POLICY RESPONSIVENESS TO PROTEST GROUPS 489 they wish re-election) but it conveys little information per se on the preferences of the participants."2 Participation through interest groups is a superior linkage mechanism in that it conveys much more specific information about citizen attitudes, but it has the deficiency that primarily well-educated, high-income citizens participate in interest groups. The result, as E. E. Schattschneider succinctly put it, is that "the heavenly chorus [of the interestgroup system] sings with a strong upper class accent."3 Given these limitations of both voting and formal interest-group activity, political scientists might profitably explore additional modes of participation and examine their adequacy as linkage mechanisms. In this respect, research by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba has shown that most citizens believe that their primary interests can best be communicated to political officials through informal issue-specific groups rather than through electoral activity or formal interest-group participation. According to Almond and Verba, when wishing to influence government, "respondents less frequently mention enlisting the support of formal groups than informal groups-arousing their neighbors, getting friends and acquaintances to support their position, circulating a petition."' And particularly in the United States and Britain, "the use of informal groups is seen. .. as the key to effective protest."5 However, as a limitation on the importance of such groups, they note that "the use of informal groups as a means of influencing a government decision is considered much more appropriate at the local than on the national level."6 One of the tasks which Robert Dahl attempts to accomplish in Who Governs? is to demonstrate that this subjective belief in the effectiveness of informal group activity at the local level is well founded. To illustrate this point, Dahl describes the case of the metal houses where Miss Mary Grava and her neighbors in New Haven organized on an informal basis, protested, and attained the desired policy response from the New Haven political system.7 2 Participation in America, 322.

POLICY RESPONSIVENESS TO PROTEST GROUPS 489 they wish re-election) but it conveys little information per se on the preferences of the participants."2 Participation through interest groups is a superior linkage mechanism in that it conveys much more specific information about citizen attitudes, but it has the deficiency that primarily well-educated, high-income citizens participate in interest groups. The result, as E. E. Schattschneider succinctly put it, is that "the heavenly chorus [of the interestgroup system] sings with a strong upper class accent."3 Given these limitations of both voting and formal interest-group activity, political scientists might profitably explore additional modes of participation and examine their adequacy as linkage mechanisms. In this respect, research by Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba has shown that most citizens believe that their primary interests can best be communicated to political officials through informal issue-specific groups rather than through electoral activity or formal interest-group participation. According to Almond and Verba, when wishing to influence government, "respondents less frequently mention enlisting the support of formal groups than informal groups-arousing their neighbors, getting friends and acquaintances to support their position, circulating a petition."' And particularly in the United States and Britain, "the use of informal groups is seen. .. as the key to effective protest."5 However, as a limitation on the importance of such groups, they note that "the use of informal groups as a means of influencing a government decision is considered much more appropriate at the local than on the national level."6 One of the tasks which Robert Dahl attempts to accomplish in Who Governs? is to demonstrate that this subjective belief in the effectiveness of informal group activity at the local level is well founded. To illustrate this point, Dahl describes the case of the metal houses where Miss Mary Grava and her neighbors in New Haven organized on an informal basis, protested, and attained the desired policy response from the New Haven political system.7 2 Participation in America, 322.

“Power over” (involving social control and domination) is contrasted with “power to” (involving social production and collaboration). Three hypotheses drawn from feminist, democratic. and regime theories are developed and supported by ethnographic research: (a) women are more likely than men to understand power as social production, (b) social fragmentation and stronger forms of democracy in cities are encouraging the use of collaborative power, and (c) the application of collaborative power helps communities achieve policy goals.

No abstract

No abstract