Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 87-91). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Although Ronald Inglehart's New Politics theory has attracted criticism, its influential distinction between materialist and postmaterialist values tends to go unquestioned. The influence of this distinction is particularly apparent when analysts interpret the "new" social movement emphasis on esteem and belonging as a "postmaterialist" departure from a traditional, or "materialist" focus on security. This way of understanding contemporary feminist and ethnocultural-minority movements is misleading because it rests on a onedimensional view of esteem and belonging. By treating esteem and belonging as expressive, which is to say as purely aesthetic or psychological goods, New Politics obscures the instrumental significance of esteem and belonging for movements that represent traditionally, marginalized constituencies. This work undertakes a qualitative study of the participation of national socialmovement organizations, "old" and "new," in Canadian constitutional politics. The analysis is based on these actors' presentations to parliamentary hearings and royal commissions on major constitution-related issues between the years 1938 and 1992. Above all, the study illustrates what New Politics theory neglects: the instrumental role of social esteem and civic belonging as bases of voice and self-defence. I argue that attending to this role can help analysts to understand better the postwar politics of recognition. The work develops this argument in three major ways. First, I demonstrate the instrumental importance of esteem and belonging for the mid-century traditional left. Second, I show that problems of misrecognition and disesteem presented feminists and ethnocultural minorities with severe difficulties in garnering a meaningful hearing for their security needs. Third, I analyze the discursive ways in which postwar "new" movement participants came to pursue forms of respect that had proved elusive in the past. The work's overall conclusion is this: the material nature of the politics of recognition is demonstrated by the extent to which increased esteem and belonging for traditionally disrespected groups has been paralleled by an expanded menu of recognized security concerns. The study's major message follows from this conclusion: because struggles over esteem and belonging have crucial material stakes, they should not be contrasted a priori with struggles that may appear to target questions of security more directly.

This study argues that previous investigations of the gender gap have concentrated almost exclusively on the behaviour of women voters and have underestimated the electoral significance of men. Employing public opinion surveys and rational choice theory of coalitions, it contends that men's voting behaviour is a key factor in modern elections and that by investigating male voters as people affected by their gender, the gender gap can be better explained. The study finds that the relative importance of the gender gap in Canada may be declining as parties contending to form the government display less gender division in their support, and significant gender differences in the 1997 election are found only in the more extreme parties, like the New Democratic Party and, especially, the Reform Party. Significant gender-related support for the Liberal Party is found to be concentrated in the Trudeau era. The gender gap in Reform Party support is attributed to differences over capitalism, feminism and the use of force. A theoretical model of gender block behaviour is developed using rational choice theory, and the power of the male voting block is demonstrated. Cohesion, elasticity, positioning, size and turnout are identified as important measures of block power, with cohesion and elasticity the most important variable in the gender gap. The gender gap is shown to not be an automatic advantage for women, and that sometimes it works against women's interests. The final chapter discusses the effect of situational and socialisation constraints on attitutudes towards violence, 'masculinized opportunity' and the reactionary backlash against feminism.

Although Ronald Inglehart's New Politics theory has attracted criticism, its influential distinction between materialist and postmaterialist values tends to go unquestioned. The influence of this distinction is particularly apparent when analysts interpret the "new" social movement emphasis on esteem and belonging as a "postmaterialist" departure from a traditional, or "materialist" focus on security. This way of understanding contemporary feminist and ethnocultural-minority movements is misleading because it rests on a onedimensional view of esteem and belonging. By treating esteem and belonging as expressive, which is to say as purely aesthetic or psychological goods, New Politics obscures the instrumental significance of esteem and belonging for movements that represent traditionally, marginalized constituencies. This work undertakes a qualitative study of the participation of national socialmovement organizations, "old" and "new," in Canadian constitutional politics. The analysis is based on these actors' presentations to parliamentary hearings and royal commissions on major constitution-related issues between the years 1938 and 1992. Above all, the study illustrates what New Politics theory neglects: the instrumental role of social esteem and civic belonging as bases of voice and self-defence. I argue that attending to this role can help analysts to understand better the postwar politics of recognition. The work develops this argument in three major ways. First, I demonstrate the instrumental importance of esteem and belonging for the mid-century traditional left. Second, I show that problems of misrecognition and disesteem presented feminists and ethnocultural minorities with severe difficulties in garnering a meaningful hearing for their security needs. Third, I analyze the discursive ways in which postwar "new" movement participants came to pursue forms of respect that had proved elusive in the past. The work's overall conclusion is this: the material nature of the politics of recognition is demonstrated by the extent to which increased esteem and belonging for traditionally disrespected groups has been paralleled by an expanded menu of recognized security concerns. The study's major message follows from this conclusion: because struggles over esteem and belonging have crucial material stakes, they should not be contrasted a priori with struggles that may appear to target questions of security more directly. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

This study argues that previous investigations of the gender gap have concentrated almost exclusively on the behaviour of women voters and have underestimated the electoral significance of men. Employing public opinion surveys and rational choice theory of coalitions, it contends that men's voting behaviour is a key factor in modern elections and that by investigating male voters as people affected by their gender, the gender gap can be better explained. The study finds that the relative importance of the gender gap in Canada may be declining as parties contending to form the government display less gender division in their support, and significant gender differences in the 1997 election are found only in the more extreme parties, like the New Democratic Party and, especially, the Reform Party. Significant gender-related support for the Liberal Party is found to be concentrated in the Trudeau era. The gender gap in Reform Party support is attributed to differences over capitalism, feminism and the use of force. A theoretical model of gender block behaviour is developed using rational choice theory, and the power of the male voting block is demonstrated. Cohesion, elasticity, positioning, size and turnout are identified as important measures of block power, with cohesion and elasticity the most important variable in the gender gap. The gender gap is shown to not be an automatic advantage for women, and that sometimes it works against women's interests. The final chapter discusses the effect of situational and socialisation constraints on attitutudes towards violence, 'masculinized opportunity' and the reactionary backlash against feminism. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

There is mounting evidence that the public's political decisional processes are heterogeneous (Rivers, 1988; Sniderman, Brody & Tetlock, 1991; and Johnston, Blais, Gidengil & Nevitte, 1996). All citizens do not reason the same way about politics: they rely on different considerations, or they give different weights to similar considerations. However, our understanding of this phenomenon remains sketchy, in many regards. I address the conceptual and empirical ambiguity by exploring the nature, the sources, the extent, the consequences, and the campaign dynamics of interpersonal heterogeneity in political decision-making. The analysis relies on Canadian and American public opinion survey data. The evidence reveals that heterogeneity is a very important phenomenon. Relationships between dependent and explanatory variables are rarely stable and consistent across the entire population. Most political decisions (especially the more common ones) and most independent variables exhibit interpersonal diversity in coefficient strength. Hypothesis-testing and explanationbuilding can be led astray if researchers limit their analyses to the whole citizenry. Normatively, heterogeneity is responsible for individual and aggregate deviations from enlightened preferences. Heterogeneity, however, is a very complex phenomenon. One can not deal with it in any simple way. A researcher can not simply capture it, take it into account, and move on to other concerns. Heterogeneity permeates through our models of political behaviour in significant, pervasive and perplexing ways. This research raises concerns about the complexity of political behaviour and our ability to understand citizens, campaigns, elections, and democracy. The world is not a simple, straightforward and easily comprehensible subject. It is much more intricate and difficult to grasp than we currently believe. In order to understand reality, our approaches, theories, and models need to be as complex and multidimensional as reality. Striving for oversimplification can only lead to misconceptions and fallacies.

There is mounting evidence that the public's political decisional processes are heterogeneous (Rivers, 1988; Sniderman, Brody & Tetlock, 1991; and Johnston, Blais, Gidengil & Nevitte, 1996). All citizens do not reason the same way about politics: they rely on different considerations, or they give different weights to similar considerations. However, our understanding of this phenomenon remains sketchy, in many regards. I address the conceptual and empirical ambiguity by exploring the nature, the sources, the extent, the consequences, and the campaign dynamics of interpersonal heterogeneity in political decision-making. The analysis relies on Canadian and American public opinion survey data. The evidence reveals that heterogeneity is a very important phenomenon. Relationships between dependent and explanatory variables are rarely stable and consistent across the entire population. Most political decisions (especially the more common ones) and most independent variables exhibit interpersonal diversity in coefficient strength. Hypothesis-testing and explanationbuilding can be led astray if researchers limit their analyses to the whole citizenry. Normatively, heterogeneity is responsible for individual and aggregate deviations from enlightened preferences. Heterogeneity, however, is a very complex phenomenon. One can not deal with it in any simple way. A researcher can not simply capture it, take it into account, and move on to other concerns. Heterogeneity permeates through our models of political behaviour in significant, pervasive and perplexing ways. This research raises concerns about the complexity of political behaviour and our ability to understand citizens, campaigns, elections, and democracy. The world is not a simple, straightforward and easily comprehensible subject. It is much more intricate and difficult to grasp than we currently believe. In order to understand reality, our approaches, theories, and models need to be as complex and multidimensional as reality. Striving for oversimplification can only lead to misconceptions and fallacies. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate