바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

  • P-ISSN0023-3900
  • E-ISSN2733-9343

Determinants of Unaffiliated Citizen Protests: The Korean Candlelight Protests of 2016–2017

Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2019, v.59 no.1, pp.46-78
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2019.59.1.46

  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the determinants of citizens’ participation in the Candlelight Protests that took place in Korea in 2016–2017. These protests were unprecedented in terms of their non-violent nature, their political consequences, the number of participants, and the breadth of the participants’ socioeconomic and political backgrounds. Employing a two-step empirical strategy that involved logit analysis and structural equation modeling, this study attempted to determine the significant causal paths to citizen intentions to participate in the protests. The empirical findings of this study also indicate that intention to join the protests was based on a multi-layered structure. The empirical analysis confirmed that injustice, identity, efficacy, and anger significantly influenced citizen intentions to participate in the candlelight protests. The study argues that in examining why unaffiliated citizens joined the protests, the existing literature has tended to pay disproportionate attention to narrow economic interests. The Korean Candlelight Protests elucidate the significance of political solidarity based on the participants’ faith in democracy.

keywords
injustice preference for democracy efficacy anger Candlelight Protests Park Geun-hye monitory democracy

Reference

1.

Beierlein, C. et al. 2011. “Are Just-world beliefs Compatible with Justifying Inequality? Collective Political Efficacy as a Moderator.” Social Justice Research 24: 278–296.

2.

Braudel, Fernand. 1995. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Translated by Siân Reynolds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

3.

Campbell, A. et al. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

4.

Choi, Jang Jip. 2012. Democracy After Democratization: The Korean Experience. Stanford, CA: Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

5.

Corcoran, Katie E., David Pettinicchio, and Jacob T.N. Young. 2015. “Perceptions of Structural Injustice and Efficacy: Participation in Low/Moderate/High-Cost Forms of Collective Action.” Sociological Inquiry 85.3: 429–461.

6.

Cumings, Bruce. 1989. “The Abortive Abertura: South Korea in the Light of Latin American Experience.” New Left Review 173: 5–32.

7.

Do, Myo-yeon. 2017. “2016-nyeon-2017-nyeon Park Geun-hye toejin chotbul jiphoe chamyeo-ui gyeoljeong yoin” (Determinants of Participation in the Candlelight Protest for the Impeachment of Park Geun-hye from 2016 to 2017). Uijeong yeongu (Journal of Legislative Studies) 51.2: 110–146.

8.

Folger, R. 1986. “A Referent Cognitions Theory of Relative Deprivation.” In vol. 4 of Relative deprivation and Social Comparison: The Ontario Symposium, edited by J.M. Olson, C.P. Herman, and M.P. Zanna, 33–55. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

9.

Foster, M.D., and K. Matheson. 1999. “Perceiving and Responding to the Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 1319–1329.

10.

Gamson, W.A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Hahm, ChaiBong. 2008. “South Korea’s Miraculous Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 19.3: 18–142.

12.

Hyundae Research Institute (Hyeondae gyeongje yeonguwon). 2017. Uri nara sahoe sinnoedo-wa gongjeongseong-e daehan insik-gwa sisajeom (Perceptions of Social Trust and Fairness in Our Country and the Implications), http://hri.co.kr/upload/publication/201610516547[1].pdf.

13.

Jang, Hoon. 2017. “Chotbul-ui jeongchi-wa minjujuui iron: hyeonsil-gwa iron, sasilgwa gachi-ui ginjang-gwa gyunhyeong” (Politics of Candlelight Protest and Democratic Theories in Korea). Uijeong yeongu (Journal of Legislative Studies)51.2: 38–66.

14.

Jasper, James M. 1998. “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in and around Social Movements.” Sociological Forum 13.3: 397–424.

15.

Jo, Hui-jeong. 2017. “Hanguk ollain jeongchi keomyunikeisyeon-ui uimi-wa yeonghyangnyeok—ilsang-ui chotbuljiphoe, ollain chamyeo” (Meaning and Influence of Online Political Communication in Korea). KISO Jeoneol (KISO Journal) 26, http://journal.kiso.or.kr/?p=8003.

16.

Kang, WooJin. 2017. “87-nyeon cheje-wa chotbul simin hyeongmyeong: Hanguk minjujuui-ui jeonhwan” (The 1987 Political System and the 2017 Citizen’s Revolution: Transformation of Korean Democracy). Jeongchi bipyeong (Critique of Politics) 10.1: 47–86.

17.

Keane, John. 2009. The Life and Death of Democracy. New York: W.W. Norton &Company.

18.

Keane, John. 2017. “The Cherry Blossom Uprising: Monitory Democracy in Korea.” The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/the-cherry-blossom-uprisingmonitory-democracy-in-korea-74427.

19.

Klandermans, Bert. 1984. “Mobilization and Participation: Social-psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory.” American Sociological Review 49.5: 583–600.

20.

Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell.

21.

Klandermans, Bert. 2014. “Identity Politics and Politicized Identities: Identity Processes and the Dynamics of Protest.” Political Psychology 35.1: 1–22.

22.

Klandermans, Bert, et al. 2014. “Mobilization Without Organization: The Case of Unaffiliated Demonstrators.” European Sociological Review 30.6: 702–716.

23.

Lee, Francis. 2010. “The Perceptual Bases of Collective Efficacy and Protest Participation: The Case of Pro-Democracy Protests in Hong Kong.”International Journal of Public Opinion Research 22.3: 392–411.

24.

Lee, Jiho. 2017. “‘Park Geun-hye chotbul,’ nuga wae chamyeohaenna: chamyeo haengdong mohyeong-gwa chamyeo taedo mohyeong-ui bigyo” (Who Participated in the 2017 Candle Light Protest and Why?). Hanguk jeongchi yeongu (Studies in Korean Politics) 26.2: 75–103.

25.

Lee, Jiho, et al. 2017. Tanhaek gwangjang-ui an gwa bak: chotbul minsim gyeongheom bunseok (Inside and Outside of the Agora for Impeachment). Seoul:Chaekdam.

26.

Mummendey, A. et al. 1999. “Strategies to Cope with Megative Social Identity:Predictions by Social Identity Theory and Relative Deprivation Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76.2: 229–245.

27.

Polletta, F. 2009. “Grievances and Identities.” Paper presented at the Conference on Advancements in Social Movement Theories, Amsterdam, September 30–October 2.

28.

Postmes, T. et al. 1999. “Comparative Processes in Personal and Group Judgments:Resolving the Discrepancy.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:320–338.

29.

Rothmund, Tobias et al. 2016. “The Psychology of Social Justice in Political Thought and Action.” In Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research, edited by Clara Sabbagh and Manfred Schmitt, 275–329. Springer: New York.

30.

Runciman, W.G. 1966. Relative Deprivation and Social Justice. London: Routledge.

31.

Sabucedo, José-Manuel, et al. 2017. “Comparing Protests and Demonstrators in times of Austerity: Regular and Occasional Protesters in Universalistic and Particularistic Mobilisations.” Social Movement Studies 16.6: 704–720.

32.

Simon, B., and B. Klandermans. 2001. “Politicized Collective Identity: A Social Psychological Analysis.” American Psychologist 56.4: 319–331.

33.

Sogang University. 2016a. Chosbuljibhoe chamgaja seolmunjosa (Candlelight Participant Survey) by Hyeondaejeongchiyeonguso (Modern Political Research Institute).

34.

Sogang University. 2016b. Naeilsinmun 2017nyeon sinnyeon gihoeg yeolonjosa (New Year Planned Opinion Survey in 2017 of Naeil Newspaper) by Hyeondaejeongchiyeonguso (Modern Political Research Institute).

35.

Stekelenburg, Jacquelien van, and Bert Klandermans. 2007. “Individuals in Movements: A Social Psychology of Contention.” In The Handbook of Social Movements across Disciplines, edited by Bert Klandermans and C.M. Roggeband, 157–204. New York: Springer.

36.

Stekelenburg, Jacquelien van, and Bert Klandermans. 2013. “The Social Psychology of Protest.” Current Sociology 61.5–6: 886–905.

37.

Stekelenburg, Jacquelien van, and Bert Klandermans. 2017. “Individuals in Movements: A Social Psychology of Contention.” In The Handbook of Social Movements across Disciplines, edited by Bert Klandermans and C.M. Roggeband, 103–139. New York: Springer International Publishing.

38.

Stouffer, S.A. et al. 1949. The American Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life. Vol. 1of Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. Priceton, NJ: Princeton University press.

39.

Subašić, Emina et al. 2008. “The Political Solidarity Model of Social Change:Dynamics of Self-Categorization in Intergroup Power Relations.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 12.4: 330–352.

40.

Tajfel, H., and J.C. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worchel and W.G. Austin, 33–47. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

41.

Toejin haengdong (Civil Organization of Citizen Action for the Resignation of PGH). 2018. Vols. 1 and 2 of Park Geun-hye jeonggwon toejin chotbul-ui girok (A Record of the Candlelight Movement against the Park Guen-hye government). Civil Organization of Citizens’ Action for the Resignation of PGH, White Paper Team.

42.

Tyler, T.R., and H.J. Smith. 1998. “Social Justice and Social Movements.” In Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by D. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 595–629. New York: McGraw-Hill.

43.

Walgrave, Stefaan, et al. 2013. “Why Do People Protest? Comparing Demonstrators’Motives Across Issues and Nations.” In vol. 33 of Media, Movements, and Political Change, edited by Jennifer Earl and Deana A. Rohlinger. Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

44.

Zolberg, Aristide R. 1972. “Moment of Madness.” Politics and Society 2.2: 183–207.

45.

Zomeren, M. van, et al. 2004. “Put Your Money where Your Mouth Is! Explaining Collective Action Tendencies through Group-based Anger and Group Efficacy.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87.5: 649–664.

46.

Zomeren, M. van, Tom Postmes, and Russell Spears. 2008. “Toward an Integrative Social Identity Model of Collective Action: a Quantitative Research Synthesis of Three Socio-psychological Perspectives.” Psychology Bulletin 34.4: 504–535.

47.

Zomeren, M. van, et al. 2011. “Can Moral Convictions Motivate the Advantaged to Challenge Social Inequality? Extending the Social Identity Model of Collective Action.”Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14.5: 735–753.

Korea Journal