly how the targets of the activities can be depicted without relying on the goals
or intentions of the people involved.
Especially the discussions about political participation and civic engage-
ment indicate that participation seems to be increasingly focussed ‘… on problem
solving and helping others’ (Zukin et al, 2006, p. 7). This conceptualization is
too broad to arrive at a useful definition of political participation. Yet problem
solving or helping others certainly can be accepted as modes of political partici-
pation if clearly private or non-public activities are excluded. To attain the
adjective ‘political’ for problem solving and helping others, these activities should
be aimed at shared problems, which usually means that community problems are at
the centre. Hay (2007, p. 70) brings this conceptualization to the point: ‘… actions
might be deemed political only in so far as they either arise out of situations
of collective choice or are likely to have collective consequences, at whatever
point these consequences arise’. To deny the adjective ‘political’ to attempts to
solve collective or community problems would imply a restriction to government-
and state-centred definitions of political participation, and – what is much more
problematic – to an exclusion of activities by people who explicitly reject
some borderline between ‘politics’ and ‘society’ (cf. Cornwall and Coelho, 2006,
pp. 1–2).12 For that reason, these activities are distinguished from other modes
van Deth
of participation, but not eliminated from the broader conceptualization of political

participation:
Rule 6: Is the activity aimed at solving collective or community problems?

Amateur, voluntary activities that are not located in, or targeted at, the sphere of
government/state/politics can be considered as modes of political participation if they
are aimed at solving collective or community problems. Notice that the character of
the problem dealt with has to be collective or shared, not the organizational aspects of
the activities undertaken. Especially newer modes of participation are labelled
as ‘individualized collective action’ to underline this distinction (Micheletti, 2003,
p. 28; Shirky, 2008; van Deth, 2010).
Applying the six rules results in a second variant of a targeted definition of

political participation aimed at solving collective or community problems (Partici-
pation-III; rules 1+, 2+, 3+, 4−, 5− and 6+). Examples of activities belonging to this
category are citizens’ initiatives or neighbourhood committees. As with the govern-
ment/politics/state-targeted definition, no references to aims or intentions of partici-
pants are included in this second variant. Especially authors working in the field
of civil society and social capital favour the depiction of activities aimed at solving
collective or community problems as modes of political participation. As we have
seen, Macedo et al (2005, p. 6; emphasis in original) define ‘civic engagement’ as ‘…
any activity, individual or collective, devoted to influencing the collective life of the
polity’ – a definition very similar to the two variants of a targeted definition of
political participation.
After applying the first six rules we arrive at ‘non-political activities’ if neither the
minimalist nor one of the two targeted definitions appear to be relevant (rules 1+, 2+,
3+, 4−, 5− and 6−). However, this does not mean that we have reached the ultimate
border of a conceptual map of political participation as non-political activities
become specimens of political participation if they are used for political purposes.
Especially newer, ‘creative’, ‘expressive’, ‘personalized’ and ‘individualized’ modes
of participation seem to fit this category: buying a brand of coffee is, as such, not
a political activity, but it can easily become one if the shopper explicitly expresses
his intention that this purchase should be understood as an utterance against import
regulations. Many definitions of political participation include explicit references
to the goals or intentions of people involved and embrace references to activities that
‘intend’ or are ‘aimed at’ influencing government policies or the selection of its
personnel. Undoubtedly, participation usually is initiated and guided by the wish to
have some impact on existing arrangements (cf. Milbrath, 1965; Wuthnow, 1998;
Schlozman et al, 2012). The question, therefore, is not whether teleological aspects
can or should be included in conceptualizations of political participation after
we have dealt with minimalist and targeted definitions – the question is how to
include such aspects consistently. After applying the first six rules we do not need a
general answer to this question. The introduction of subjective aspects can be

restricted to the endpoint reached for non-political activities (rules 1+, 2+, 3+, 4−, 5−
and 6−):
Rule 7: Is the activity used to express political aims and intentions of participants?
Any activity that fulfils the first three rules – activity, voluntary, citizen – but is
neither located in the political arena nor aimed at political actors or collective
problems can be depicted as a form of political participation if it is used to express
political aims and intentions by the participants. For example, Micheletti (2003,
p. 14) stresses that ‘… political consumerism is politics when people knowingly
target market actors to express their opinions on justice, fairness, or noneconomic
issues that concern personal and family well-being’. In a similar way, Willis and
Schor (2012) speak of ‘conscious consumption’ and Bennett (2012, p. 30) observes
the ‘… profusion of self-actualizing, digitally mediated DIY politics’.
Depending on the aims and intentions of the participants, applying rule 7 results
in a motivational definition of political participation (Political Participation-IV;
rules 1+, 2+, 3+, 4−, 5−, 6− and 7+). This type covers all voluntary, non-political
activities by citizens used to express their political aims and intentions. An important
aspect of these newer modes of political participation is that they typically ‘… refer
not to “politics” as a noun, but to the “political” as an adjective, describing the
motivations of actors wherever such motivations might be displayed’ (Hay, 2007,
p. 63).13
With non-political activities used for non-political goals (rules 1+, 2+, 3+, 4−, 5−, 6−
and 7−) we obviously reached a final borderline of a conceptual map of political
participation. Yet there is no reason to restrict the application of rule 7 to activities
that could not be categorized under the minimalist or the targeted definitions.
Although the intentions and aims of the people involved are not necessary to define
these three types of participation, that does not exclude teleological aspects for
further refinements of these concepts of political participation. Following the
distinctions proposed by Hay (2007, pp. 74–75), each type of political participation
can be distinguished in ‘political’ and ‘non-political’ activities depending on the
question whether the activists are primarily motivated by political or by non-political
aims or intentions, respectively.14 A modified version of rule 7 – that is, a version
dealing with activities, which are already acknowledged as types of political
participation – allows us to refine each of the three types of participation further:
Rule 7*: Is the political activity used to express political aims and intentions of
participants?
Referring to the aims and intentions of the participants in this way, we arrive at
sub-variants of political participation and not at new types. For each of the three types
of participation, a ‘political’ and a ‘non-political’ sub-variant can be distinguished.
van Deth
For example, people can attend demonstrations as an opportunity to find a partner or

