Networks of Non-Participation: Comparing ‘Supportive’, ‘Unsupportive’ and ‘Undecided’ Non-Participants in the UK Student Protests against Fees and Cuts

Abstract

As a topic in its own right, political non-participation is under-studied in the social sciences. While existing approaches have tended to focus on the gaps between engagement patterns and public policy, or the rational disincentives to an individual's participation, less attention has been paid to the explanatory power of socio-cultural factors. Taking its lead from studies by Oegema and Klandermans and Norgaard, this article uses recent student protests in the UK as a case study for exploring non-participation. Drawing on survey and interview data, findings indicate that whereas network access and collective identification are commonly seen as helping produce and sustain political participation, networks of collective dis-identification might help to produce and sustain political non-participation.

“I don't really want to be associated with the self-righteous left extreme”: Disincentives to participation in collective action

“…Thus, concerns about managing the public identity performances of activism could plausibly constitute a psychological barrier to forming or continuing attachment to that group. Indeed, the majority of collective action non-participants are from a social environment that disapproves of participation (Hensby, 2017;Klandermans & van Stekelenburg, 2014).…”

Speaking against Silence: Finding a Voice in Hong Kong Chinese Families through the Umbrella Movement

“…Unlike Hing, he did not express strong opposition to the movement; rather he did not see himself as having a right to a political opinion. Whereas Hing, like some non-participants in Hensby’s (2015) study, dis-identified with movement activists – they are ‘not rational’ – Shmily is critical of them but includes himself among those lacking in political wisdom.…”

Political non‐participation in elections, civic life and social movements

“…Oegema and Klandermans's (1994) concept of network ‘erosion’ provides a microstructure in which these narratives can be shared, but their survey methodology fails to capture how this might be negotiated in practice. Drawing on survey and interview methods, Hensby's (2017a, 2017b) concept of the ‘counter network’ offers a potential bridge between these two approaches. In his study of non‐participation in the UK student activism during the 2010 anti‐fees protests, Hensby found that two‐thirds of students surveyed were sympathetic to the protests' aims yet did not participate in any form of protest activity.…”

“…For most non‐participants, however, their non‐participation represented a position of comfort, familiarity, and emotional self‐preservation. Moreover, collectively emphasising the perceived risks and uncertainties associated with participating (such as getting arrested while on a march) helped legitimise their non‐participatory disposition, even though many felt comfortable expressing their support for the protests themselves (Hensby, 2017a, p. 966).…”

“…Whereas the former often related to the disruptive behaviour of activists on campus, the latter referred to more general perceptions of political activists as self‐important, hypocritical, and dogmatic. Distinctions were also drawn through certain activist aesthetics and lifestyle choices, for example veganism or clothing (Hensby, 2017a, p. 971). In other words, even though many students broadly shared the same political grievances, their decision‐making was ultimately shaped by the friendship groups they belonged to.…”