confidence in institutional mechanisms affects the precise nature of
participation is needed in order to determine why different responses occur, like
in our case studies.
The alternative group solidarity argument, however, does appear a lot more
helpful in explaining this. When applying the sentiment that strong affiliation
desires are the key catalyst for participating, and participating in group dynamics
especially, we see this does have relevance to our scale of conventionality. We
see especially from our examples of the storming of the US Capitol and the sit-
in protests that there were instances of strong group solidarity amongst
likeminded individuals who shared a similar lack of trust in the institutions
themselves. This perhaps suggests an alignment with our idea that instances of
strong group solidarity lead to more unconventional types of participation. This
also helps to explain why, in our
Conventional Participation
cases where there is still
Watergate: Very Low Group Solidarity
institutional trust, participation
Iraq War Protests: Low Group Solidarity
Sit-ins: High Group Solidarity
type can still vary somewhat.
Storming of US Capitol: Very High Group Solidarity
Regarding the issue of the Iraq
Unconventional Participation
war, we see less of a sense of
group solidarity around dissatisfaction for the issue with participation closer to
being classed as unconventional. Watergate on the other hand arguably does
not show the same sense of affiliation around the issue suggesting this is why
more conventional action took place. Furthermore, the group affiliation and
solidarity seen in both the sit-ins, between African-Americans, and the storming
of the US Capitol, amongst a small number of Trump voters. This was far stronger
than in the Iraq war protests and highlights the credibility behind this argument.
Furthermore, the affiliation seen in the storming of the Capitol was arguably
78
Made with FlippingBook HTML5