Group Consciousness and Political Participation PDF

Group Consciousness and Political Participation
Author(s): Arthur H. Miller, Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin and Oksana Malanchuk
Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Aug., 1981), pp. 494-511
Published by: Midwest Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110816
Accessed: 23-05-2017 15:50 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Journal of Political Science
This content downloaded from 200.23.162.1 on Tue, 23 May 2017 15:50:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Group Consciousness and Political Participation *
Arthur H. Miller, Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, Oksana Malanchuk,

University of Michigan
This article explores the theoretical and methodological problems underlying the relation-
ship between group consciousness and political participation with data from the Center for
Political Studies (CPS) 1972 and 1976 National Election Studies. It delineates four conceptual
components of group consciousness and examines their relationships with electoral and non-
electoral participation among both subordinate and dominant social groups. An interactive
model fits both a theory of mobilization and the data far better than a linear, additive model.
Differential participation among demographic subgroups has generally

been explained with theories of resource availability. Greater resources,
such as higher levels of education, income, occupational status, or organi-
zational membership, presumably encourage more active engagement in the
political arena. Nevertheless, some disadvantaged groups in American
society have participated at a higher rate than one would predict on the
basis of their socioeconomic resources alone. Olsen (1970) and Verba and
Nie (1972) have offered an apparently parsimonious and conceptually
powerful explanation for this phenomenon: a self-conscious awareness
among group members of their status as a deprived group.
While we are in basic agreement with the necessity for a psychological
dimension in the participation model, we question the definition and meas-
urement of group consciousness in these prior studies. In addition, we are
concerned with the theoretical and empirical generalizability of previous re-
search that has focused almost exclusively on the effects of group con-
sciousness on political participation among blacks. We therefore offer a re-
finement of the group consciousness model by testing it with a more de-
veloped formulation of the concept. Moreover, we extend the application of
our model not only to several subordinate groups in our society but to
dominant social groups as well.
The Concept of Group Consciousness
Definition
In prior research on political participation, group consciousness has

been conceptualized primarily as identification with a political group. Olsen
*This research was partially supported by a National Science Foundation grant (SOC 79-
07119) to the senior author.
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, August 1981

? 1981 by the University of Texas Press 0092-5853/81/030494-18$01.65
GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS 495
(1970), for example, focused on blacks who had identified themselves as

"members of an ethnic minority" versus those who had not. And Verba
and Nie (1972) employed an index that summed the number of times black
respondents referred to race in replying to several open-ended questions. A
distinction needs to be drawn, however, between identification with a group
and politicized group consciousness. Group identification connotes a per-
ceived self-location within a particular social stratum, along with a psycho-
logical feeling of belonging to that particular stratum. Group conscious-
ness, on the other hand, involves identification with a group and a political
awareness or ideology regarding the group's relative position in society
along with a commitment to collective action aimed at realizing the group's
interests (Jackman and Jackman, 1973; Gurin et al., 1980). Clearly then
there is no theoretical reason to expect a simple direct relationship between
group identification and political participation.
Furthermore, group identification does not by itself entail a perception
of deprivation, contrary to Verba and Nie's definition, which confounds
these two elements. Having a sense of shared interest or identity with a par-
ticular stratum or group does not mean that one must also believe that the
group is somehow lacking in relevant resources compared with other strata
or groups. Moreover, those group members who do view their group as
relatively deprived may not attribute the group's position to systemic
causes. They may instead regard personal failings as the primary cause of
their situation in society. Attempts aimed at changing their condition might
thus become directed at themselves rather than toward the political system.
The transformation from group identification to group consciousness
has generally been couched in Marxist terms in the literature, which reflects
the perspective of the downtrodden stratum. It involves the acceptance of
the belief that fundamental differences exist between the interests of one's
own group and those of the dominant group. Relations between the groups
are thereby perceived as antagonistic and social barriers as illegitimate, re-
sulting in a sense of relative deprivation and discontent with one's position
in society. Subsequently, or concomitantly, collective actions such as vot-
ing, participation in group organizations, lobbying, demonstrations, or en-
gaging in other pressure tactics on behalf of the group become an accepted
means for changing the social order (Landecker, 1963; Leggett, 1968;
Morris and Murphy, 1969). A sense of group consciousness may also vary
from individual to individual, over time, and across strata, depending on
the existing social conditions. As a concept, it therefore provides an expla-
nation of the process by which group membership, a relatively stable char-
acteristic of individuals, becomes linked with the dynamic elements of
political participation.
496 Arthur H. Miller et al.
Components of Group Consciousness
Group consciousness is in fact a multidimensional concept with group

