High- And Low-Risk Activism: Differential Participation in a Refugee Solidarity Movement

Abstract

This article presents a quantitative study of differential participation in low- and high-risk activism in the Danish refugee solidarity movement. Distinguishing between low- and high-risk activism, it shows the fruitfulness of combining what are often considered competing theoretical explanations related to (1) values, (2) microstructures, and (3) emotions. We analyze data from a unique survey of 1,856 respondents recruited via Facebook. The results show that low- and high-risk participation strongly correlate but are influenced by different factors. For low-risk activities, the most important factors are emotional reactions, structural availability, and predispositions in the form of basic human values. For high-risk activity, the important factors are prior history of activism and emotional reaction. Values, microstructures, and emotions interact in relation to participation in both kinds of activism, which points to promising avenues for integrating and developing the theoretical framework of differential participation and recruitment.

On solidarity and volunteering during the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark: the impact of social networks and social media groups on the distribution of support

“…However, the fact that in most regards the repertoire of online volunteers does not seem to differ significantly from that of other organisational settings suggests that online volunteering, at least during times of crisis, can facilitate a much more varied set of activities. This is in line with findings on mobilisation of the Danish refugee solidarity movement in 2015 (Gundelach and Toubøl 2019;Toubøl 2019).…”

From democratic participation to civic resistance: the loss of institutional trust as an outcome of activism in the refugee solidarity movement

“…In early September 2015, the movement experienced an unprecedented mobilization in relation to the unregulated arrival of an estimated 21,000 refugees (Rigspolitiet ) which took the authorities by surprise and caused chaotic scenes at the borders and along the main roads and railways. In contrast to the authorities who seemed bewildered, civil society quickly reacted and organized for assisting the refugees by enacting a varied repertoire of activities ranging from humanitarian actions, such as collecting and donating items and money, political protests, such as petitions and demonstrations, to acts of civil disobedience, such as transporting refugees across the border to Sweden or Norway (Table III and Table AV in the appendix provide an overview of the repertoire, see also Gundelach and Toubøl forthcoming). This phenomenon was not restricted to Denmark, and similar civic action was observed all over Europe (Agustin and Jørgensen ; Della Porta ; Fleischmann and Steinhilper ; Hamann and Karakayali ; Karakayali ; Zechner and Hansen ).…”

The Solidary Relationship’s Consequences for the Ebb and Flow of Activism: Collaborative Evidence from Life‐History Interviews and Social Media Event Analysis,

“…While we agree that altruism is not a “phenomenon sui generis which requires specific theoretical tools to be analyzed” (Passy and Giugni 2001a:87) and also applaud starting from interaction as the locus of action rejecting rational and culturalist explanations (Passy 2001), we identify a crucial limitation, namely that, despite interaction being the ontology, the interactions' bearing upon action (altruistic or not) is limited to the formation of identities. To be clear, we do not deny the relevance of commitment, mutual in‐group coercion, and trust‐identity ties to political altruism (e.g., Carlsen 2019; Gundelach and Toubøl 2019; Ibsen, Toubøl and Jensen 2017; Carlsen, Toubøl and Ralund forthcoming) but we argue that we need to consider interaction itself as a source of individual‐level activism. Furthermore, and in line with other’s observations (e.g., McAdam 1988; Nepstad 2004a; Yukich 2013), we find the lack of studies of out‐group interaction problematic.…”

“…Florence Passy and Marco Giugni (2000) argue that most studies on differential participation simply assume that the dynamics accounting for recruitment are the same as those that account for persistence in participation. While there has been a steadily growing literature on participation past the point of recruitment (e.g., Barkan et al 1995; Gorski 2019; Gundelach and Toubøl 2019; Nepstad 2004b; Passy and Giugni 2001b), few study “how movement participation ebbs and flows over time” (McAdam 1989:744). Ebb and flow denote the process of moving in and out of an active state along an ongoing trajectory.…”

“…To answer this apparent riddle, scholars have turned to explanations that focus on identity and the self in which acting in solidarity with others, no matter the risks and costs it involves, are meaningful because the acts express and confirm values and beliefs central to the activists self, that is, the action is value rational. Indeed, the value rational aspect of activism has received much attention in social movement studies: concepts such as frames (Snow et al 1986), values (Gundelach 1998, Gundelach and Toubøl 2019), conscience constituents (McCarthy and Zald 1977), identity (Cerulo 1997; Melucci 1995; Tilly 2001), and the focus on normative commitments (Klandermans 1997) are all central to the question of differential participation. When these concepts are applied to solidarity activism, the deprivation of the other becomes proof of the mismatch between the actual state of affairs and the activists’ normative expectations, an injustice symbol (Olesen 2017) that may provoke moral shocks (Olesen 2018) through tactics, for instance, like story‐telling and ‐sharing (Yukich 2013).…”