Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-lm9t2 Total loading time: 0.272 Render date: 2022-11-26T12:17:48.199Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

LISA DISCH*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
*
Lisa Disch is Professor, Departments of Political Science and Women's Studies, University of Michigan, 5700 Haven Hall, 505 S. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (ldisch@umich.edu).

Abstract

This article analyzes what I term “the dilemma of democratic competence,” which emerges when researchers find their expectations regarding democratic responsiveness to be in conflict with their findings regarding the context dependency of individual preferences. I attribute this dilemma to scholars' normative expectations, rather than to deficiencies of mass democratic politics. I propose a mobilization conception of political representation and develop a systemic understanding of reflexivity as the measure of its legitimacy. This article thus contributes to the emergent normative argument that political representation is intrinsic to democratic government, and links that claim to empirical research on political preference formation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69 (4): 1218–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Althaus, Scott, Edy, Jill, Entman, Robert, and Phelen, Patricia. 1996. “Revising the Indexing Hypothesis: Officials, Media and the Libya Crisis.” Political Communication 13 (4): 407–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankersmit, F.R. 2002. Political Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin, R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2003. “Democracy with Attitudes.” In Electoral Democracy, eds. McKuen, Michael B. and Rabinowitz, George. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 4882.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance. 1990. “Toward a Theory of Press–State Relations.” Journal of Communication 40 (2): 103–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance, and Manheim, Jarol B.. 1993. “Taking the Public by Storm: Information, Cueing, and the Democratic Process in the Gulf Conflict.” Political Communication 10 (4): 331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Arthur F. 1908. The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bickford, Susan. 1996. The Dissonance of Democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1988. “Emancipation and Rhetoric: The Perlocutions and Illocutions of the Social Critic.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 21 (3): 185204.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. [1981] 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Ed and intro. Thompson, John B.. Trans. Raymond, Gino and Adamson, Matthew. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1995. “For a Careful Reading.” In Feminist Contentions, eds. Benhabib, Seyla, Butler, Judith, Cornell, Drucilla, and Fraser, Nancy. New York: Routledge, 127–44.Google Scholar
Carmines, E., and Kuklinski, J.. 1990. “Incentives, Opportunities and the Logic of Public Opinion in American Political Representation.” In Information and Democratic Processes, eds. Ferejohn, J. A. and Kuklinsky, J.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 240–68.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 2000. Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97: 2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity, eds. Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P.. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1734.Google Scholar
Condorcet, Marquis de. 1793. “Plan de Constitution, présenté à la Convention Nationale, les 15 & 16 fevrier 1793, l'an II de la République.” http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/co1793pr.htm (accessed January 28, 2011).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. [1967] 1973. “Speech and Phenomena: Introduction to the Problem of Signs in Husserl's Phenomenology.” In Speech and Phenomena, trans. Allison, David B.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 17104.Google Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black or Latino Do?American Political Science Review 96 (4): 729–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001a. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23 (3): 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001b. “Evaluating Framing Effects.” Journal of Economic Psychology 22: 91101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (4): 671–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2010. “What's It All About? Framing in Political Science.” In Perspectives on Framing, ed. Keren, Gideon. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis, 279302Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Hennessy, Cari Lynn, St. Charles, Kristi, and Webber, Jonathan. 2010. “Competing Rhetoric over Time: Frames vs. Cues.” Journal of Politics 72 (1): 136–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2000. “Preference Formation.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, and Karps, Paul D.. 1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2 (3): 241–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2001. “The Rule of Reasons: Three Models of Deliberative Democracy.” Ratio Juris 14 (4): 345–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2010. “The Justification of Human Rights and the Basic Right to Justification: A Reflexive Approach.” Ethics 120: 711–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95 (1): 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2006. Saving Persuasion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garsten, Bryan. 2009. “Representative Government and Popular Sovereignty.” In Political Representation, eds. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan C., Wood, Elisabeth Jean, and Kirshner, Alexander S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90110.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elizabeth, and Jackson, John E.. 1993. “Endogenous Preferences and the Study of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 87 (3): 639–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., and Dryzek, John S.. 2006. “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-political Uptake of Mini-publics.” Politics and Society 34 (20): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Ruth, and Keohane, Robert O.. 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics.” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 2944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1988. Between Facts and Norms. Trans. Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Lenhardt, Christian and Nicholsen, Shierry Weber. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. B. 1975. “Participation, Political Structure, and Concurrence.” American Political Science Review 69 (4): 1181–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Clarissa Rile. 2009. “Making Interest: On Representation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In Political Representation, eds. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan C., Wood, Elisabeth Jean, and Kirshner, Alexander S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111–35.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Shapiro, Robert J.. 2000. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jewell, Malcolm. 1983. “Legislator–Constituency Relations and the Representative Process.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 8 (3): 303–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Michael. 2003. “Iconomics: The Rhetoric of Speculation.” Public Culture 15 (3): 477–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Nelson, Thomas E.. 2005. “Democratic Debate and Real Opinions.” In Framing American Politics, eds. Callaghan, Karen J., Schnell, Frauke, and Entman, Robert M.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 103–22.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn. 1996. Divided by Color. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. [1979] 2004. “History, Histories, and Formal Time Structures.” In Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time, trans and intro. Tribe, Keith. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 93104.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, and Rich, Robert F.. 2001. “The Political Environment and Citizen Competence.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (20): 410–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., and Segura, Gary M.. 1995. “Endogeneity, Exogeneity, Time, and Space in Political Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (1): 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavaque-Manty, Mika. 2006. “Bentley, Truman and the Study of Groups.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavaque-Manty, Mika. 2009. “Finding Theoretical Concepts in the Real World: The Case of the Precariat.” In New Waves in Political Philosophy, eds. de Bruin, Boudewijn and Zurn, Christopher F.. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 105–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1996. Emancipations. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1992. “Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information.” American Political Science Review 86 (2): 390403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 6376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Matthew. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane J. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manza, Jeff, and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2002. “A Democratic Polity? Three Views of Policy Responsiveness to Public Opinion in the United States.” American Politics Research 30 (6): 630–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, Kirstie. 1992. “On the Subject of Rights: Pluralism, Plurality and Political Identity.” In Dimensions of Radical Democracy, ed. Mouffe, Chantal. New York: Verso, 108–27.Google Scholar
Miller, James. 1987. Democracy Is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review 57 (1): 4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanero, Laura. 2010. “The Democratic Legitimacy of ‘Self-appointed’ Representatives.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2006. “Representative Democracy as Tautology.” European Journal of Political Theory 5 (3): 321–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, Onora. 2002. “Constructivism in Rawls and Kant.” In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. Freeman, Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 347–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Paul. 1970. “Forms of Representation: Participation of the Poor in the Community Action Program.” American Political Science Review 64 (2): 491507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pikin, Hanna. 1989. “Representation.” In Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, eds. Ball, Terence, Farr, James, and Hanson, Russell L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 132–41.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 2004. “Representation and Democracy: Uneasy Alliance.” Scandinavian Political Studies 27 (3): 335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotke, David. 1997. “Representation is Democracy.” Constellations 4 (1): 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Political Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prewitt, Kenneth, and Eulau, Heinz. 1969. “Political Matrix and Political Representation: Prolegomenon to a New Departure from an Old Problem.” American Political Science Review 63 (2): 427–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, Andrew. 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Representation.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1981. “Representation in Political Theory and in Law.” Ethics 91 (3): 395430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2008. La Légitimité Démocratique: Impartialité, Réflexivité, Proximité. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Runciman, David. 2007. “The Paradox of Political Representation.”Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (1): 93114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2006. “The Representative Claim.” Contemporary Political Theory 5: 297318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schattschneider, Elmer Eric. [1960] 1975. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Nancy L. 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Seitz, Brian. 1995. The Trace of Political Representation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M. 2000. “Taking Sides: A Fixed Choice Theory of Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, eds. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Popkin, Samuel L.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 6784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Levendusky, Matthew S.. 2007. “An Institutional Theory of Political Choice.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, eds. Dalton, Russell J. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. New York: Oxford University Press, 437–56.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion, eds. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133–65.Google Scholar
Snow, David A., and Benford, Robert D.. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research 1: 197217.Google Scholar
Squires, Judith. 2008. “The Constitutive Representation of Gender: Extra-parliamentary Re-presentation of Gender Relations.” Representation 44 (2): 187204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1991. “Preferences and Politics.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20 (10): 334.Google Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, Nadia, and Warren, Mark E.. 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 387412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahlke, John C. 1971. “Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the Represented.” British Journal of Political Science 1 (3): 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E., and Castiglione, Dario. N.d. “Rethinking Democratic Representation: Eight Theoretical Issues.” Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Canada.Google Scholar
Williams, Melissa. 1990. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1997. “Deferring Group Representation.” In NOMOS XXXIX, Ethnicity and Group Rights, eds. Shapiro, Ian and Kymlicka, Will. New York: New York University Press, 349–76.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
194
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *