In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2 The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation I n the summer of 2000, in the midst of a tight campaign, the Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman prepared to do some television interviews. Just before going on the air, an aide suggested that Lieberman “brush the chest hair poking out of his open-necked shirt.” Lieberman responded, “Its OK. There’s a constituency for chest hair” (Connoly 2000). While Lieberman’s droll response represented a moment of levity, for students of politics it symbolizes something of much greater significance. Lieberman’s quip speaks to a world in which candidates and campaigns view voters not as atomistic individuals, but as groups of individuals clustered around shared experiences and common interests. Subconstituency politics explains why and how politicians appeal to groups. Borrowing from social psychology, the theory explains how one’s socializing experiences inform the groups with which one identifies and how candidates exploit individuals’social identities to encourage beneficial political behavior. The chapter explores three general themes, each of which addresses the behavior and motivation of the theory’s core actors: groups, individuals, and candidates and legislators. I begin by defining the concept of a group and articulating its political importance. Next, I examine how and why individuals are transformed into groups and why social identities, which provide the mechanism that underlies this process, are so valuable to politicians. Then I explain the role of candidates and legislators who compete to make particular identities salient and thereby strive to activate groups 20 / Chapter 2 that they think will benefit them. Once elected to Congress, legislators work to service these groups. The final sections develop a typology of candidates’ positioning and legislators’ behavior and identify the hypotheses implied by the theory. In so doing, I provide the basis for the tests and applications that are the focus of the chapters that follow. The Definition and Nature of Groups In studies of politics, the term “group” usually refers to organized interests. In The Governmental Process (1951),David Truman outlines the pluralist definition of groups as people who interact, the product of which leads to shared attitudes and beliefs. While people may share opinions or attributes, it is only through physical interaction that an organization of political consequence can be formed. Truman’s definition is also consistent with the traditional view of groups from the perspective of social cohesion theory, which stresses group members’ interdependence and interaction. Similarly, in The Logic of Collective Action (1971), Mancur Olson defines groups as formal organizations that are characterized by a desire to further the interests of their members. While these definitions seem appropriate for the study of organized interests , they overlook the fact that some groups are not formally organized (e.g., Schattschneider 1960).1 Individuals who have neither met nor formally joined an organization may share identities and,hence,attitudes stemming from shared experiences and interests. Consequently, studies of group behavior overlook an important aspect of political participation: that groups need not be organized to be influential. The subconstituency politics theory holds that politicians overcome the problem of lack of interest among citizens by exploiting the fact that people coalesce through common experiences, outlooks, and interests. In the political context, politicians do this by making appeals that activate identities that relate to these experiences and thereby energize groups around issues. This view of how representation works relies heavily on the self-categorization theory of social identity (e.g., Turner et al. 1987) which holds that, to varying degrees, individuals categorize themselves as either unique or as group members depending on circumstances and context.2 Instead of requiring interaction or interdependence, groups consist of individuals who share some activated social identity that is the antecedent of the group.3 Social identities form in response to one’s social environment and thus are largely a product of life experiences. Jan Stets and Peter Burke (2000, 225) summarize the group as “a set of individuals who hold a common social identification or view themselves as members of the same social category.” Group membership serves as a source of esteem and causes people to “think, feel and behave and define themselves in terms of group norms rather than unique prop- The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation / 21 erties of the self” (Terry et al. 1999, 284). Moreover,“self categorization leads to psychological group formation—subjects demonstrate collective behavior in the form of shared responses”(Turner et al. 1987). Importantly, because individuals see some identities as more central to their esteem...

Share