1. Difference Divide and Cleavage Kevin Deegan Krause, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University

5. There are different ways to be different Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University

6. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University

11. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University

12. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Empirical Ascriptive Demographic Inertial Census Belief Values<->Attitudes Sociological Internal Surveys

14. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Empirical Ascriptive Demographic Inertial Census Institutional Behavior Political External Election Results

16. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Institutional Behavior Political External Election Results Belief Values<->Attitudes Sociological Internal Surveys

18. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Cleavage

19. Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Cleavage Difference, Divide and Cleavage?

20. Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Cleavage cleavage croatia Difference, Divide and Cleavage?

21. Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Cleavage Difference, Divide and Cleavage?

22. Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University parties croatia Difference, Divide and Cleavage?

23. Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Cleavage Cleavage Difference, Divide and Cleavage?

24. Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Cleavage Difference, Divide and Cleavage?

25. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Conflicts and controversies can arise out of a great variety of relationships in the social structure, but only a few of these tend to polarize the politics of any given system. There is a hierarchy of cleavage bases in each system and these orders of political primacy not only vary among polities, but also tend to undergo changes over time. Such differences and changes in the political weight of sociocultural cleavages set fundamental problems for comparative research: When is region, language, or ethnicity most likely to prove polarizing? When will class take the primacy and when will denominational commitments and religious identities prove equally important cleavage bases? Which sets of circumstances are most likely to favour accommodations of such oppositions within parties and in which circumstances are they more apt to constitute issues between the parties? Which types of alliances tend to maximize the strain on the polity and which ones help to integrate it? Conflicts and controversies in great variety only a few tend to polarize Which circumstances favor accomodation? Which constitute “issues”? Which alliances maximize strain? Which help to integrate? region ethnicity language class Lipset and Rokkan 1967

26. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Lipset and Rokkan 1967 Regional/Ethnic Geographic Religiosity Socio-Economic Center-Periphery 16 th -17 th c. Reformation, Counter-Reformation State- Church 18 th c. National Revolutions Urban- Rural 19 th c. Industrial Revolution Owner- Worker 19 th -20 th c. Russian Revolutions Materialist-Postmaterialist 20 th c. Youth Movement, Feminism, Ecology Parochial-Cosmopolitan 20 th c. Globalization

27. Sartori’s Ladder High Extension Low Intension Low Extension High Intension Some Extension Some Intension Few characteristics Lots of cases Lots of characteristics Few cases Some characteristics Some cases Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University

28. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Up-Ladder Hi-extension Mid-Ladder Down-Ladder Hi-intension Ascriptive or Value or Behavior “ Cleavage” Rae & Taylor Ascriptive and Value or Behavior “ Social Cleavage” “ Political Cleavage” “ Cleavage” Kitschelt Dalton Whitefield Ascriptive and Value And Behavior “ Structural and Political Cleavage” “ Political Cleavage” “ Cleavage” Bartolini and Mair

29. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Up-Ladder Hi-extension Mid-Ladder Down-Ladder Hi-intension Ascriptive or Value or Behavior “ Cleavage” Rae & Taylor Ascriptive and Value or Behavior Social Cleavage Political Cleavage Ascriptive and Value And Behavior Structural and Political Cleavage

30. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Up-Ladder Hi-extension Mid-Ladder Down-Ladder Hi-intension Ascriptive or Value or Behavior “ Difference” Ascriptive and Value or Behavior “ Divide” Ascriptive and Value And Behavior “ Structural and Political Cleavage” “ Political Cleavage” “ Cleavage” Bartolini and Mair

31. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Ascriptive Difference Attitudinal Difference Behavioral Difference Position Divide Issue Divide Census Divide Full Cleavage

32. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Ascriptive Difference Attitudinal Difference Behavioral Difference Position Divide Issue Divide Census Divide Full Cleavage Full Cleavage

33. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Ascriptive Difference Attitudinal Difference Behavioral Difference Position Divide Issue Divide Census Divide Full Cleavage

34. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University

35. Difference, Divide and Cleavage? Kevin Deegan-Krause, Wayne State University Ascriptive Difference Attitudinal Difference Behavioral Difference Position Divide Issue Divide Census Divide Full Cleavage Wrong

36. Limited

37. high Resemblance to “Cleavage” Politics low mass elite Level of Causal Mechanism short-term rationality personal/candidate voting collective action family socialization cleavage building personalities mass party presidentialization focus on median voter catch all strategy growing influence of courts, central banks, experts populism marginalization of parties direct democracy party system fragmentation polarized party system clientelism pillarization group/based discourse party centered electoral systems performance voting commercial media territorialization of politics Agent produced-cleavages Pure structural cleavages Pure value cleavages “ Translated” structural cleavages Subcultural and milleu parites corporatism Cleavage Rivals: Cleavages and Related Non-Cleavage Phenomena Main (but ambivalent) alternatives

38. high Resemblance to “Cleavage” Politics low mass elite Level of Causal Mechanism short-term rationality personal/candidate voting collective action family socialization cleavage building personalities mass party presidentialization focus on median voter catch all strategy growing influence of courts, central banks, experts populism marginalization of parties direct democracy party system fragmentation polarized party system clientelism pillarization group/based discourse party centered electoral systems performance voting commercial media territorialization of politics Agent produced-cleavages Pure structural cleavages Pure value cleavages “ Translated” structural cleavages Subcultural and milleu parites corporatism Cleavage Rivals: Cleavages and Related Non-Cleavage Phenomena Main institutional impediments

39. high Resemblance to “Cleavage” Politics low mass elite Level of Causal Mechanism short-term rationality personal/candidate voting collective action family socialization cleavage building personalities mass party presidentialization focus on median voter catch all strategy growing influence of courts, central banks, experts populism marginalization of parties direct democracy party system fragmentation polarized party system clientelism pillarization group/based discourse party centered electoral systems performance voting commercial media territorialization of politics Agent produced-cleavages Pure structural cleavages Pure value cleavages “ Translated” structural cleavages Subcultural and milleu parites corporatism Cleavage Rivals: Cleavages and Related Non-Cleavage Phenomena Other institutional impediments

40. high Resemblance to “Cleavage” Politics low mass elite Level of Causal Mechanism short-term rationality personal/candidate voting collective action family socialization cleavage building personalities mass party presidentialization focus on median voter catch all strategy growing influence of courts, central banks, experts populism marginalization of parties direct democracy party system fragmentation polarized party system clientelism pillarization group/based discourse party centered electoral systems performance voting commercial media territorialization of politics Agent produced-cleavages Pure structural cleavages Pure value cleavages “ Translated” structural cleavages Subcultural and milleu parites corporatism Cleavage Rivals: Cleavages and Related Non-Cleavage Phenomena Ambivalent institutional impediments

41. INSUFFICIENT

42. Identity / Values Behavior/Institutions Structure/Demographics Groupness Values Structure Particization Persistence Politicization

43. Groupness Values Structure Particization Persistence Politicization

44. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 Positional Structure A Framework             = 

45. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 Temporal Structure A Framework =  t=1  t=2

46. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 ++ Temporal Stability -- Positional Stability ++ -- A Framework

47. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 ++ Temporal Stability -- Positional Stability ++ -- Freezing Cleavage Dealignment Realignment A Framework

48. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 A Framework Values Group Consciousness Socio- Demographics

49. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 A Framework Political System Party Bloc Party

50. Cleavages@ - Enyedi and Deegan Krause, APSA 2008 A Framework