to cast a vote to help some acquaintance. Downs (1957, p. 7) famously excluded
casting a vote for party B instead of the preferred party A from his concept of rational
behaviour if for some voter ‘… preventing his wife’s tantrums is more important to
him than having A win instead of B’. Obviously, Downs correctly stated that
‘employing a political device for non-political reasons’ is ‘irrational’ (1957, p. 7), but
that certainly does not affect voting as a political act with clearly political
implications and consequences. The use of rule 7* allows to depict such conceptual
distinctions accurately and consistently.
The bottom part of Figure 1 shows the results of applying decision rule 7* three
times presenting additional conceptualizations based on the motivations of the people
involved (Participation-I*, II* and III*). By using rule 7* for modes of participation
covered by the minimalist definition, we arrive at the two variants of voting by the
Downsian citizen: a politically motivated form for those who base their vote for Party
A on their political preferences, and a non-political form for those who prefer Party A,
but vote for B to avoid further conflicts at home. In this way, the question whether the
phenomenon under consideration is a specimen of political participation does not
depend on the intentions or aims of the people concerned as the minimalist or targeted
definitions are reached before intentions and aims of participants are introduced.
Implications and Applications
The set of decision rules developed offers – as Hempel suggested – ‘objective

criteria’ to decide whether the term political participation applies to some phenom-
enon. Table 1 shows an overview of the four main variants of political participation
arrived at, commonly used labels for each of the members of this quartet, and
specimens of typical modes of political participation. This overview underlines the
fact that many disputes in this area – Are civic engagement or political consumerism
types of political participation? Are intentions required to define political partici-
pation? What is gained by distinguishing between ‘politics’ and ‘the political’?
Is ‘clictivism’ participation? and so on – basically concern terminological matters
confused by a strong faith in nominal definitions. The use of an operational definition
allows for the methodical identification of any phenomenon as a specimen of political
participation and for a systematic distinction between various types of participation.
In other words, it is not important which labels are chosen for the four types as long
as the distinctive features of each variant are recognized.
A chief implication of the use of the conceptual map to identify a specific
phenomenon as a type of political participation is that the same phenomena do not
always end up in the same category. For instance, in political systems allowing for
official petitions submitted to legislative bodies a signature action will be covered by
Table 1: Concepts, types and typical modes of political participation
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0001-6810
Operational concepts (see Figure 1): Types and commonly used labels Specimens of typical modes
Minimalist definition Political Participation-I ● conventional political participation ● voting

● institutional political participation ● budget forums
● elite-directed action ● party membership
● formal participation ● contacting politicians
● … ● …
Targeted definitions Target: government/ Political Participation-II ● unconventional political participation ● signing a petition
politics/state ● non-institutional political participation ● demonstrating
● protest ● blocking streets
● political action ● painting slogans
● contentious politics ● f lash mobs
● elite-challenging action ● …
● everyday activism
Acta Politica
● …
Aimed at: problems or Political Participation-III ● civic engagement ● volunteering
community ● social participation ● reclaim-the-street-party
● community participation ● …
Vol. 49, 3, 349–367
● …
Motivational definition Political Participation-IV ● expressive political participation ● political consumerism

● individualized collective action ● buycotts
● personalized politics ● boycotts
● … ● public suicides
● …
361
van Deth
the minimalist definition, whereas the same action is a targeted mode of participation
in systems that do not recognize petitions officially. These different depictions of
similar phenomena are to not be considered as shortcomings of the conceptual map
developed. On the contrary: exactly because submitting a petition apparently is
a different type of participation in different political systems a systematic conceptual
distinction between these two variants should be possible. In this way, the set of
decision rules enables to avoid conceptual ambiguities and a focus on the relevant
properties of the phenomena studied.
Replacing nominal definitions of political participation by the conceptual map
developed here does not only appease battles over the meaning of words. Empirical
studies of democracy and participation could gain from these operational definitions in
various ways. The most significant advantage is that intentions and aims of citizens attain
an unambiguous position in the conceptualization of political participation without
reducing the concept to subjective features. As for many modes of participation the
political nature of the activity is evident, modes of participation covered by the minimal
definition and the two targeted definitions can easily be identified by referring to
objective features of these activities. In this way, the political orientations of citizens
involved are explicitly excluded from these concepts and – what is more important – they
remain available to explain citizens’ behaviour. By considering the intentions and aims
of participants, political and non-political modes of participation can be distinguished
further for each of these first three definitions developed. The explicit depiction of
necessary features for each mode and type of participation straightforwardly identifies all
aspects to be operationalized in surveys, content analyses and other data collection
strategies. The conceptual map allows to recognize modes of participation, but can also
be used the other way around; that is, to specify operationalizations systematically and
efficiently. Standardized procedures such as surveys with closed questions and coding
of manifest content can be relatively easily applied to the study of the first three variants
of political participation discerned here. In addition, depending on the specific goal of the
study, the questions whether and how instruments to obtain information about aims and
intentions of participants should be included can be dealt with systematically.
A second clear advantage of the conceptual map of political participation is related
to the rapid spread of individualized and creative modes of participation. This
expansion is very likely to be continued in the near future, which means that non-
political activities will be increasingly used for political reasons. In fact, growing
numbers of citizens reject a definite boundary between ‘politics’ and other aspects of
their lives. These activities can only be fruitfully studied when intentions and aims of
the people involved are taken into account as distinctive features. Obviously, one
cannot code a Tweet or ask a respondent whether she (i) has been involved in any
non-political activities recently, and (ii) whether she has used any of these activities
for political reasons. These modes of participation can only be captured in empirical
research by starting with political arguments articulated by people involved.
Standardized procedures seem to be hardly useful here. Instead, open-ended questions
and qualitative explorations of expressions and public statements seem to be much

