the emergence of the accidental citizen; implications for political marketing

This article was downloaded by: [Knihovna Univerzity Palackeho]On: 22 April 2012, At: 01:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Political MarketingPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplm20

The Emergence of the “AccidentalCitizen”: Implications for PoliticalMarketingRichard Scullion aa Bournemouth University, Poole, UK

Available online: 20 Nov 2010

To cite this article: Richard Scullion (2010): The Emergence of the “Accidental Citizen”: Implicationsfor Political Marketing, Journal of Political Marketing, 9:4, 276-293

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2010.518062

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2010.518062

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Emergence of the ‘‘Accidental Citizen’’:Implications for Political Marketing

RICHARD SCULLIONBournemouth University, Poole, UK

The central argument developed in this paper is premised on thebelief that, in the life experiences of individuals, we find a messyinterface between politics and consumption, where, often uninten-tionally, we take on citizenly roles and have civic experiences inmarket spaces as consumers. Flowing from this is the emergenceof what the author calls the ‘‘accidental citizen,’’ where consumeractions increasingly contain political qualities and, just as impor-tantly, these experiences are acknowledged and reflected on assuch. The paper presents an argument that rejects the dominantdiscourse that contrasts notions of consumer and citizen. Thisposition of contrast is the established position taken in the politicalscience literature that considers citizenship predominantly interms of legalistically based relations between individuals andthe state (Offe, 1999), and, given that political marketingdeveloped as an addendum to this body of work, the view ofconsumer contrasting with citizen underpins much political mar-keting thinking too. The paper, based on more holistic interpreta-tions of the core notions of citizen and consumer, providesexamples that illustrate a merging of consumption and politicsin the everyday lives of individuals, positing that the accidentalcitizen can act as a catalyst for further political action, and assuch, is an important concept with widespread consequences forthe discipline of political marketing.

KEYWORDS citizen, consumer, political consumerism, politicalmarketing

Address correspondence to Richard Scullion, Media School, Bournemouth University,Talbot Campus, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Political Marketing, 9:276–293, 2010Copyright # [2010] Crown copyrightISSN: 1537-7857 print=1537-7865 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15377857.2010.518062

276

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

INTRODUCTION

Many in Western democracies are increasingly engaged in citizen-likeexperiences within market spaces, for example where issues of child laborinfluence consumer brand choice. At the same time, there has been a market-ization of the political sphere, for example, with the increased use of adver-tising and public relations agencies by political parties. As a result, thedivision between our lives as consumers and as voters has become blurred.This development has consequences for the relationship between what itmeans to be a citizen and a consumer (Beck and Beck-Gurnsheim, 2002;Bauman, 1998; Giddens, 1991). This phenomenon feeds concerns aboutelectoral engagement (Dahlgren, 2003; De Botton, 2004; Scullion, 2006).However, this paper focuses on one aspect of this relationship by consider-ing the consequences of the fusing of and the conscious connectivity ofpolitics and the consumer in the everyday lives of individuals, specificallyin terms of reappraising the boundaries and utility of political marketing asa scholarly discipline. Lilleker and Scullion’s (2008) collection of work makesa compelling case for asking such questions about the relationship betweenmarketing and political theory. The specific argument developed here is pre-mised on the belief that we find in the life experiences of individuals a messyinterface between politics and consumption, where, often unintentionally,we take on citizenly roles and have civic experiences in market spaces asconsumers. Flowing from this is the emergence of what I call the ‘‘accidentalcitizen,’’ where consumer actions increasingly contain political qualities and,just as importantly, where these experiences are acknowledged and reflectedon as such. This paper argues that this reality has important ramifications forpolitical marketing that, thus, might better be conceptualized as a hybridrather than a cross-disciplinary body of work.

First, in order to contextualize the argument, a brief outline of thegrowth of political marketing is offered. The paper then sketches out thedevelopment of the citizen-consumer relationship initially characterizedby difference and then by the dominance of the consumer. The dominantdiscourse of consumer over citizen is questioned and a hybrid position issuggested, wherein the notion of acting in a citizenly manner can survive,and at times, even thrive within consumer culture. This claim is not itselfnew: being ‘‘good consumers’’ not only has a long tradition but shouldbe considered positively, given that it generates a sense of empowerment(Schudson, 1998). Indeed, one of President Bush’s public statementsimmediately after the September 11, 2001, attacks was to ask all citizensto show their patriotism by shopping in New York. The original contri-bution of this paper is in the development of the following argument. Con-sumer and citizen are being evermore fused together in the everyday livesof individuals, often without initial intent on the part of the individual.

The Emergence of the ‘‘Accidental Citizen’’ 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Emerging from this is the idea of the accidental citizen, who can act as acatalyst for political action. This has resulted in a change in the characterof citizenship and consumption, and because of these changes contempor-ary ‘‘politics’’ should itself be reconceptualized. The paper concludes bysuggesting that if the meaning of politics and the site of political actionhave shifted, the ways we try to understand them must alter too. Finally,it offers initial thoughts on how these developments might impact politicalmarketing as a scholarly discipline.

DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL MARKETING

Historically, political marketing developed in large part as a response todealignment and related concerns about political engagement originally high-lighted in the political science literature (Heath, Jowell, and Curtice, 1988;Teixeira and Teixeira, 1992; Denver, 1997). It was an attempt to respond tothe challenges of perceived disengagement premised on the idea that market-ing is about making connections between producer and customer, and assuch, it offered new solutions in a political context (Newman, 1999; Butlerand Collins, 1999). This cross-disciplinary body of work applied both market-ing theory and sensibilities to the political domain. Political marketingscholars used concepts, tools, and language from marketing in an overtlypolitical context to help both describe events and prescribe future actions(O’Shaughnessy, 2001). Initially, interest was focused on electoral campaignstrategies (Mauser, 1983), but with the development of the permanent cam-paign (Blumenthal, 1982) it has subsequently been applied more widely.Political marketing has placed great emphasis on the communication aspectsof the marketing mix with, for example, Newman’s The Marketing of thePresident (1999) and Scammell’s Designer Politics (1995). Ideas from the cor-porate world of marketing have seeped into the political arena in the last 20years, with scholars evermore focused on strategic management issues, forexample, looking at service delivery (Butler and Collins, 2001), at mediamanagement (Negrine and Lilleker, 2003), and at the whole organizationalplanning cycle (Baines, Harris, and Lewis, 2002). Political marketing nowcovers the professional management of all aspects of political parties, frompolicy formation, internal organizational structure, external message control,mechanisms to control service delivery, and a rigorous system to collect andanalyze how the messages and policy actions are internalized by the variousstakeholders (Lilleker, Jackson, and Scullion, 2006). This development per-haps hit what some consider a nadir, others a zenith, with the bold normativeclaims of Lees-Marshment (2004), who advocates a market orientation for allpolitical actors all of the time. This call for a paradigm shift effectively seeks topreference above all else a political system designed to determine the needsand wants of the groups of electors being targeted and to then deliver on

278 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

these promises so that the customer base remains satisfied with the party’s orcandidates’ offering.

THE CITIZEN-CONSUMER RELATIONSHIP

A synoptic account of the historic development of the citizen-consumerrelationship affords critical difference to the two notions. In the politicalsciences, citizenship is predominately considered in a restricted manner asbeing about the legalistic relational arrangements between a subject andthe state (Hinich and Minger, 1997; Pattie and Seyd, 2003); thus, the focusis on appropriate entitlements and responsibilities. Marshall’s (1964) seminalwork affords citizenship with a trio of rights: personal freedom, participationin political processes, and a sharing of the benefits from societal wealth. Theconcept is considered to be something beyond individual self-determinationbecause, as Turner (2001) makes clear, the benefits of citizenship resultlargely from the collective development of a civil society. Agency is manifestthrough voice, and decision making involves due consideration to justice,equality, and the widest possible consequences. While easily seen in directopposition, the consumer is considered a free choice maker in the market(Slater, 1997), emphasis is on rights and limited obligations, agency is rea-lized through exit strategies, and choice is based on individual preference.Consumption is rooted in self-interest, while citizenship takes its inspirationfrom a regard for a broader public. The citizen is based on the trust of others,the consumer in self-reliance (Sennett, 1998). Lasch (1978) argues that thetwo positions develop different cultural values and norms. This position ofcontrast, of making rare the idea of being a citizen, is important because ithas been the established position taken in the political science literature(Hay, 2002), and given that political marketing developed as an addendumto this body of work, the view of consumer contrasting with citizen under-pins much political marketing thinking too.

More recently, the dominance of consumption over other life spheres hasemerged. Historian Lizabeth Cohen argues that people are now ‘‘bringingmarket expectations to their appraisals of the government itself . . . judging itby the personal benefits they, as segmented purchasers, judge consumerofferings’’ (2003, p. 344). The market offers the appearance of a nondiscrimi-natory structure and opportunity to express one’s agency (Edwards, 2000) andhas come to be conceptualized as a totalizing logic (Kozinets, 2001). The mar-ket’s most powerful vessels—contemporary global brands—increasingly carrymultiple meanings, allowing us a sense of autonomy (Valentine and Gordon,2000). Agency is frequently, and perhaps most tellingly, demonstrated to eachother through the autonomous choices we face andmake, as evidenced in ourconsumer culture. Our notion of free choice is well matched to market envir-onments; for example, very little consumer choice is perceived as obligatory.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Sovereignty as consumer is manifest in a sense of continually renewed powerand importance each time we make a decision. As Fitchett (2004) argues,‘‘These characteristics reassure and empower customers by providing a spacewhere they are able to exercise a greater sense of individual will and authoritythan is normally possible in other environments’’ (p. 303). Meaningful engage-ment is found in spaces where a sense of proficiency in the discourse exists, inmarkets rather than political sites (Couldry, 2004). Such views privileging con-sumer over citizen might be comforting to marketing scholars, as it suggeststhat the space they are most familiar with, the market, has increased potencyover the space they have recently moved into, politics. On the surface at least,the discourse of a marketization of politics affords credibility to the disciplineand offers confidence to those who contribute to it.

COMBINING NOTIONS OF CITIZEN AND CONSUMER

In this paper, I have taken a sociocultural view of citizenship, beyond theidea of ‘‘political man’’ (Rieff, 1966), better described as ‘‘active citizenship’’(Pattie and Seyd, 2003), where participation in public spheres includes intenton the betterment of society (Hay, 2002). While acknowledging the softnessof the concept of consumer (Gabriel and Lang, 1995), in this paper I use theterm to mean the burgeoning spheres of life where—to paraphrase the socialtheories of Bauman (1992), Beck (1992), and Giddens (1991)—we definemuch of who we are, think we are, and want to be through our practicesof acquiring ‘‘goods’’ in the market. Taking this perspective, it is not surpris-ing that scholars have begun to adopt what might be called a hybrid position,where we look beyond difference to understand the nuanced relationshipbetween citizen and consumer. Many of the contributions in Lilleker andScullion’s edited book Voters or Consumers (2008) point to some form ofcoalescing, with Kesteloot, De Vries, and De Landtsheer linking personaliza-tion of politics to brand personality, Jackson claiming there is a ‘‘collapsing ofboundaries’’ (p. 153) between genres of political and entertainment news,and Scammell reporting that voters attitudes are indeed shaped by their con-sumer experiences. Clarke (2004) articulates several ways in which consumerand citizen may coalesce; each alters the traditional view of citizenship and ofconsumption. The first is citizen as consumer, where what one has come tounderstand and expect as a private consumer ought to be extended to all lifespheres. Next is consumers as multiple-identity holders, including that ofcitizen, indicating that we can choose when and where to act as a citizen,thus changing in quite fundamental ways what the notion means. Finally,he articulates the notion of consumers as not acting like a consumer, suggest-ing that what matters to us when we engage in consumption goes wellbeyond self-interest and rational choice: consumption as a social and culturalact. These articulations combine elements from both originally distinct

280 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

concepts. Miles agrees with this combined conceptualization by arguing that‘‘consumerism offers apparently democratic value structures’’ (1998, p. 10).Here the apparent freedom through our choice making is equated to demo-cratic values. Being a citizen is now equated with being a socially aware,responsible consumer who ‘‘thinks ahead and tempers her decisions bysocial awareness . . . and who must occasionally be prepared to sacrifice per-sonal pleasure to communal well-being’’ (Gabriel and Lang, 1995, p. 175).Thus, we start to witness a merging of consumer literacy with political liter-acy. Connections between consumer choices and their potential wider socialconsequences are now part of the prevailing discourse. Follesdal (2004)offers examples of political consumption ranging from personally orienteddecisions not to be involved in certain practices (e.g., the eating of meat)through to collectively oriented acts that attempt to change other actors’beliefs and practices (e.g., protesting outside livestock establishments).‘‘Consumer choice is a tool for political progress’’ (Micheletti, Follesdal,and Stolle, 2004, p. 289). The market has appeal as a space for political acts,since it is ‘‘open for everyone, low cost [offering] individuali[z]ed engage-ment’’ (Micheletti et al., 2004, p. xxiv). Consumption, then, is a political sitebecause it is where preference can be and frequently is expressed. As Arnoldand Thompson (2005) argue, there is much evidence pointing to theatres ofconsumption as emancipatory spaces where the consumer makes a criticalcontribution to what happens. That is not to say that consumption alwayshas this purpose or indeed that consumers have to be fully aware of thepolitical dimensions of their practices.

THE EMERGENCE OF THE ACCIDENTAL CITIZEN

A situation has begun to emerge that might be characterized as ‘‘politics-lite,’’rooted in being a consumer-citizen, rather than politics-heavy, rooted in beinga citizen-consumer. Andersen and Tobiasen (2004) found that a political ges-ture in the market is attractive, as it is quick, easy, and accessible and offers avisible output. As Eliosoph (1998) illustrates, consumption acts can connect usto politics without requiring us to adopt a traditional citizenly role. Thus, frombuying healthy options for your child’s lunch, the lack of a sports field at theirschool may emerge as salient and you become involved in a longer-termpoliticized action. Rather than denying citizenship, being a consumer canoffer outlets where actions and decisions take on civic qualities and can leadus to consider broader public issues, in essence the accidental citizen. Manypoliticized consumer acts require a high degree of coordination andcooperation; hence, in consumption there is often a requirement for a bond-ing and recognition of mutuality of benefit in order to succeed—in otherwords, a civic-ness. The market as a site for political discourse and action isnot new, what is different is the shift in the perceived location of power from


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

public to market sphere, and our awareness of this change contributes to theblurring of what it means to be a citizen and to be a consumer in contempor-ary society. This paper provides examples illustrating this merging of con-sumption and politics in the everyday lives of individuals, which reinforcesthe argument that the accidental citizen has important consequences for thoseinvestigating contemporary politics.

EVERYDAY EXPERIENCES THAT MERGE OUR ROLE ASCONSUMER AND CITIZEN

The market increasingly treats us as a consumer-citizen, for example,Bennett’s notion of the ‘‘supermarket state’’ affords brands politicized quali-ties (2004). Much of this political quality remains dormant; however, itremains; the consumer and brand owner know that they can activate it. Attimes a brand’s political potency is revealed, for example, the ‘‘tall-poppy’’syndrome is increasingly applied to brands that represent icons of capitalistsuccess and so ‘‘stand out,’’ while groups who seek societal change attackand subvert the advertising messages of consumer brands that have cometo represent a certain lifestyle. In addition, sections of society come to bedefined by their consumption patterns, e.g., the Pink Pound and DINK’s.At the same time, brands increasingly use politicized market positioning,for example, eco labelling, philanthropic acts, and ethical productionprocesses. Politicized agency is thus inadvertently offered to consumersand producers as a result of the contemporary importance afforded tobrands. Brand owners have also added civic qualities to consumer choicewith their plethora of calls to demonstrate our ethical, green, wise, and moralstance through what and how we consume. It is increasingly hard not to facepolitical choices as we make our way down the supermarkets aisles or driveinto the gas station to fill up. Making consumer choices with overtly ethicaldimensions may in itself be no more than another criterion some individualsuse to decide which brand best suits their lifestyle. However, it may indirectlyseep into politics by broadening people’s concerns and produce connectionsbetween this sphere and such issues as power, equality, and the way societyis organized. It may add another layer to our consumer sovereignty . . . allow-allowing us to feel that we are good citizens through being wise consumers.As Gabriel and Lang (1995) point out, buying into the rhetoric of the rationalautonomous consumer sustains the hegemony of pluralist liberal democracyitself rooted in a capitalist economic system (Ewen, 1992). Scammell’s (2003)notion of ‘‘beautiful corporations’’ is pertinent here. It places considerableresponsibility on the consumer, who should demand this beautification inorder to continue the buyer=seller relationship. The growth of the brandowner’s wishing to occupy an authentic positioning exposes the consumerto its corporate roots and reveals its history. No longer are we just buying