identification forming only one, albeit a very important, component. In all,
four specific components reflecting both affective and cognitive elements
have been distilled from the descriptive definitions of group consciousness
in the literature. These have been explicated at length elsewhere (Miller et
al., 1978) and will be described here only briefly. '
Group identification: a psychological feeling of belonging to a particu-
lar social stratum. We are drawing a distinction here between objective
membership in a particular stratum as defined by social or economic
circumstances and subjective membership that connotes a collective
identification and conscious loyalty. The cognitive factors underlying
this feeling of belonging reflect an awareness of the objective group's
position in relation to members of other social strata and a sense of
shared interest with those having the same stratum characteristics but
not with those of other strata.
Polar affect: a preference for members of one's own group (ingroup)
and a dislike for those outside the group (outgroup). Traditional
Marxist and group interest theories about social change depend heavily
upon assumptions about the positive affect toward one's own group
and intergroup hostility (Dahrendorf, 1959, pp. 8-27). Moreover, dis-
crimination toward those outside the group and favoritism toward
those within the group have been found to develop even in the absence
of any functional conflict of interest and solely on the perception either
of discriminable social categories (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel and Billig, 1974)
or of dissimilarity in the beliefs of ingroup and outgroup members
(Allen and Wilder, 1975).
Polar power: expressed satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the group's
current status, power, or material resources in relation to that of the
outgroup. Following reference group theory, we assume that objective
deprivation will promote group consciousness only when members of a
subordinate stratum use the dominant stratum as a reference for com-
parison and express discontent with the influence they perceive their
group to have relative to that of the outgroup. Extending the argument
'The survey questions used to measure each of the conceptual components of group con-
sciousness are described in the Appendix. A description of their distributions for the relevant
demographic groups is reported in Gurin et al. (1980). The data were gathered as part of the
1972 and 1976 CPS National Election Studies. Personal interviews conducted with a prob-
ability sample of U.S. citizens 18 years and older produced 2,705 and 2,248 completed inter-
views in 1972 and 1976, respectively.
to dominant groups, we assume that group consciousness will be pro-

moted among advantaged groups when they perceive their position in
society as being threatened or challenged by one or more subordinate
strata.
Individual vs. system blame: the belief that the responsibility for a
group's low status in society is attributable either to individual failings
or to inequities in the social system. This component is closely related
to an awareness of status deprivation and involves the accepted expla-
nations that are given for a group's position in the social hierarchy.
The four components of consciousness presumably form a political
ideology that for subordinate groups represents a shift from a situation in
which group members simply accept their status to one in which they express
a sense of grievance as victims of injustice, perceive a lack of legitimacy in
the social hierarchy, and eventually set about collectively to correct the in-
justices. Among the dominant groups, the ideology justifies advantage,
gives legitimacy to their social status, and provokes action aimed at securing
permanence for their position.
Group Consciousness and Turnout
A Linear, Additive Approach
We have argued that group consciousness may potentially act to moti-

vate political participation for a variety of groups, not just blacks and not
simply subordinate groups. To test this premise of our model, we chose four
different dimensions of social cleavage in the United States: race, class, age,
and gender.2 First, we examined the relationships between the components
of group consciousness and electoral turnout for the subordinate and domi-
nant groups that characterize the opposite ends of these dimensions, that is,
for whites and blacks, businessmen and poor people, young and old, and
women. Then we attempted to determine empirically the relative strength
with which the different components of group membership are related with
participation.
While it is evident that whites, businessmen, and men represent the
dominant strata on the relevant dimensions, age presents a more perplexing
situation. One could assume that because of their greater experience with
and interest in public affairs, the elderly maintain a position of social domi-
nance over young people. Others, however, have argued that in our society,
being old connotes a negative social image (Foner, 1974; Palmore and Whit-
2"Men" was unfortunately not included in the list of category labels used to measure iden-
tification, so we were unable to explore the impact of gender cleavage on participation as
thoroughly as we did the other cleavage dimensions.
tington, 1971). Realistically, both the young (under 30 years of age) and the
elderly (60 or older) may be considered subordinate in terms of power and
prestige to the middle-aged who are most likely to occupy positions of influ-
ence in our society. The young are still aspiring to prestigious positions,
whereas a large proportion of the elderly have already retired from them.
Unfortunately, we cannot test this hypothesis here because the available
data do not contain responses to questions regarding identification with the
middle-aged. Instead, we treat older people as the subordinate group in our
analysis.
In 1972 and 1976 very few components of group consciousness revealed
a significant, direct zero-order correlation with turnout (see Table 1).3 Iden-
tification was significantly related to presidential voting only for the young,
the old, and women. Black identification had no significant impact, con-
trary to Olsen's findings, and the most age-identified older people actually
participated at a lower level than did their nonidentified counterparts.
Taken alone, then, identification may not have a mobilizing effect for either
subordinate or dominant groups. Evidently, feeling a common identifica-
tion with others in one's social stratum and believing that the interests of
one's own group are in conflict with those of other groups does not inevi-
tably mean that people will act on these attitudes.
Overall, then, the various individual components of group conscious-
ness and turnout are only weakly and inconsistently related. Moreover,
combining the consciousness components in an additive model for a multi-
variate analysis does not provide a significant improvement over these cor-
relations. Apparently, neither simple zero-order correlations nor an addi-
tive model can adequately describe a mobilization theory of participation.
More recent research suggests that in order to represent the set of con-
ditions theoretically linking group consciousness and political participation
it is necessary to specify a complex model of the relevant relationships.
Portes (1971), for example, has noted that theoretically we should expect a
unique effect of class consciousness above and beyond the additive effects
on radicalism of variables such as personal dissatisfaction and structural
blame. Similarly, Gurin et al. (1980) argue that group identification should
be related with participation only after it has been politicized by feelings of
power deprivation, attribution of blame for the group's position on struc-
tural determinants, and a belief that collective actions are the preferred
means for solving social problems.
3The eta correlation coefficient was employed in the analysis to allow for testing the non-
linear interactive relationships we expected to find between group consciousness and participa-
tion.
TABLE 1
Correlations (Eta) between Group Consciousness Components and Electoral T
Class Race A
Individual Components Businessmen Poor Whites Blacks
1972
Group Identification .13* -.06 .03 .04

Polar Power .04 .13** a a .1
Polar Affect .10 .07 .05 .
System Blame -.01 .08 -.01 .18** .25**
Number of Cases 253 640 1,930 211 6
1976
Group Identification .06 -.11* .05 .06
Polar Power .07 .05 .05 .17** .0
Polar Affect .09 .15*** .04 .08 .
System Blame -.08 .12** -.02 .05 .17*
Number of Cases 190 440 1,934 192 6
aNO data available.

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
An Interactive Model: Subordinate Groups
Applying an interactive model to the phenomenon of mobilization

through group consciousness reveals the complexity of the relationships be-
tween group awareness and turnout in presidential elections (see Table 2).
We find generally strong and consistent support for the hypothesis that
identification with a subordinate group promotes participation only when
politicized. Identification in combination with feelings of power depriva-
tion (PP), relative dislike for the outgroup (PA), or with the belief that
social barriers explain the disadvantaged positions of the poor, blacks, and
women (SB) promotes participation at higher levels than does any of these
attitudes taken singly or additively. For example, the socioeconomically dis-
advantaged who felt a psychological sense of belonging to their objective
stratum and attributed their plight to systemic causes were much more likely
to vote in a presidential election (eta = .17) than either those poor people
who only identified with the group (-.06) or those who only blamed the sys-
tem for keeping poor people poor without identifying with the stratum
(.08).
But the strongest interactive relationships are evident in a model that
combines three of the group consciousness components: group identifica-
tion, polar power, and system blame.4 Members of subordinate strata will
turn out at higher rates if they perceive their self-location within a particular
social stratum (i.e., think of themselves as black, poor, or female), regard
their group as relatively lacking in societal influence compared with an
opposing group (whites, businessmen, and men, respectively), and at the
same time attribute their deprived condition to social barriers. This alliance
of beliefs apparently serves as a motivating source for subordinate groups
to use the electoral process in an attempt to improve their social condition.
The interactive impact of group consciousness is evident for the elderly
as well, but the direction of that impact is reversed. People over 60 who
neither felt close to older people, nor accepted the status quo in terms of
power relations between young and old, nor questioned the legitimacy of
4For sake of brevity, we have only presented the correlations between the interactive terms
of the theoretical models and participation in Tables 2 and 3. We also tested the set of multi-
variate equations for the different groups with the following general forms:
P = a + b,x, + b2x2 + b3x.x2,
where P = participation, x, = group identification, and x2 = polar power, polar affect, or
system blame; and
P = a + b,x, + b2x2 + b3x3 + b4x,x2 + b5XIx3 + b6x,x2x3
where x, = group identification, x2 = polar power, andX3 = system blame.
In these equations, the individual terms were always insignificant, while the two-way and
three-way interactive terms were generally significant.
income and status differentials between men and women in our society were
more likely to vote in the presidential elections than were the group-con-
scious elderly.5 Our measure of the explanations for a group's position in
the social hierarchy obviously does not speak directly to the issues of being
old in U.S. society. We can only speculate that if the relevant measure had
been available, we may have found a relationship more similar to that of a
subordinate group. Alternatively, voting may have been depressed among
the elderly because they have accepted the generally negative image of old
people in U.S. society and have no visible activist wing to help them reinter-
pret their social attributes into a positive self-image (e.g., "black is beauti-
ful") and subsequently to motivate them to engage in activities on the
group's behalf (Tajfel, 1974). As it stands, the results for older people do
not clearly fit the expected pattern for either a subordinate or a dominant
group.
An Interactive Model: Dominant Groups
The extension of our group consciousness model to dominant groups is

less than conclusive. Of the two clearly dominant groups, an interactive
relationship between the group consciousness components and electoral
participation exists for businessmen but not for whites.
The young, on the other hand, behave very much like a subordinate
group. Respondents under the age of 30 who identified with the young,
felt that young people had too little influence in society compared with the
influence of older people, and believed that status differentials between men
and women stem from societal rather than individual causes participated at
significantly higher rates than did other young people. As noted earlier, the
focus of this age-related conflict is unclear. The stimulus "older people"
may have been variously interpreted as the middle-aged, elderly, or even
more ambiguously, as anyone over 30. Whatever its focus, however, a sense
of group consciousness among a substantial proportion of young people di-
rected their involvement toward the electoral process in both presidential
election years.
The absence of any significant linear or interactive relationships be-
tween the group consciousness components and turnout among whites is
not completely surprising. This is a very large, heterogeneous, and socially
dominant stratum that has not been systematically mobilized en masse
against any competing group's interests, racial problems notwithstanding.
'Time constraints precluded our asking questions about the legitimacy of the status of
older people in American society. We therefore substituted the sex system vs. individual blame
index in our analyses of the age groups because age is highly related with attitudes towards
women's roles in society.
TABLE 2
Correlations (Eta) for Interactive Model Relating Group Consciousness and Electo
Class Race A
Interactive Termsa Businessmenb Poor Whitesb Blacks Y
1972
ID x PP .17* .19** c c .16
ID x PA .25** .15 .07 .13
ID x SB .24** .17** .05 .29** .30***
PP x SB .15* .16 c c .28***
ID x PP x SB .32** .30** c c .37***
1976
ID x PP .29** .22** .07 .27** .17
ID x PA .25** .20* .09 .24** .18
ID x SB .16* .26*** .07 .35*** .26*
PP x SB .21 * .22** .10 .37** .19*
ID x PP x SB .31** .30* .15 .48*** .35*
aKey to abbreviations: ID = Group identif
bIncorporating the reversals noted in Table
the group identification measure for the old, th
cNo data available.
*p < .05.
**P < .01.
***p < .001.
Businessmen, on the other hand, who for the most part represent a subset of
the larger homogeneous mass of "whites," have a highly developed net-
work of organizations through which they actively engage in participatory
politics. Thus, as expected for a more visibly cohesive dominant group that
has an investment in maintaining the current system, the relationship be-
tween the group consciousness components and turnout for businessmen
mirrors that found for the subordinate groups with one important excep-
tion. It was those identified businessmen who felt that the power of their
group was being challenged but who saw individual failings rather than sys-
temic barriers as the explanation for the social conditions of the poor that
participated at a higher rate than did other businessmen.
All of these significant relationships for subordinate as well as domi-
nant groups persist even after adding controls for the possible confounding
effects of socioeconomic variables such as education or income. In fact,
among blacks and the poor, the interactive effect is somewhat stronger for
those with relatively higher levels of education while it remains un-
diminished for those with less education.
In summary, the analysis demonstrates that politicized group con-
sciousness acts to promote electoral participation among highly identified
members of subordinate groups at rates higher than expected on the basis of
socioeconomic characteristics alone. Participation is not simply a reflection
of the social conditions that people experience. How people perceive and
evaluate their position is an important link between the experience of cer-
tain social situations and political participation. If the experience is politi-
cized through group consciousness and assessments of social justice, it can
indirectly motivate political action. The critical element in this process,
however, is the translation of personal experience into collective action
through evaluation of the group's relative position in society and the de-
velopment of a systemic rather than a self-directed explanation for one's
current status.
This combination of complex psychological dimensions may also play
a role for dominant groups. Unlike subordinate groups, however, sensing
opposition to the maintenance of the prevailing social conditions and hold-
ing the individual responsible for his social success are correlated with
greater participation.
Nonelectoral Participation
Can politicized group aWareness motivate nonelectoral political be-