more adequate as they leave it to the citizens involved to define not only what is
‘participation’, but especially what is considered to be ‘politics’ and ‘political’.
Finally, the four main and three additional types of political participation enable
a systematic reappraisal of the relationships between participation and democracy.
In a vibrant democracy, the distribution of the four main types is probably not stable,
but moves towards more emphasis on the second variant of the targeted definition as
well as the motivational defined types. The explanations for these movements can
be studied comprehensively on the basis of the characteristics for each of the four
variants. Furthermore, by distinguishing between politically and non-politically
motivated activities, the consequences and implications of these activities for
democracy can be much more clearly specified and evaluated. In addition, proposals
for democratic renewal can be based on these differentiated findings: whereas for the
three non-motivational conceptualizations institutional and policy changes are most
relevant, the remaining variants should be debated with an evident focus on the
motivations and aims of the people involved.
In Conclusion
How would you recognize a mode of participation if you see one? Owing to the rapid
expansion of political activities in the last decades this question has become
increasingly difficult to answer. In addition, the spread of expressive modes of
participation requires the inclusion of aims and goals of participants to characterize
political participation. Relying on a subjective definition provides an easy answer to
our main question: you simply recognize a mode of political participation if the
person involved says that her behaviour should be understood as such. This approach
is unavoidable when dealing with suicides or buying athletic shoes, but makes the
depiction of many modes of political participation gratuitously complicated. Do we
really want to decide whether voting or demonstrating are modes of political
participating or not, by scrutinizing the political nature of the aims and goals of
voters and demonstrators? Obviously, aims and goals are usually highly interesting
aspects of political phenomena, but we do not need them to depict most modes of
political participation. Ockham’s razor should be used whenever possible.
Neither the development of all-embracing nominal definitions, nor deductive
analyses of existing modes of participation seem to be helpful to find a comprehending
solution for the conceptual problems triggered by the continuous expansion of partici-
pation. Alternatively, a conceptual map developed here results in the depiction of four
analytically unambiguous types of political participation as well as various sub-variants.
Together the four types cover the whole range of modes of political participation
systematically and efficiently: a minimalist definition is developed first and additional
variants are based on indispensable additional features only. More aspects can be taken
van Deth
into account – legality, legitimacy, effectiveness, non-violence, Internet use and so on –

but are not compulsory for the conceptualization of political participation. Moreover,
especially the use of rules 7 and 7* to distinguish modes of participation on the basis of
the aims and intentions of participants contributes to the consistency of the conceptual
map by applying this rule both for political and for non-political activities. The four
variants offer a comprehensive conceptualization of political participation without
excluding future innovations that are the hallmark of a vibrant democracy.
With respect to the continuous expansion of the modes of participation in many
democracies Fox’s (2014) question, ‘Is it Time to Update the Definition of Political
Participation?’, certainly should be answered affirmatively. However, the conven-
tional approach of expanding and revising nominal definitions has (so far) not
resulted in conceptual clarity. More importantly, the rise of expressive modes of
participation requires the inclusion of aims and goals of participants, but should not
force us to expand our concepts and to make them unnecessarily complicated. Before
we follow Humpty Dumpty’s suggestion to offer extra pay for words that do a lot of
work, a careful look at the exact work to be performed is always helpful. As the
crucial aspect of democracy, political participation certainly deserves extra payment,
but it can only meet our expectations if its tasks are clearly specified.
Acknowledgements
For helpful comments and stimulating suggestions on earlier versions of this article,
I am very grateful to Gema García Albacete, Rüdiger Schmittt-Beck, Kateřina
Vráblíková, and especially Yannis Theocharis.
About the Author
Jan W. van Deth (1950) is Professor of Political Science and International Comparative
Social Research at the University of Mannheim (Germany). He has published widely in
the fields of political culture, social change and comparative research methods. At
present, van Deth is Head of Department-B of the Mannheim Centre for European
Social Research, Corresponding Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts
and Sciences, and German national coordinator for the European Social Survey.
Notes
1 Probably the best known proposal to base a definition of political participation on a list of common
aspects of available concepts is provided by Conge (1988).
2 A few authors propose to include attitudes and use the term ‘latent forms of political participation’ for
these non-behavioural variants (Ekman and Amnå, 2012). To secure the distinction between effects and
potential determinants of participation, the almost unanimous restriction to participation-as-an-activity