282 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

the product but also its ethos, its processes, and its stance in the world, thusaffording consumption yet more of a political quality. Brands that are movingtoward greater transparency—part of their quest for authenticity—inadver-tently invite consumers to take on the role of social and ethical critic too.Our expanded knowledge of brands and their corporate position on, forexample, equal rights for gay and lesbian employees or their involvementin ‘‘sweatshop’’ practices and our ability to differentiate market offeringsbased on such political positions mean our consumer choices take on a citi-zenly quality. Zwick, Denegree-Knott, and Schroder (2007) demonstrate thatparticipation in the stock market can generate a ‘‘politicization’’ of investors.Their online buying and selling of personal shares becomes the site of‘‘reflexive, socially responsible, and moral consumer behavior’’ (p. 181). Thisis an example of the market connecting individuals to the wider global polit-ical sphere. The very nature of the mediated discourse reinforces this senseof consumer-citizen in which the two are so intertwined as to be practicablyinseparable. Here, for the sake of brevity, I offer a few recent examples illus-trating how political issues are portrayed as consumer choices.

‘‘Power to the People’’ ran the front-page headline of the Independentnewspaper on February 23, 2007. The story argued how what it calledconsumer militancy was beginning to challenge the power of both thestate and big business. It cited consumers demanding bank charges bereduced through to football supporters boycotting games in protest at highprices.

‘‘Hold the Government to Account for Its Spending at the Click of aButton,’’ runs an article in the Daily Telegraph (2006). It talks of a Con-servative party proposal that would require the Treasury to set up and runa Web site offering details of all spending over £25,000. The implicationis clear: holding our elected representatives to account through personalscrutiny of individual project expenditure is at least as worthy as moretraditional civic methods of engagement.

A speaker on ‘‘Thought for the Day’’ (Today programme, BBC radio 4October 24, 2007) while discussing the issue of abortion talked of society’s‘‘corporate responsibility’’ to raise such a controversial issue, equating thepublic sphere directly with what happens in market spaces.

In relation to global climate change, we see choice through themarket as offering a potential solution. The idea of joining a car clubis positioned as a green alternative to buying a car (Guardian, 2006).We are asked to consider making a switch from traditional ownershipto a form of car-sharing on the basis that for a surprising number ofpeople it makes sound financial sense to do so.

A press advertising campaign ran in 2008 by CIS Insurance pledgesto ‘‘carbon offset,’’ the implications are clear—by choosing this brand ofcar insurance consumers can feel like they have reduced their carsemissions by 20 percent ‘‘at no extra cost to you,’’ as the copy in the adgoes on to say.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Collectively, these examples, drawn from everyday mediated experi-ences, serve to not only support the concept of the accidental citizen but alsoreject both the arguments that emphasise unbridgeable differences betweenconsumer and citizen and those arguments preferencing one over the other.Neither such viewpoint takes sufficient account of contemporary life experi-ences, where the roles we play out and spaces we occupy inevitably interactand coalesce and where distinctions are increasingly blurred (Couldry, 2005;Scullion, 2006). A crucial outcome of this fusing of consumer and citizen isgreater transparency; we increasingly see and experience the connections—the politics of being a consumer—and so they shape what it means to live incontemporary society.

THE ACCIDENTAL CITIZEN AS CATALYST FORPOLITICIZED AGENCY

To help understand whether the accidental citizen has the potential to act asa catalyst for deliberate political actions, I turn to social theories of Giddens(1991, 1998, 2002) and Bauman (1992, 1998), considered leading scholars inrelating consumption and politics. Both are valuable here because they dem-onstrate how the idea of self-identity is part of a move away from a forensicor, for Ginzburg (1980), a political identity, to one rooted in psychology andsociology. Central to Giddens’ theory is the idea of reflexivity, where we havean appreciation that social circumstances are not separate from our personallife. We knowingly participate in a continuous endeavor to establish a senseof our lives through a narrative of the self, or what Giddens calls chronicrevision. This continuous surveillance can be manifest in a pervasive skepti-cism, but it can also mean we develop a clearer sense of links between thevarious life spheres we occupy. He notes how ‘‘the notion of public has beensequestrated by ‘electorate,’ consequently increasing the areas of life open togeneral scrutiny’’ (Giddens, 1991, p. 152). This has led to a heightenedawareness and salience that our personal lives are wrapped up with globalperils. In essence, we have a greater appreciation of how self and otherare meshed together. It is in this way that he argues modern individualizationis not a subversive force for the political sphere; instead it leads to the possi-bility of emancipatory ‘‘life politics,’’ where our autonomous decisions abouthow we want to structure our lives take account of the presence of a connec-tion ‘‘from person to planet’’ (Giddens, 1991, p. 122). In other words, ourindividual decisions are shaped by the perceived impact they will have onothers and on the type of society we wish to be part of, and in this way atleast they are considered to have a political or citizenly quality to them.Bauman talks of contemporary life guided by a consumer ethic where‘‘consumer . . . stands for production, distribution, desiring, obtaining, andusing . . . symbolic goods’’ (1992, p. 223). Not only is he arguing that our

