150 likes | 346 Views
Pressure Groups & New Social Movements: a New Public Sphere?. JNL6081. Introduction. How do we make sense of pgs? How do they use the media? What determines their success? How have they changed?
E N D
Pressure Groups & New Social Movements: a New Public Sphere? JNL6081
Introduction • How do we make sense of pgs? How do they use the media? What determines their success? How have they changed? • The context of this discussion is framed around the question: Do contemporary pressure groups constitute a reinvigoration of the public sphere, or are they symptomatic of a deeper political malaise at the heart of politics in Britain?
Structure • Lecture will highlight the diversity of pressure groups • It will explore and explain the shift from ‘old style’ to ‘media centric’ organisations. • Critically explore the notion of ‘definitional power’ • Offer critique of contemporary pgs
PGs are diverse in terms of: Size of membership Composition of members Policy programme or agenda Financial resources Communication resources Commitment to media based campaigning
Diversity of groups • Green Peace; CND; The Countryside Alliance; Amnesty; Shelter; Friends of the Earth; Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA); Liberty; Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG); Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV); Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC); Charter 88; Outrage; Stonewall; the Black Police Officers Association: Families Need Fathers; Fathers for Justice; • Trades Unions: NUS; UCU; TGWU; NUM; Fire brigades Union etc. • One off/ad hoc groups: Anti-Poll Tax Alliance; Anti War Coalition; Anti-Globalisation ‘Movement’
Classifications • Sectional groups with interests to protect • Limited membership • Cause or Promotional groups • Membership unlimited • Cause groups have limited lifespan determined by how successful they are
Negrine (1994) • Oppositional – focus of opposition to government policy • Informational – a legitimate source of information for govt. and media • Commentator – respected and authoritative commentators on particular areas of policy
“On the whole the media will help you if there is something in it for them. That something is a good story, whether it be a news item or a feature and, of course, the best story is a good story that is also an exclusive” (Wilson, 1985)
From ‘old’ style to ‘new’ • Agenda in 60s & 70s different and based around: • Direct relations with govt. • Regular and discreet access to decision making process • Need to influence policy • Formal and informal contact with legislators; membership of cttees; provision of experts; offers of ‘treats’ - TU funding etc. • Use of media seen as unnecessary and a sign of weakness
Explanations of growth in more media centric orgs. • Decline of social ‘consensus’ • Decline of party system • Emergence of significant cross party issues • PGs have a more sceptical and well informed attitude towards news making process • Awareness of benefits of being proactive • Contact with members; legitimate spokesperson; mobile demands; counter bad press; definitional power?
Primary definition and definitional power • Hall (1978) access to media is structured via competitive hierarchy favouring ‘elite groups’ while discriminating against others • As such certain groups attain greater definitional power: ability to define issues and set news agendas • Primary definers: accredited spokespersons for elite • Significance: • provide raw material for journalists • provide them with ‘interpretative’ frameworks
Criticism of Hall (Curran, 1990 & Schlesinger, 1990) • Exaggerates degree of ‘ideological congruence’ • Elite access not equitable • Identifying primary definers difficult (lobby) • Structures of access change over time • Hall’s model of ideological reproduction is ‘uni-directional’
Pressure groups and the public sphere • Critical deficit (packaging politics) places the public sphere under pressure • Pressure groups may indeed present opportunities to re-invigorate public sphere (McNair; Atton; Downing) • However, PGs are unrepresentative • Apolitical: politics increasingly about personal morality (Furedi, 2004)
Furedi (in Todd & Taylor 2004) • “‘Not in my name’ is self-consciously framed as a personal proclamation. ‘Not in my name’ is not a political statement designed to involve others and does not seek to offer an alternative. It does not call on anyone to choose sides or even insist on a particular course of action. Insofar as it represents an attitude it is a pre-political gesture. It is a statement of individual preference and represents an opt-out clause rather than an attempt to alter the course of events. As a metaphor for a shrug of the shoulder, it represents a demand for personal disengagement, rather than for a fundamentally different approach to the war. It as much reflects the mood of anti-engagement as weariness towards war. That is why the mobilisation of millions on the streets of Western capitals has had such little impact on society” (Furedi, 2004).
Theda Skocpol (2003) • “While the emergence of local civic organisations can play a useful role in contributing to the development of a society’s political culture, it is unlikely that they can compensate for the effects of the public’s disengagement from national political life. […] Professionally managed, top down civic endeavours simultaneously limit the mobilization of most citizens into public life and encourage a fragmentation of social identities and trivial polarizations in public debates” (Cited Furedi, 2005, p. 113).