Political mobilization requires transforming a confrontation into a broader societal power struggle

Evidence

A group that shares grievances and holds an external enemy or opponent responsible is likely to demand corrective action or compensation from that opponent. If the opponent complies with such claims, no politicization of collective identity takes place. However, if the claims are refused and the aggrieved group does not give in, the interaction becomes more confrontational, and politicization continues. This is not to say that increased confrontation as such is responsible for a politicized collective identity. Many fierce intergroup confrontations exist that do not provide the members of the antagonistic groups with a politicized collective identity (e.g., confrontations between fans of competing soccer teams or confrontations between members of different street gangs). Instead, we hold that the collective identity of the members of an aggrieved group who engage in adversarial attributions finally politicizes to the extent that these group members try to transform the confrontation into a more comprehensive power struggle forcing society at large to take sides either with their in-group or with their opponent. This implies that they acknowledge or even stress their identity as a member of that society because only by virtue of their membership in this more inclusive group or community are they entitled to societal support for their claims (Wenzel, 2000). This insight is nicely captured in a recent statement made by the then leader of the parliamentary faction of the German socialist party, Gregor Gysi, who, shortly before his resignation, admonished his party that “[we] have to become part of society—if we want to change it” (“Words of the Week,” 2000, p. 2). In a similar manner, Klandermans et al. (1998; see also Roefs et al, 1998) observed that, while their ethnic identity as Afrikaners politicized, supporters of the Freedom Front in South Africa also maintained a strong national identity. In more general terms, politicized collective identity is always also nested identity in that it presupposes identification with the more inclusive social entity that provides the context for shared grievances, adversarial attributions, and the ensuing power struggles for social change (or resistance to such change). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4433

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘politicized collective identity’ by distinguishing it from mere intergroup conflict (fans, gangs) and characterizing it as nested identity tied to the broader society.
• XREF: The ‘part of society to change it’ logic parallels reformist vs. revolutionary strategic debates in Clayborne Carson’s SNCC history and theorizing about legitimacy-conferring participation. — connects to: MPS efficacy lay in internal debate preceding unified public mobilization — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 449; Politicization requires forcing wider society to take sides, not mere group confrontation. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 4433; The antibusing movement reframed a legal defeat as a political-popular fight that must extend. — Matthew D. Lassiter, The Suburban Origins of “Color-Blind”…, 68 (+3 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that politicization requires claiming membership in the larger society one opposes — because only insiders can demand societal support — is a genuinely dense, counterintuitive structural insight worth sitting with.