284 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

identity is now based on being consumers but he is also positing thatconsumption has come to embrace concerns such as working conditionsand class membership that would once have been considered, if not exclus-ively then largely, in the political domain, for us to ponder as citizens. Pels(2003) and Cohen (2003) suggest the political sphere itself has began toadapt to this context. They point to the growing convergence betweenpopular culture and politics, arguing that ideology is being replaced withpersonalized, emotionalized lifestyle choices in the political sphere. ToCorner (2003), we are witnessing increasingly personalized and aestheticpolitics. A shift toward a citizenship of selective belonging is detected byPlummer (2003), based on intimate group membership, for example, typesof family preferences, sexuality, and other personal lifestyle choices. In theseways, areas of our personal lives are increasingly considered to have a directimpact on the political domain.

Understanding the notion of the accidental citizen through this literatureis of value because the experience of such a condition may generate whatanthropologist Victor Turner calls ‘‘liminal moments’’ (1982) where thoughtsand desires turn toward radical change. That is to say that having politicizedexperiences in the market and reflecting on these may create a space wherethe normal rules and patterns of thinking and acting are temporarily sus-pended. One outcome of this is a greater sense of individual political agency,to recognize the ability of actors to ‘‘transform both the environment and thelaws guiding that environment’’ (Hay, 2002, p. 53). Here we should not takethe word law only in its literal sense; Hay is referring to the routines andcustoms that shape political practice. Inglehart (1997) argues that a set of‘‘post-materialist’’ values is emerging in late capitalism. Increased affluenceand comfort, as a result of capitalist success in providing consumptionopportunities, is creating a set of attitudes that partly reject the ethos of con-stant acquisition. Some consumers are choosing to consume less in order toincrease their perceived quality of life. ‘‘Voluntary simplifiers,’’ by renounc-ing the ‘‘more is always better’’ mantra are, in part, demonstrating a searchfor an ‘‘enhanced’’ society and in the process revealing a degree of‘‘civic-ness’’ (Shaw, Newholm, and Dickinson, 2006). Others argue thatreflexive consumers are resisting the control of the capitalist enterprise, bydint of their recognition of the banality involved in the routine practices ofbuying, using, and replenishing (Shankar, Whittaker, and Fitchett, 2006).The indifference they feel, and the insignificant cultural meaning they attri-bute to consumption, leaves a void. Contained within the bored and theskeptical consumer are the seeds of the market’s reduced authority, becausetheir relationship to consumption is characterized by a degree of questioning,even denial, of the dominant code of conduct for being a consumer. Here,rejection of the market’s grand claims may often occur without any obviousresort to active opposition. However, if more consumers reject the promo-tional hyperbole and come to see market spaces simply as one, often tedious,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

facet of their lives, its dominance is diminished. As Benjamin’s concept ofboredom as ennui demonstrates, it opens up ‘‘an opportunity for criticalreflection in the crowded spaces’’ of our lives (cited in Moran, 2003, p.172). Thus, what may start out as a phenomenon devoid of too much polit-ical character—the accidental citizen described earlier—has the potency toact as a catalyst to undermine the ‘‘command of the commodity’’ inherentin capitalism by creating room for us to open our minds to alternative modesof structuring our lives. Warde views consumption in terms of belonging toloose groupings where we select our own mode of structures and patterns.‘‘Most authors would suggest there has been a decline in ‘the spirit of disci-pline’ in the sphere of consumption’’ (2002, p. 64). This ‘‘informalization’’leads to reduced conformity toward patterns of thought and behavior inthe consumer sphere, which may be feeding the skepticism, even cynicism,now commonplace in the political sphere. However, as Warde (2002) goeson to argue, ‘‘imagined communities’’ within consumption have emergedwhere a self-imposed sense of regulation has established codes of appropri-ateness. A single dominant way of being a consumer is replaced with manyways of being a consumer as we form and develop ties with pseudo-tribes,from ‘‘Goths’’ and ‘‘Greens’’ through to ‘‘Surfers’’ and ‘‘Active Greys.’’ Many inthese pseudo-tribes are bound by the positions they hold regarding issuesthat have clear political dimensions, such as a desire to buy locally sourcedgoods, a concern about advertisements that target children, a belief thatbusiness practice lacks an ethical compass, or a growing reluctance toaccumulate material goods. Political agency—individuals feeling able tocontribute to shaping the kind of society they wish to be part of—is thusrealized through the weak ties and stronger relationships developed withinthe marketplace.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACCIDENTAL CITIZEN FORPOLITICAL MARKETING

Political marketing needs to begin taking full account of the wider implica-tions of marketized politics and politicized consumption, as, for example,economic theory has started to consider full costs in balance sheets thatnow include environmental expenses of proposed actions. In this last partof the paper, I outline some of those wider implications stemming fromthe emergence of the accidental citizen for political marketing. Consideredindividually, they may appear little more than of peripheral interest; I believethey collectively present significant challenges to the discipline if it is todevelop further scholarly relevance.

If markets are amoral (Slater, 1997) the kind of consumerist politicalbehavior manifest through the accidental citizen might be seen to replacean ethical basis for decision making with individual and highly personal

286 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

criteria. Indeed, some argue any conflation of the two concepts destroys theessence of being a citizen (Savigny, 2008). Sullivan (1994) argues that, asmoral beings, we need to ask whether this governing market, where weare at best, occasional accidental citizens, is or can offer a sufficiently ethicalbase. For example, the growth of private child care provision, consideredfrom a market perspective, is seen as serving a need and consequently is aform of the market acting in a responsive manner. However, it does not ques-tion why this need for child care has grown or ask whether it should beallowed to grow, nor does it raise concerns about possible broader societalconsequences of serving that need. It simply asks whether the serving ofthe need can be met profitably. Political marketing needs to broaden itsconsideration to these types of ethical issues by overtly acknowledging thatthe more normative aspects of the discipline are grounded in the ideology ofmarket liberalism.

Meritocracy and efficiency within the market may offer a response toconcerns about retaining values of a democratic character in the contempor-ary consumer-citizen landscape. Meritocracy can be viewed as the practicalmanifestation of an abstract desire for equality—as equality of opportunity,where one’s voice is based on the effort one is willing to make. Rose’s ideaof the ‘‘enterprising self’’ (1999) resonates here, where in contemporaryculture we recognize it is our own responsibility to become and make ofourselves what we can. Rather than consumerism undermining the majesticcollective ideals of citizenship by crushing the critical faculties of individualsas citizens in favor of individuals as shoppers (Bauman, 2008), the idea of theaccidental citizen located in and through the market indicates that they arenot passive, compliant, or lacking a sociological imagination in their con-sumption choices. For some consumers, then, especially those who have aparticular personal values orientation, they are using their analytical talentsand their economic power to achieve political reform in 21st-century consu-merist society. Meritocracy and efficiency may also be a relevant response toconcerns about a lack of democratic value in market spheres if they are con-sidered virtuous in and of themselves and if we recognize that there is muchinequality of voice in the democratic political sphere, for example, in termsof social capital (Putman, 2000). Edwards (2000) asks whether a meritocraticconsumer society is a way of overcoming or hiding issues of politicalempowerment and equality. By privileging our choice-making capacitywithin consumption rather than in the political sphere, are we looking forsolutions or opting out of the search? Political marketing needs to embracesuch challenging questions. With regard to considering efficiency as embrac-ing an ethical dimension, many—no longer just those on the political right—do attach moral worth to arguments that posit the market as the best way todeliver material benefits to the majority (Buchanan, 1985; Sen, 1999). Acommon concern about this position is articulated by Miller (1997), whocontends that it is no longer in the alienated workspaces but in the modern


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

consumer landscapes where the dialectical contradiction of capitalism islocated. Miller is thus arguing that our decision to preference the widest poss-ible choice in our consumption sphere determines production imperativeselsewhere in the world. Consumers who opt for the cheapest are in effectsupporting the existing economic system. Efficiency can accordingly be con-sidered a rhetorical device used by those who possess power as a way ofretaining power. Those in positions of authority determine how the notionitself is defined and measured. Thus, efficiency is manifest through ROIand shareholder value rather than, for example, through the extent ofequality or cooperation achieved.