haviors as well? Olsen (1970, p. 692) reported that those identifying with
blacks, besides voting at higher rates, were also more likely to discuss poli-
tics, to become involved in political campaigns, and to make governmental

contacts more frequently than were other blacks. Verba and Nie (1972, pp.
160-164), on the other hand, disagreed in the case of contacting government
officials, but found that the level of turnout and engaging in campaign ac-
tivities were related to group consciousness among blacks.
We also examined a number of nonelectoral behaviors in 1976 to see if
and how they were related to the group consciousness components for our
various cleavage groups. The activities we examined included writing to a
newspaper editor to express one's political views, working with others to
solve a national problem, contacting one's congressman or some other
national leader, and signing a petition either for or against action taken by
the national government. Because participation in these four activities was
positively interrelated, and separable from participation in other types of
activities, we combined them into a single index.6
The pattern of observed correlations between the various consciousness
components and the nonelectoral participation index is very similar to the
pattern obtained for turnout. Most of the zero-order correlations between
the individual consciousness components and nonelectoral participation are
insignificant or weak, while a majority of the interactive terms are generally
significant (see Table 3). With the exception of businessmen and whites, the
correlations for nonelectoral participation tend to be weaker than those for
turnout.
This pattern of responses is especially evident among the poor. We
should keep in mind, however, the possible effect that the historical period
may have had on this phenomenon. The populist campaigns of both George
McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976 with their special appeals to
the poor may have accentuated for them the view that elections were a more
effective vehicle for improving the social condition of their group. More
generally, the weaker relationships between the group consciousness com-
ponents and nonelectoral participation can be considered an affirmation of
earlier findings by Zipp and Smith (1979) who argue that organizational re-
cruitment may be relatively more important and psychological motivations
less important when the behavior involves political activity other than elec-
toral turnout.
But the slightly higher relationships found for whites contradicts this
notion, suggesting instead that white awareness of race-related group con-
6Within the adult population as a whole, as estimated from the 1976 survey sample, 4 per-
cent had written a letter to an editor, 8 percent had worked with others in trying to deal with
some national problem, 11 percent had signed a petition for or against action by the national
government, and 16 percent had contacted a public official at some time during the two years
preceding the interview.
TABLE 3
Correlations (Eta) between Group Consciousness and Nonelectoral Political P
Consciousness and Class Race

Participation Businessmenb Poor Whitesb Blacks Yo
Individual Components
Group Identification
(ID) .01 .10* .03 .21** .10* -.
Polar Power (PP) .07 .05 .03 .11 .10
Polar Affect (PA) .10 .03 .17*** .04
System Blame (SB) -.09 .02 -.09** .17* .16*
Interactive Terms
ID x PP .30** .18** .06 .27** .16*
ID x PA .23** .11* .17*** .22** .15
ID x SB .15* .16* .10* .34*** .21** .
PP x SB .19* .09 .09 .26** .21**
ID x PP x SB .34** .23** .14* .40** .30**
aA four-item index was formed to represent the number of nonelectoral activities in which the in
include writing a letter to an editor, working with others to solve a national problem, contacting congre
some action taken by the national government.
bIncorporating the reversals noted in Table 1, the system blame measure has been reversed for busin
the group identification measure for the old, thereby providing positively related interactive patterns
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
flict was more likely to be manifest in nonelectoral activities. This explana-

