Pressure Groups & New Social Movements: a New Public Sphere?

1. Pressure Groups & New Social Movements: a New Public Sphere? JNL6081

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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’

6. 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

7. 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

8. “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)

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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’

13. 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)

14. 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).

15. 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).