is followed here.
3 Fiorina (2002, p. 515) brings these differences to the point with his remark that civic engagement refers
to the ‘… voluntary activities of people in their communities, workplaces, churches, and other social
contexts. Such activities can be highly political, entirely non-political, and anything in between’.
4 The confusion is hard to avoid: whereas many authors consider voting as a clear specimen of political
participation, Macedo et al (2005, p. 7) state: ‘Civic engagement most obviously includes voting’.
Whiteley (2011, p. 2) simply mixes all concepts: ‘Civic engagement is about ordinary citizens trying to
influence the policies and the personnel of the state’. Other authors struggling with these distinctions
admit: ‘How exactly we resolve these problems is not clear’ (Martin, 2012, p. 90). Berger (2011)
strongly argued to distinguish between ‘civic engagement’ and ‘political participation’.
5 Notice that the term ‘operational definition’ here is not used to refer to the common (behaviouralist)
practice to ‘operationalize’ some previously defined theoretical concept. The term ‘intensional
definition’ (Sartori, 1984, p. 24; cf. Goertz, 2006, chapter 3) would have been more appropriate, but
almost certainly would have led to confusions about ‘intentions’ (see Rule 7).
6 Definitions are ‘minimal’ if they ‘… deliberatively focus on the smallest possible number of attributes
that are still seen as producing a viable standard’ (Collier and Levitsky, 1997, p. 433).
7 See Sciulli (2010) for a similar approach to the concept ‘democracy’.
8 In this notation ‘1+’ means that decision 1 is affirmed; ‘1−’ that decision 1 is rejected.
9 Strictly speaking, this rule also excludes ‘compulsory voting’ from the concept of political participation.
Yet this phrase is commonly used as an (incorrect) shorthand for the fact that in some countries citizens
are obliged to call at the poll station on election day. Casting a vote, of course, cannot be mandatory in
any system guaranteeing secret elections and is therefore not excluded by the requirement of voluntarism.
10 The term ‘nongovernmental politics’ is used to characterize these modes of participation (cf. Feher,
2007). Already in the first paragraph of his early overview, Milbrath (1965, p. 1) explicitly rejected this
expansion.
11 A popular radical pamphlet recommends a complete rejection of the existing order and denounces
‘purely social protest’ as ‘… a prevalent strategy to criticize this society – in the unavailing hope to
rescue this civilization’ (Unsichtbares Komittee, 2010, p. 71; translation JvD). See for similar
arguments ‘The Nightmare of Participation’ (Miessen, 2011).
12 ‘Citizens still exercise citizenship as they stand in line at their polling place, but now they exercise
citizenship in many other locations. They have political ties not only to elected public officials in
legislatures but also to attorneys in courtrooms and organized interest groups that represent them to
administrative agencies. Moreover, they are citizens in their homes, schools, and places of
employment’ (Schudson, 1998, p. 299).
13 Some participants even see this as the main aim of their activities: ‘The whole series of nightly attacks,
anonymous assaults, destructions without gibberish takes credit to have widened the gap between
“politics” and “the political” as far as possible’ (Unsichtbares Komittee, 2010, p. 7; translation JvD;
emphasis in original).
14 Notice that, as the aims and motivations of the participants are crucial here, the question whether the
aim of the activity is political can only be answered by the person involved. Rare research on the scope
of ‘politics’ indicates wide variations among citizens (Fitzgerald, 2013).
References
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4):
216–224.
Barber, B.R. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
van Deth
Bennett, W.L. (2012) The personalization of politics: Political identity, social media, and changing patterns
of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644(1): 20–39.
Berger, B. (2011) Attention Deficit Democracy: The Paradox of Civic Engagement. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Brady, H.E. (1998) Political participation. In: J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.)
Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 737–801.
Brough, M.M. and Shresthova, S. (2012) Fandom meets activism: Rethinking civic and political
participation, http://journal.transformativeworks.org, accessed 2 December 2012.
Callahan, K. (2007) Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public
Administration 30(11): 1179–1196.
Carroll, L. (1871) Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. London: Penguin.
Collier, D. and Levitsky, S. (1997) Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative
research. World Politics 49(April): 430–451.
Conge, P.J. (1988) The concept of political participation: Toward a definition. Comparative Politics 20(2):
241–249.
Cornwall, A. and Coelho, V.S. (eds.) (2006) Spaces for Change? The Politics of Citizen Participation in
New Democratic Arenas. London: Zed Books.
Dalton, R.J. (2008) Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies
56(1): 76–98.
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Ekman, J. and Amnå, E. (2012) Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology.
Human Affairs 22(3): 283–300.
Feher, M. (ed.) (2007) The governed in politics. In: Nongovernmental Politics. New York: Zone Books,
pp. 12–27.
Fitzgerald, J. (2013) What does ‘political’ mean to you? Political Behavior 35(3): 453–479.
Fiorina, M.P. (2002) Parties, participation, and representation in America: Old theories face new realities.
In: I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner (eds.) Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York and
Washington DC: Norton and American Political Science Association, pp. 511–541.
Fox, S. (2014) Is it time to update the definition of political participation? Political participation in Britain:
The decline and revival of civic culture. Parliamentary Affairs 67(2): 495–505.
Gallie, W.B. (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955–1956):
167–198.
García Albaceta, G.M. (2011) Continuity or Generational Change? A Longitudinal Study of Young
People’s Political Participation in Western Europe. Mannheim: Universität Mannheim.
Goertz, G. (2006) Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
Harris, S. (2012) Free Will. New York: Free Press.
Hay, C. (2007) Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Hempel, C.G. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science.
New York: Free Press.
Hooghe, M. and Quintelier, E. (2013) Political participation in Europe. In: S.I. Keil and O.W. Gabriel
(eds.) Society and Democracy in Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 220–243.
Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Inglehart, R. and Catterberg, G. (2002) Trends in political action: The developmental trend and the post-
honeymoon decline. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 43(3–5): 300–316.
Kaase, M. and Marsh, A. (1979) Political action: A theoretical perspective. In: S.H. Barnes et al. Political
Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 27–56.
Macedo, S. et al (2005) Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation and
What We Can Do about It. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Martin, A.J. (2012) Young People and Politics: Political Engagement in the Anglo-American Democra-
cies. London: Routledge.
Micheletti, M. (2003) Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism and Collective Action.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Michels, A. (2012) Citizen participation in local policy making: Design and democracy. International
Journal of Public Administration 35(4): 285–292.
Miessen, M. (2011) The Nightmare of Participation. Berlin: Sternberg Press.
Milbrath, L.W. (1965) Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Norris, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pateman, C. (2012) Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics 10(1): 7–19.
Sartori, G. (1970) Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 64(4):
1033–1053.
Sartori, G. (1984) Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S. and Brady, H.E. (2012) The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and
the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schudson, M. (1998) The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sciulli, D. (2010) Democracy, professions and societal constitutionalism. In: K.T. Leight and J.C. Jenkins
(eds.) Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective. New York: Springer, pp. 81–109.
Shirky, C. (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York:
Penguin.
Stoker, G. (2006) Why Politics Matter: Making Democracy Work. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Teorell, J. (2010) Determinants of Democratization: Explaining Regime Change in the World, 1972–2006.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, C. (1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain 1758–1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Tilly, C. (2008) Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Unsichtbares Komittee. (2010) Der Kommende Aufstand. Hamburg, Germany: Nautilus.
van Deth, J.W. (2001) Studying Political Participation: Towards a Theory of Everything? Joint Sessions of
Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research, Grenoble, France, http://uni-mannheim.
academia.edu/JanWvanDeth.
van Deth, J.W. (2010) Is creative participation good for democracy? In: M. Micheletti and A.S. McFarland
(eds.) Creative Participation Responsibility-Taking in the Political World. Boulder, CO: Paradigm,
pp. 146–170.
Whiteley, P. (2011) Political Participation in Britain: The Decline and Revival of Civic Culture.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Willis, M.M. and Schor, J.B. (2012) Does changing a light bulb lead to changing the world? Political
action and the conscious consumer. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 644(1): 160–190.
Wuthnow, R. (1998) Loose Connections: Joining Together in America's Fragmented Communities.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K. and Delli Carpini, M.X. (2006) A New Engagement?
Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Symposium
Conceptualizing political participation
Marc Hooghe, Bengü Hosch-Dayican and Jan W. van Deth
Acta Politica (2014) 49, 337. doi:10.1057/ap.2014.7; published online 16 May 2014
Citizen participation in politics has always been a defining characteristic of

democracy. Empirical research into political participation therefore practically
always results in an assessment of the state of democracy as well. But what counts,
and what does not count as political participation? At least since the 1960s, scholars
have provided different conceptualizations of political participation. The concept has
been broadened not only to reflect changes in theory but also in response to social
and technological developments. As a result, a wide and ever increasing variety of
definitions and conceptualizations are currently employed. Jan van Deth proposes an
encompassing conceptual map in order to capture past, present and future forms
of political participation. Marc Hooghe and Bengü Hosch-Dayican criticize his
proposal. Hooghe argues that the politics at which political participation is aimed is a
moving target itself, whereas Hosch-Dayican wants more attention for motivational
criteria at a time when online participation is often not clearly instrumental in nature.
In a rejoinder, van Deth replies to their criticisms.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0001-6810 Acta Politica Vol. 49, 3, 337–348
www.palgrave-journals.com/ap/
Hooghe et al
Symposium
Defining political participation: How to pinpoint

an elusive target?
Marc Hooghe
University of Leuven
E-mail: [email protected].
The contemporary literature on political participation covers a wide array of actions

that would not have been included in the handbooks on the topic just a few decades
ago. By itself this expansion should not come as a surprise, as citizens indeed are now
active in more, and more different ways than previous generations used to be.
My grandfather never used a ‘Like’ button on his Facebook profile to express his
political preferences, and my grandmother certainly never would have joined the
Femen protests that are so successful in attracting media coverage. The character of
political participation has changed, and as political scientists we have no other option
than to follow this social trend. Holding on to traditional definitions is not a useful
strategy to help us to understand societies that have changed so rapidly.
These changes have indeed led to an inflation in the number of acts being included in
the definition, and an attempt to arrive at a more appropriate definition is certainly useful.
While the introduction of the concept of lifestyle politics has had a number of obvious
advantages, expanding the definition to cover almost every lifestyle decision automati-
cally renders the definition meaningless. As the function of politics is to structure the
way in which societies function, every human act can become politically relevant at
some time. If a sufficient number of tourists develop a preference for nude beaches, local
government officials eventually will have to respond to this social demand, resulting in a
political decision. It would be rather absurd, however, to label this kind of leisure activity
automatically as a political act itself, with as only motivation that it will, or might have
some political consequence eventually. So bringing in ‘politically relevant behaviour’
really opens up a Box of Pandora, and all forms of human behaviour will have to be
labelled as political. I do not think this is a useful strategy.
Basically, however, I doubt whether the current text solves all the problems if we
want to arrive at a more precise definition. Although van Deth is a strong believer in
the merits of an operational definition, this is not the best way to bring more clarity in
this debate. Operational concerns are indeed important, but they are what they are.
Operational decisions cannot do anything else than to operationalize a theoretical
concept. Operational criteria do not help us to decide what we should study and
how; they merely help us to delineate our concepts. So the logical order would have
been first to develop a meaningful theoretical concept of political participation, and
subsequently to try to operationalize this.
Despite all the obvious merits of the text, I would still argue that Van Deth does
not pay sufficient attention to developing a theoretical foundation for this conceptual
framework. A number of elements are indeed quite ‘unproblematic’, as they are
included already in the classical definition by Verba et al (1995, p. 38), as they define
political participation as an ‘activity that has the intent or effect of influencing
government action – either directly by affecting the making or implementation of
public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those
policies’. It is a correct statement that most of these criteria do not lead to strong
debates on the topic. One can wonder, however, whether acts of political participa-
tion necessarily have to be voluntarily, as it is stated. The obvious example would be
compulsory voting. In that case, the state orders citizens to cast their vote during
elections, but by itself that does not mean that this act of voting becomes meaningless
or would become less influential than voting without any form of obligation.
As Gertrude Stein would have it: a vote is a vote, and whether the vote is compulsory
or voluntarily does not change anything with regard to its impact.
It is also quite dubious to include the intention of the individual participants
themselves as part of the definition. There are three main reasons not to take this step.
First of all, it is very difficult to determine what exactly is the intention for
participation among people who are active. This can be asked, of course, for
example, by means of a survey among participants. But even then it would be very
difficult to do this in an unequivocal manner as participants usually have a number of
motivations to participate or not. Furthermore, this only shifts the question. Quite a
few participation acts are performed mostly with an expressive motivation, that is,
that participants enjoy the act itself, without necessarily having an instrumental
motivation. This does not mean, however, that this participation becomes mean-
ingless: expressive acts are just as meaningful as purely instrumental acts of
participation. Second, even when we could measure the intentions of participants in
a valid manner, by no means should we assume that participants themselves always
know what their motivation is. Participants can have multiple motivations, these can
interact, and participants can also convince themselves on a good story about their
own motivations. I remember that when I was a student, we used to have all kinds of
demonstrations against the policy on university education. In retrospect, I am not
even sure anymore what my own motivation was at the time. Just the excitement of
these demonstrations and the fact that my girlfriend was clearly impressed were also
strong motivations, I would say with hindsight. The third, and maybe most
Hooghe et al
fundamental argument, however, is that intention simply is not relevant. Maybe I did
only participate in these student demonstrations to impress my girlfriend, but the
minister of education did not know this, and in the end we indeed prevailed and the
student movement was successful in blocking the intended reforms. I would argue,
therefore, that it does not really matter what the motivation is of the participants, even
if when we could determine what these intentions are.
An important shortcoming in the current text, therefore, is that it is not fully clear
what the goal of the text is. On the one hand, the aim is to develop a coherent
definition, and here the text does indeed offer an important contribution to the
literature. Despite the fact that it is often claimed that ‘politics’ is no longer an
exciting topic for younger age groups, in practice it can be observed that actors still
are very strongly attracted to the label. If one suggests that a specific act does not
qualify as political participation, reactions are usually negative. There is nothing
wrong with being a vegetarian, and whether this act is considered as an act of
political participation or not, does not imply a judgement on the merits of this kind of
behaviour. Nevertheless, people often do feel insulted if their behaviour is not seen as
‘political participation’. Apparently, vegetarians themselves feel their preferences are
taken more seriously if they are labelled as a form of political participation than if
they are not, and this explains a kind of pressure to continuously expand the
definition of the concept. So a merit of this text is indeed the effort to limit the
boundaries of the concept, and if we do not do this, the concept becomes altogether
meaningless.
However, subsequently, this strong coherence is blurred again by distinguishing
different forms of participation, even arriving at the very ambiguous category of non-
political activities that are politically motivated. This is indeed a very blurry category,
and it should not be part of a rigorous exercise to define political participation. Self-
evidently there will also be a grey zone of acts that more or less fit the definition but
do not offer a perfect fit. Even without being an essentialist, it is clear, however, that
one does not need a specific definition for this grey zone. Almost by definition, a
definition covers the ‘essence’ of a concept, or the concept in its purest form. Later
on, in operational discussions, one can still judge whether a specific entity complies
with the definition of the concept and, if so, to what extent. But it is not a good
strategy to make a definition in itself for these ‘grey zone’ cases.
These, admittedly, rather critical remarks about the current proposal should not
lead to the impression that there are no real problems with the standard definitions as
they are being used in most of the literature. Although I personally would still begin
with the approach developed by Verba et al (1995), the main problem is that they
could still depart from the criterion that there should be a relation with ‘government
policy’. Indeed, if political decision making is situated mostly or even exclusively
within the political institutions, the definition is rather straightforward. Any act that
can or will have an effect on local or national political institutions in that case counts
as ‘political participation’, and there is not much debate about that option. The main
problem, however, is that political decision making by itself has become something
of a moving target. If activists want to have an effect on, for example, environmental
policy, it is clear that they can no longer suffice with targeting their own national
government. The process of political decision making has become much more
diffuse, with tendencies towards horizontal governance structures and networks,
globalization and multi-level government. All these tendencies occur simultaneously
and they also interact (Huyse, 1994; Della Porta, 2013). Citizens who want to have an
impact on political decision making have no other option than to broaden their
participation repertoire. They will be forced not just to target their national
government, but also various international organizations and agencies that have an
impact on environmental policy. Given the fact that there is a trend towards self-
regulation among commercial companies, it becomes equally important to target
these companies or their business associations in a more direct manner. One could
say that life has become more difficult for political activists: the proliferation of
political decision making in practice means that they will have to be active in
numerous policy arenas simultaneously.
What does this imply for political participation scholars? To some extent, one
could compare political science scholars with the Sámi people, living in the northern
part of Scandinavia. As they are completely dependent on the reindeer population for
their survival, the Sámi have no other option than to follow the migrations of the
reindeer herds. Political behaviour scholars, too, are completely dependent on the
migratory behaviour of our topic. If political activism migrates to transnational
organizations, or to Facebook, or to other arenas, we do not have any other option
than to follow them. If our definitions do not follow the structural trends occurring in
reality, in the end we will simply be left out, using outdated categories and concepts.
Political decision making has become diffuse, and can be seen as the result of a
complex interplay between actors situated at various geographical levels. As a result,
political participation, too, has moved. Self-evidently, definitions and concepts have
to be as clear and concise as possible. However, if the pellucidity of the topic that we
want to investigate itself has diminished, we do not have any other option than to
follow this trend. Inevitably, this means that the study of political participation, let
alone the study of its effects or motivations, will become more complicated than ever
before.
References
Della Porta, D. (2013) Can Democracy be Saved? Participation, Deliberation and Social Movements.
Cambridge: Polity.
Huyse, L. (1994) De politiek voorbij. Een blik op de jaren negentig. Leuven, Belgium: Kritak.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H. (1995) Voice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Hooghe et al
Symposium
Online political activities as emerging forms of