tion is moreover consistent with the declining impact of racial attitudes on
the vote in recent years. The significant correlation among whites for the in-
teraction of identification and polar affect (ID x PA) indicates that whites
who identified with whites as a group and had a greater relative dislike of
blacks were more likely than other whites to engage in nonelectoral activi-
ties.
Similar to findings from the analysis of electoral participation was the
discovery that blacks demonstrated the strongest set of interactive correla-
tions for nonelectoral activities. Politicized group consciousness evidently
acts to mobilize black participation equally in both arenas. Even when the
nonelectoral participation index was disaggregated into the four original
items, significant correlations were still obtained for all of the interactive
terms. The failure of the Verba and Nie research on blacks to find a rela-
tionship between group consciousness and contacting public officials may
itself have been a chance result from an inappropriate additive measure-
ment model. On the other hand, the increased visibility of black political
leaders that has occurred since the Verba and Nie study may have produced
greater willingness among politicized blacks to contact public officials in
recent years.
In sum, a group consciousness explanation of mobilization can be gen-
eralized to electoral as well as nonelectoral behavior, and in both cases, an
interactive model fits the data far better than a linear, additive function.
Since nonelectoral activities tend to be less individualistic and dominated by
organizational efforts, the correlations between group consciousness and
participation provide micro-level evidence suggesting that involvement in
these collective actions is motivated by group orientations and attitudes;
that is, people participate because they are acting on behalf of the group as
the result of a group ideology not simply because they find themselves
caught up in an activity organized by a group to which they belong.
Conclusion
Overall, the analysis of group consciousness and participation suggests

that an important limitation of previous studies in this area has been a
failure to analyze the data with methods and models appropriate to the
theory. The link between these attitudes and political behavior is complex
and dependent on structural conditions and widely varying motivations.
Under such circumstances, complex models should be expected to fit the
data better than those which hypothesize simple direct effects.
The application of complex models, however, requires a clear speci-
fication of concepts and measures. They can only be tested if the critical
concepts underlying the theory are isolated and uniquely measured. The
greatly increased correlations that were obtained with an interactive func-
tion demonstrate the utility of employing a properly specified analytic
model. Indeed, one plausible explanation for why Verba and Nie found sig-
nificant relationships between their measure of group consciousness and
participation for blacks is that their study unwittingly captured the interac-
tion of identification and power deprivation. Unfortunately, we can never
be sure if this is the case because there were no independent indicators for
these two components of group consciousness in their data.
This article also extends previous work on group consciousness and
participation by investigating the group mobilization hypothesis for mem-
bers of disadvantaged demographic categories other than blacks and for
dominant groups in the United States. The strongest evidence of a mobiliza-
tion theory based on group consciousness is found for blacks, but it is also
evident for women and the poor. While the elderly have frequently been re-
ferred to as another subordinate stratum in American society, identification
with older people was related to lowered participation rather than to mobili-
zation. Age consciousness among younger people, however, does appear to
motivate participation.
The analysis of dominant groups suggests that they may also be
mobilized to participate in politics out of an ideology that reflects inter-
group conflict and a desire to maintain the status quo. Thus, greater re-
source availability is not the only explanation for increased participation
among the more advantaged groups in our society. The resources that come
with higher levels of socioeconomic position do not translate into participa-
tion in a direct, simplistic way. Rather, various motivations interact with
these resources to produce participation. While available resources and or-
ganizational effort may be necessary factors for explaining individual dif-
ferences in participation, they are not sufficient. A substantive understand-
ing of participation that would otherwise be absent is clearly added by in-
vestigating intergroup attitudes and consciousness.
During the turbulent sixties, a good deal of attention was focused on
group consciousness and participation in protest actions. The research re-
ported here suggests that the motivating impact of group consciousness is
not isolated to actions that lie outside the established avenues of political ex-
pression. On the contrary, group consciousness most likely accounts for a
large share of the increased participation among blacks and women in
recent years. A further implication of our results is that even as overall turn-
out declined after 1960, those more likely to continue voting were people
who perceived a high degree of group polarization in society. Given that
presidential candidates since the mid-sixties have differentially represented
various group interests, politicized group consciousness may have added

significantly to the volatility of contemporary American electoral politics.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that the impact of group con-
sciousness on participation is limited by the proportion of group members
who are both identified and politicized. Few people, even among the groups
we studied, conveyed a high degree of group consciousness. Nevertheless, as
Schuman and Presser (1981) have recently reminded us, small numbers of
people can prove effective if their attitudes are intense enough to promote
action. Apparently group consciousness was intense enough to mobilize
some important segments of the public in both 1972 and 1976.
Finding a relationship between politicized group awareness and higher
levels of participation also has implications for studies of alienation. A
good deal of controversy surrounds the question of whether or not feelings
of political disaffection mobilize participation. Some research suggests that
disaffection has either no effect or that it leads only to apathy (Citrin, 1974;
Wright, 1976), whereas others argue that it results in nonconventional col-
lective action threatening to the viability of the political system (see, for
example, Paige, 1971).
The research presented here reveals that subordinate group members
who were discontented with the relative power of their groups and who saw
an unjust system as the explanation for their power disadvantage were moti-
vated to bring about change by participating in traditional types of political
activities. We can infer that disaffected individuals who find the system un-
yielding to change even in the face of collective demands or who do not
attribute their subordinate position to systemic causes will not participate in
these types of activities. Clearly, studies relating behavioral consequences
and political alienation would be well advised to incorporate beliefs that
condition the type of behavior that can be expected to occur as a response to
disaffection.
In general, the development of group consciousness represents a pro-
cess through which dissatisfactions are aggregated across individuals and
then politicized. Underlying the discontent are new expectations and a re-
evaluation of one's relative position in the larger social system. Group con-
sciousness incorporates the notion of shared interests and the recognition
that the individual's welfare is inseparable from that of the group. Politi-
cized group consciousness is further delineated through the realization that
the inability to gain valued resources in a society is not a consequence of
personal failings but rather results from inequities in the decision-making
and reward distribution process. Believing that a change in the system rather
than a shift in personal expectations is necessary to correct social and politi-
cal inequities thus leads people who are identified with particular groups to
commit themselves and their resources to collective action. In this way

group attitudes act to stimulate political participation among an important
segment of the population-the disadvantaged. Without the mobilizing in-
fluence of group consciousness these strata would clearly participate at sig-
nificantly lower rates. Given this impact, it is imperative that the study of
participation in the United States include the concept of group conscious-
ness.
Manuscript submitted 14 April 1980

Final manuscript received 24 November 1980
APPENDIX
Group identification was measured by asking respondents to look at a list of 16 cate-

