Germany—A Movement Society? An Investigation of Non-activism

Abstract

Media reports in recent years suggest that Germany has become a movement society. Whenever there is a new infrastructure project (e.g. Stuttgart 21), affected citizens get actively involved in the political process surrounding it—or so it seems. The assumption of existing literature on protest and social movements appears to be true to the ongoing discussion about civic participation. Nevertheless, the current study sheds light on the fact that most affected citizens remain inactive in relation to infrastructure projects in their neighbourhoods. Blame does not lie with the disinterest of the people or their unwillingness to be part of the political process—the opposite is the case. People demonstrate a feeling of moral responsibility to enter the political arena as citizens, but a lack of resources seems to restrain them from doing so. This study shows that, to escape this dilemma, affected citizens hand over the responsibility to existing civic action groups.

Key Words:

• Participation
• non-participation
• civic action groups
• social movements

Notes

1. The same phenomenon occurs in the civil society research in general. Those who are involved are usually subject of research. Rarely do researchers include those who are not (yet) engaged. One exception for the German case is a recent and very relevant study by Klatt und Walter (2011).

2. Source: Comment in ‘Waiblinger Kreiszeitung’, 22 January, 2013, cf. http://www.zvw.de/inhalt.waiblingen-wir-brauchen-keine-windkraft-auf-der-buocher-hoehe.049b61c0-c48e-4b93-bffa-bb35f1170402.html (accessed 8 July 2014).

3. Source: Own calculation – sum of the numbers of inhabitants living in the communities of Korb, Waiblingen and Weinstadt, 2012. Cf. http://statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=1&U=99&T=99025010&E=GE&K=119 (accessed 8 July 2014).

4. Source: Interview with members of the initiative, April 2014.

5. Source: Author's calculation (sum of numbers of inhabitants living in the districts of Neukölln, Kreuzberg-Friedrichshain and Tempelhof, 2012). Cf. https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/Publikationen/OTab/2013/OT_A01-01-00_124_201211_BE.pdf (accessed 8 July 2014).

6. Source of all numbers mentioned in this paragraph: https://www.wahlen-berlin.de/abstimmungen/VE2014_TFeld/PMs.asp?sel1=6053&sel2=1500 (accessed 8 July 2014).

7. Moreover, as our interview material suggests, all three movements represent ‘positive cases’ (see Table 2), that is, organizations that were able to develop convincing framing strategies and reached those that were affected by the respective infrastructural changes. Considering this background, potential differences in resource mobilization strategies that might have led to differences in frame dissemination strategies did, however, not translate into lower frame pick-up rates across our cases.

8. http://www.bnb-buocher-hoehe.de/index.php/widerspruch-bnb (accessed 15 July 2014).

9. http://www.bnb-buocher-hoehe.de/images/dokumente/Grundlagen-Papier-2012-12-12.pdf (accessed 15 July 2014).

10. http://www.bnb-buocher-hoehe.de/index.php/home (accessed 15 July 2014).