political participation: How do they fit in the
conceptual map?
Bengü Hosch-Dayican
University of Twente
‘A Conceptual Map of Political Participation’ by Jan van Deth revisits what we know
about political participation, and proposes one of the most comprehensive concep-
tualizations of participation ever. It is characterized by two important attempts: the
expansion of the definition of political participation and the differentiation between
analytical types of participation, both along a series of criteria derived from
participatory theory and practice. This article is an important contribution to the field
of political participation to the extent that it allows for a systematical identification of
various phenomena as a specimen of political participation and thus has the potential
to keep up with the rapidly evolving character of the concept. At the same time, it is a
very ambitious endeavour to have drafted a dynamic conceptual framework that
claims to apply to all existing forms of participation as well as to those forms that are
yet to emerge. However tempting it may sound, such a claim always calls for a
careful and critical approach.
In this review, I discuss the plausibility of this framework by focusing upon online
political action repertoires taking place on the Internet and social network sites
(SNS). Activities such as posting messages with political contents on personal blogs
and SNS profiles, joining discussions on Internet forums or ‘liking’ pages of
politicians, parties or movements have become widespread in recent years. Con-
sidering the increasing amount of attention paid to such activities in newer literature,
this novel domain is particularly relevant to evaluate the dynamic conceptual model
offered by van Deth. Currently, there are two actual debates among scholars related
to digital modes of participation. The first one is related to the definition of these new
forms as political participation. The general argument offered by the critics is that
most of the online activities do not go beyond communicative acts; or they are simply
dismissed as ‘clicktivism’ or ‘slacktivism’ (Christensen, 2012). The second discus-

sion concerns where to place these activities in the ‘hierarchy’ of online and offline
political acts, that is, whether or not to treat them as separate constructs. To what
extent can the theoretical approach suggested in this article offer a remedy for these
dilemmas? As I will show in the following, this might be far less simple than it
seems, or is claimed by van Deth.
Let us begin with applying the operational definition to the question whether
online activities are political participation. Classical definitions imply that political
participation is intended to influence the decision-making process directly or
indirectly, and thus stress the instrumentality of the act. From this perspective, any
form of political engagement that is targeted at another goal than influencing
government decisions or attaining some policy consequences would not qualify as
participation. As a matter of fact, most of these definitions that have been provided
before the digital era are still the most cited ones even within the contemporary
research on political participation. However, in the light of the recent social and
technological changes, newer accounts advocate the position that new politics is
increasingly personalized and takes place to a great extent outside of the domain of
institutionalized policy making. Consequently, political participation today is more
generally perceived as taking part in the expanded domain of politics rather than
solely contributing to the policy-making processes. Activities in this new political
sphere are accordingly prone to be marked by a less instrumental, but a more
symbolic or expressive character. This makes an updated definition of political
participation indeed necessary to cover new activity forms. Van Deth’s operational
definition of political participation is an adequate solution to this need. Particularly
the new component, political motivation, which is supposed to be existent if the
activity is used to ‘express political aims and intentions of the participants’, opens the
possibility to include new forms of political activities resulting from the swiftly
developing digital information and communication technologies. In this way, online
activities such as posting comments, opinions, information or audiovisual material on
websites, blogs or SNS can be accommodated in the concept of political participation
as long as they are directed at the expression of a political motive.
Hence, can we conclude that the expanded definition offers a satisfactory answer
to the debate on the participatory character of online political activities? Not so
hastily. The trouble is that the motivational criterion, which is the utmost boundary of
activities that can be called political, is highly blurred and does not satisfactorily
draw a clear line between participation and non-participation. The article features no
concrete definition of what is meant by political aims and intentions, as this can
allegedly only be answered by the person involved (see note 14). Non-political aims
and intentions are exemplified in the text as ‘attending a demonstration to find a
partner’ or ‘vote for a particular party to avoid conflict at home’. Thus non-political
participation consists of activities aimed at satisfying a personal benefit that is not
directly related to the act itself. Whether such intrinsic rewards motivate the
Hooghe et al
behaviour is, however, very difficult to assess. Obviously, one cannot ask each
specific participant if they perform their actions to reach a personal or a political goal;
even if that would be possible, the chance is high that the answers will be biased by
the social desirability effect. Providing a solid definition of political motivations with
more clearly defined criteria is therefore very important for those activities that
basically live from the motivational criterion, as in the case of political activities via
online platforms. For some of these acts it is relatively easy to determine whether a
political motivation is existent, whereas for others it might not be that simple. For
instance, posting a Facebook message to express discontent with the government’s
health-care policies is quite likely to have a political aim. But what about more
passive acts such as ‘liking’ a political message sent by a Facebook contact? It can be
motivated by an urge to express that the person shares his contact’s political view, or
alternatively, just to be nice to a friend by supporting his cause. As this is not easy to
determine by simple observation, defining criteria for political motivations is
absolutely necessary.
Such criteria will be pivotal for preventing that all kinds of online behaviors will
be added to the repertoire of political participation without further ado, and grant the
concept of participation internal consistency. Furthermore, they would draw a solid
conceptual outline that helps to distinguish political participation systematically from
other, related concepts. The concept of political communication is a relevant example
to demonstrate why this is important. A review of the extant literature shows that
already a large number of activities are included in different measurements of online
political participation, whereas some scholars have counted political information
seeking on the Internet or on SNS also among the indicators of new online modes of
engagement (for example, Gil de Zúñiga et al, 2010; Hirzalla and Van Zoonen, 2011;
Linaa Jensen, 2013). As is known, offline versions of these acts are traditionally
perceived as political communication and thus not considered within the repertoire of
political participation. However, in the case of online activities, it is hard to draw a
line between political participation and communication as these activities are by
definition communicative (Hoffman, 2012). Without a more elaborate definition of
political motivations, the new conceptual map proposed here can hardly deal with
this challenge. Attention to political news, sharing news contents or commenting on
these contents can be identified as non-political participation on the map as they lack
the motivation of expressing a political intention at a first glance. However, on the
online SNS, such activities become available to a larger public owing to the high
connectivity of these platforms, and therefore they are more likely to reach, influence
and mobilize citizens in these networks. In addition, they allow for the expression of
the sender’s political beliefs, allegiances and intentions. Because of this, it is
often argued that political news attention and sharing take on a more instrumental
and active quality once they are performed via online channels, and thus they
get an ‘upgrade’ to constitute authentic participatory acts (Gibson and Cantijoch,
2013, p. 704).
This brings us to the discussion on the divide between online and offline political
behaviour in the digital age. While some scholars treat online political behaviour as
an extension of offline participatory practices, others argue that online and offline
political acts are separate constructs that take place in separate spheres. Recent
studies show that online participation indeed constitutes a separate dimension, and
that even online activities might have multiple dimensions (for example, Gibson and
Cantijoch, 2013; Valenzuela, 2013). If this is the case, can the fourfold typology of
political participation proposed by van Deth adequately address this online–offline
divide? And to what extent can novel online political activities – such as those on
SNS – be accommodated unequivocally within any type of participation suggested in
the conceptual map? These are important questions as putting online and offline
versions of the same act in one category is likely to cause methodological drawbacks
once a measurement instrument for these four types of participation is developed.
The challenge is that even though some online activities look like their offline
counterparts, they might occupy separate spheres of activity. This can best be
illustrated by an example. Contacting politicians offline, or sending an electronic
message to their personal email addresses, unequivocally fulfil the criteria for the
minimalist definition; it takes place within the locus of government and therefore can
be located within Political Participation-I on van Deth’s conceptual map. Yet, does
the same apply to sending a tweet addressed at the prime minister? It is targeted at a
government official and thus within the locus of institutionalized politics; however, it
is at the same time available to all followers of the sender and of the prime minister.
In this way, the demand formulated in the tweet will be communicated to a larger
audience and become an online opinion expression, which fits in Political Participa-
tion-IV. From this example, it follows that activities taken on the Internet and SNS
can be much more complex by nature than similar off line acts, which makes a
watertight classification of new online activities, along the criteria suggested by van
Deth, extremely difficult. More fine-grained classifications are also necessary for
sound measurements of online political participation and its sub-categories.
In the light of the discussion presented above, it can be concluded that the
conceptual framework of political participation as proposed in the article does not
live up to all its claims when applied to the recently emerged online activities. From a
theoretical perspective, I agree with most points addressed in the text. Political
participation is a dynamic concept, and its classical instrumental definitions are just
too restrictive in the era of digital communication technologies. Expanding these
definitions by adding a motivational criterion allows for the identification of online
activities – which are primarily directed at expressing individual opinions rather than
influencing the institutionalized policy-making processes – as political participation.
These strengths notwithstanding, this short analysis has shown that some aspects of
the framework need a more thorough reflection. Most importantly, the motivational
criteria for defining participation need to be more concrete. This is a crucial step
to distinguish political participation from other phenomena, and to prevent its
conceptualization from becoming a theory of everything. Studying the political
contents of online messages, comments or other activities – particularly by
concentrating on SNS – can provide fruitful insights while establishing the criteria
for political motivations.
References
Christensen, H.S. (2012) Simply slacktivism? Internet participation in Finland. JeDEM – Journal of
eDemocracy and Open Government 4(1): 1–23.
Gibson, R.K. and Cantijoch, M. (2013) Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the
internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline? The Journal of Politics 75(3): 701–
716.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Veenstra, A., Vraga, E. and Shah, D. (2010) Digital democracy: Reimagining pathways
to political participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7(1): 36–51.
Hirzalla, F. and Van Zoonen, L. (2011) Beyond the online/offline divide: How youth’s online and offline
civic activities converge. Social Science Computer Review 29(4): 481–498.
Hoffman, L.H. (2012) Participation or communication? An explication of political activity in the internet
age. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9(3): 217–233.
Linaa Jensen, J. (2013) Political participation online: The replacement and the mobilisation hypotheses
revisited. Scandinavian Political Studies 36(4): 347–364.
Valenzuela, S. (2013) Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information,
opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist 57(7): 920–942.
Symposium
Rejoinder
Jan W. van Deth