gories and to tell the interviewer "which of these groups you feel particularly close to-people
who are most like you in their ideas and interests and feelings about things." They were then
asked to look at the list again and choose the one category to which they felt closest. All but
about 6 percent of the sample selected one such group. Degree of identification was then opera-
tionalized as follows: (1) not identified: respondents who objectively belonged to a given
stratum but did not feel close to it; (2) identified: objective stratum members who felt close but
not closest to the category; and (3) strongly identified: objective stratum members who felt
closest to the category. (We are not concerned in this paper with identification with groups of
which one is not an objective member.)
The objective group categories were defined as follows:
1. Businessmen-males employed in managerial and administrative accounting, sales, and
public relations.
2. Poor People-all respondents with an annual family income of less than $6,000, the current
Census Bureau definition of poverty.
3. Whites-all nonblacks as ascertained by interviewer observation.
4. Blacks-all blacks as ascertained by interviewer observation.
5. Young People-all respondents under 30 years of age as ascertained by self-reported date
of birth.
6. Older People-all respondents over 60 years of age as ascertained by self-reported date of
birth.
7. Women-all women.
Polar power was operationalized by responses to two survey questions about the influence
of a subordinate and a dominant group. The combined measure has values ranging from -2 to
+ 2, with negative scores indicating that the subordinate group has "too little" and the domi-
nant group has "too much" influence. Positive scores indicate that the dominant group has
predominantly less power than the subordinate group.
Polar affect was measured by an index that combines thermometer ratings of the ingroup
and the outgroup in a manner similar to the polar power measure. Thermometer ratings refltct
how positive individuals feel toward various groups and can be combined to indicate relative
affect toward the groups. The thermometer ratings of whites and blacks, businessmen and
poor, young and old are combined in the analysis to indicate the degree of positive rating for
each group relative to that of the other group in the pair.
The concept of individual-system blame was measured for the purpose of this study from
a series of forced-choice questions in which respondents were asked to explain the causes of
5IO Arthur H. Miller et al.
poverty and the causes of sex and race differences in income, occupational status, and general
position in American life. In each question, one alternative attributed the cause of these differ-
entials to systemic obstacles and institutional arrangements (such as market discrimination or
economic recessions) while the other alternative attributed causality to personal deficiencies
(ability, motivation, appropriate behavior) of women, blacks, and the poor. Respondents who
chose the "system blame" alternative reject the legitimacy of sex, race, and income differen-
tials, while those who chose the "individual blame" alternative believe that the position of
women, blacks, and the poor is legitimate because they could alter their situation if they fol-
lowed the rules of the game.
Three individual-system blame indices were formed to measure the legitimacy of race, sex,
and income differentials. Time constraints in the interview precluded our asking questions
about the legitimacy of the status of older people in American society. Given that age is so
strongly related with attitudes toward women's role in society, we therefore used the sex system
blame scale for our analysis of both "young" and "older" people. The race and sex indi-
vidual-system blame measures are four-item indices, while the legitimacy of poverty or income
differences is measured with a two-item index. An example of the alternatives used to create
these indices is the following from the sex system blame index: "It's more natural for men to
have the top responsible jobs in a country" or "sex discrimination keeps women from the top
jobs."
REFERENCES
Allen, Vernon L., and David A. Wilder. 1975. Categorization, belief similarity and intergroup
discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (December): 971-977.
Citrin, Jack. 1974. Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Politi-
cal Science Review, 68 (September): 973-988.
Dahrendorf, Ralph. 1959. Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Foner, Ann. 1974. Age stratification and age conflict in political life. American Sociological
Review, 39 (April): 187-196.
Gurin, Patricia, Arthur H. Miller, and Gerald Gurin. 1980. Stratum identification and con-
sciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43 (March): 30-47.
Jackman, Mary R., and Robert W. Jackman. 1973. An interpretation of the relation between
objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 38 (October):
569-582.
Landecker, Werner S. 1963. Class crystallization and class consciousness. American Socio-
logical Review, 28 (April): 219-229.
Leggett, John C. 1968. Class, race, and labor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Arthur H., Patricia Gurin, and Gerald Gurin. 1978. Electoral implications of group
identification and consciousness: The reintroduction of a concept. Paper presented at the
1978 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 3 1-Septem-
ber 3, 1978, New York.
Morris, Richard, and Raymond J. Murphy. 1966. A paradigm for the study of class conscious-
ness. Sociology and Social Research, 50 (April): 298-313.
Olsen, Marvin. 1970. Social and political participation of blacks. American Sociological
Review, 35 (August): 682-697.
Paige, Jeffrey M. 1971. Political orientation and riot participation. American Sociological Re-
vipw. I5 (Octnher): R.-R720
Palmore, E., and F. Whittington. 1971. Trends in the relative status of the aged. Social Forces,
50 (September): 84-91.
Portes, Alejandro. 1971. On the interpretation of class consciousness. American Journal of
Sociology, 77 (September): 228-244.
Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. 1981. Passionate attitudes: Intensity, centrality, and
committed action. In Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser, Questions and answers in
attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Tajfel, Henri. 1970. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223
(May): 96-102.
1974. Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13 (April):
65-93.
, and Michael Billig. 1974. Familiarity and social categorization in intergroup behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10 (March): 159-170.
Verba, Sidney, and Norman H. Nie. 1972. Participation in America. New York: Harper and
Row.
Wright, James D. 1976. The dissent of the governed. New York: Academic Press.
Zipp, John F., and Joel Smith. 1979. The structure of electoral political participation. Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 85 (January): 167-177.

Group Consciousness and Political Participation PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Group Consciousness and Political Participation PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Group Consciousness and Political Participation

Arthur H. Miller, Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, Oksana Malanchuk,

Differential participation among demographic subgroups has generally

The Concept of Group Consciousness

In prior research on political participation, group consciousness has

American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 3, August 1981

(1970), for example, focused on blacks who had identified themselves as

Components of Group Consciousness

Group consciousness is in fact a multidimensional concept with group

to dominant groups, we assume that group consciousness will be pro-

Group Consciousness and Turnout

A Linear, Additive Approach

We have argued that group consciousness may potentially act to moti-

Correlations (Eta) between Group Consciousness Components and Electoral T

Group Identification .13* -.06 .03 .04

Number of Cases 253 640 1,930 211 6

Number of Cases 190 440 1,934 192 6

aNO data available.

An Interactive Model: Subordinate Groups

Applying an interactive model to the phenomenon of mobilization

An Interactive Model: Dominant Groups

The extension of our group consciousness model to dominant groups is

Can politicized group aWareness motivate nonelectoral political be-

tics, to become involved in political campaigns, and to make governmental

Correlations (Eta) between Group Consciousness and Nonelectoral Political P

Consciousness and Class Race

flict was more likely to be manifest in nonelectoral activities. This explana-

Overall, the analysis of group consciousness and participation suggests

various group interests, politicized group consciousness may have added

commit themselves and their resources to collective action. In this way

Manuscript submitted 14 April 1980

Group identification was measured by asking respondents to look at a list of 16 cate-

Вам также может понравиться