University of Mannheim
To stimulate discussion was the foremost aim of my article, and I am very grateful to
Marc Hooghe and Bengü Hosch-Dayican for the way they accepted this challenge. In
this brief rejoinder I focus on four important issues: (i) why develop a conceptual
map, (ii) how to avoid intentions, (iii) where do social media fit in, and (iv) what do
we learn from the Sámis?
As Hooghe reminds us, defining concepts should start from theory. In the
introduction I showed that this does not work for political participation because
various conceptualizations – not theories – result in very different conclusions. More
importantly, the list of phenomena called political participation is expanded almost
daily and no set can convincingly claim to operationalize the concept. It is not the
concept, but its theoretical and empirical use that triggers ambivalent and contra-
dictory conclusions. My pragmatic proposal is to specify necessary and sufficient
conditions for political participation; that is, to specify properties for a minimal
definition. A systematic overview is obtained by mapping these properties as a set of
decision rules for an operational definition. Hooghe uses a different understanding of
operational definitions than the one I borrowed from Hempel and sticks to the
conventional way to define and operationalize concepts in empirical (behaviourist)
research. As I have tried to make clear, this approach does not help us much with the
problems we face studying political participation.
Amazingly, the two discussants reach diametrically opposite conclusions on the
question how to deal with intentions. For Hosch-Dayican, intentions provide ‘the
utmost boundary of activities that can be called political’ and she urges for
‘motivational criteria’, whereas Hooghe strongly contests such ideas because
‘intention simply is not relevant’. The problems, I think, require a more nuanced
approach. Whereas some activities are clearly political, other can be political or not.
For non-political activities, only the expression of political aims is conclusive – and
highly problematic. Furthermore, consistency requires that other modes of participa-
tion have to fulfil the same criterion; that is, participation would only be participation
if the participant explicitly endorses political goals. In this way, we sink even deeper
Hooghe et al
into the swamp. Many new modes of participation rely on expressions and cannot be
simply neglected. Hooghe’s statement of irrelevance is correct for his student protest
(a rather simple example of Type-II Participation), but if he really would neglect
intentions he would not recognize political participation even if he was in the middle
of a product buycott or a poetry slam. The map integrates intentions only at the very
end, and I do not see how (and why) they can be neglected entirely (the sharp
differences of opinion between the discussants seem to support this view). In this
way, depicting main modes of participation is not encumbered with intentions, while
some modes are systematically portrayed as what they are: non-political activities
used for political purposes.
New modes of participation offered by the Internet are not only unimaginable for
Hooghe’s grandparents. The gospel of new social media is omnipresent (including
discussions about ‘connective action’ and ‘slacktivism’) and the confusion about
communication, mobilisation, and participation seems ineradicable. Applying the
proposed decision rules to specific Internet activities is, as Hosch-Dayican confirms
with several examples, not only ‘extremely difficult’, but also, I think, very
rewarding. As she shows, contacting a politician on the net is a specimen of Type-I
participation. Sending a Tweet changes this conclusion – just as visiting the office
hours of an alderman is not the same as putting up posters about some concern in
your pub. The crucial distinction is not between ‘online’ and ‘offline’ modes of
participation (otherwise a separate decision rule should address that feature), but
between the properties of distinct modes of participation. The rules do not make such
depictions necessarily easier, but offer opportunities for systematic arguments and
decisions.
Finally, Hooghe’s Sámi metaphor is very helpful. Last summer I visited the Boazo
Sámi Siida at the Alta River. Most reindeer were grazing on impassable terrain miles
away from the camp. No Sámi I met would mistake a reindeer for a moose or a tundra
reindeer for a woodland specimen. They characterized reindeer carefully according to
age, sex, colour, antlers, appearance, nature and several other features relevant for
husbandry. Obviously, the Siida would follow their herds wherever the animals
might go, but they would never call an unknown creature on their grounds a
‘reindeer’ nor would they follow the migration of other animals than their own
reindeer. In fact, the survival of the Sámis impressively shows how important it is
to recognize a reindeer if you see one. The conceptual map of political participation
is an attempt to do exactly the same in a world that gradually has become as
inaccessible as the Sámi territory.

A Conceptual Map of Political Participation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Conceptual Map of Political Participation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Conceptual Map of Political Participation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Symposium

A conceptual map of political participation

Jan W. van Deth

approach of presenting nominal deﬁnitions to solve conceptual problems is left behind.

Keywords: participation; engagement; democracy; concept formation

Introduction: The Challenges of Endless Expansions

political participation for democracy and democratization: participation is the elixir of

motivated and all these activities become specimens of political participation.

Deﬁning Political Participation

Political participation can be loosely deﬁned as citizens’ activities affecting politics.

television, visiting websites or claiming to be interested in politics does not constitute

An Operational Deﬁnition of Political Participation

Searching for common aspects among available deﬁnitions of political participation

Rule 1: Do we deal with behaviour?

Rule 2: Is the activity voluntary?

Rule 3: Is the activity done by citizens?

Rule 4: Is the activity located in the sphere of government/state/politics?

In case the activity concerned is not located in the sphere of government/state/politics

Rule 5: Is the activity targeted at the sphere of government/state/politics?

By using the target of voluntary activities, a second main type of participation is

of participation, but not eliminated from the broader conceptualization of political

Rule 6: Is the activity aimed at solving collective or community problems?

Applying the six rules results in a second variant of a targeted deﬁnition of

general answer to this question. The introduction of subjective aspects can be

For example, people can attend demonstrations as an opportunity to ﬁnd a partner or

Implications and Applications

The set of decision rules developed offers – as Hempel suggested – ‘objective

Minimalist deﬁnition Political Participation-I ● conventional political participation ● voting

Motivational deﬁnition Political Participation-IV ● expressive political participation ● political consumerism

and qualitative explorations of expressions and public statements seem to be much

into account – legality, legitimacy, effectiveness, non-violence, Internet use and so on –

About the Author

potential determinants of participation, the almost unanimous restriction to participation-as-an-activity

Conceptualizing political participation

Marc Hooghe, Bengü Hosch-Dayican and Jan W. van Deth

Citizen participation in politics has always been a deﬁning characteristic of

Deﬁning political participation: How to pinpoint

The contemporary literature on political participation covers a wide array of actions

Online political activities as emerging forms of

dismissed as ‘clicktivism’ or ‘slacktivism’ (Christensen, 2012). The second discus-

Jan W. van Deth

You might also like