The conception of ‘‘audience’’ is also called into question with thismerging of market and political spheres. Those who help to craft politicalmessages need to recognize that there is less certainty in distinguishingbetween what is and is not considered ‘‘political.’’ This means accepting aloss of control because it is the electorate who ascribe the political elementsof their experiences, not the political classes. In other words, what is deemedto be part of the political domain is increasingly and knowingly determinedby individuals who perceive that most of their lives occur outside the tra-ditional political sphere. Consequently, any messages that are developedto be only political or only commercial may be rejected because they donot reflect the audience’s reality, where a sense of connectivity betweenthem as consumers and them as citizens is ever more recognised. Severalstudies of recent political advertising campaigns suggest that a commerciali-zation and marketization is taking place with such messages (Scammell,1999; Scullion and Dermody, 2005; Negrine, Mancini, Holtz-Bacah, andPapathanassopoulos, 2007). On the surface, this might be considered anappropriate response to the changing context outlined in this paper. How-ever, such consumer messages used in a traditional political context (i.e.,elections) might be contributing to a reduced civic quality within politicaldiscourse because they fail to reflect the audience’s reality, where marketsand politics are knowingly co-constituted. Continued fixation with electionsand set-piece traditional political occasions seems to be a self-imposed andunnecessary restriction on the discipline.

A final implication offered here for political marketing to consideris market-driven and politically driven social change. Millions of individ-ual consumers can change their behavior in similar ways, for example,moving from landlines to mobile phones only. Public debate and somekind of majority decision can effect political change, for example,banning smoking in public buildings. Some, such as Mouffe (1993),argue that these are qualitatively different, with consumer-driven changelacking what he calls symbolic dimensions. Given the fusing that theaccidental citizen concept suggests between political and consumerspheres, careful consideration needs to be afforded to the significanceof this difference.

288 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, I have argued that there are many unintended political conse-quences flowing from the actions of consumers. Importantly, often ‘small-scale’ consumer actions can inadvertently trigger wider politicized action.The accidental citizen helps us to understand that the two notions—con-sumer and citizen—do not only and always have to be seen as diametricallyopposed. As Gabriel and Lang (1995) argue, such polar views arise as a resultof a mixture of ‘‘golden age’’ syndrome and ideological motivation. The pre-vailing discourse sees the rise of one—consumerism—at the expense of theother—citizenship. Here, that view has been contested by suggesting that theactual life experience of individuals reveals a messier interface where we,often unintentionally, take on citizenly roles in market spaces and that ourconsumer experiences contain civic qualities. In essence, the claim is thatin the age of the reflexive individual, our life spheres are more evidentlyand knowingly merged together, our consuming and ‘‘politicking’’ are intri-cately linked in ways that are fashioned by our reactions to the contexts weface. Political marketing has responded, but only partially, to this reality bylinking marketing theory with mainstream political activity; it may be ableto contribute more to our collective understanding if it makes efforts to fusemarketing and political theory in order to take fuller account of a contextwhere marketing in any sphere of life is political and where many acts withpolitical meaning are now found outside its traditional sphere—in marketspaces.

REFERENCES

Andersen, J. and M. Tobiasen. (2004). Who are these political consumers anyway?Survey evidence from Denmark. In M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal, and D. Stolle(Eds.), Politics, products and Markets. Exploring political consumerism pastand present. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Anon. (2006, September 8). Is it worth joining a car club? Guardian.Arnold, E. and C. Thompson. (2005). Consumer culture theory (CCT): Twenty years

of research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.Baines, P., P. Harris, and B. Lewis. (2002). The political marketing planning process:

Improving image and message in strategic target areas. Marketing Intelligenceand Planning, 20(1), 6–14.

Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of postmodernity. London: Routledge.Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. New York: Columbia

University Press.Bauman, Z. (2008). Exit homo politicus, enter homo consumens. In K. Soper and

F. Trentmann (Eds.), Citizenship and consumption. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Beck, U. and E. Beck-Gurnsheim. (2002). Individualization. Institutionalizedindividualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.

Bennett, W. (2004). Branded political communication: Lifestyle politics, Logocampaigns, and the rise of global citizenship. In M. Micheletti, A. Follesdal,and D. Stolle (Eds.), The politics behind products. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-action Books.

Blumenthal, S. (1982). The permanent campaign: Inside the world of elite politicaloperatives. Boston: Beacon Press.

Buchanan, A. (1985). Ethics, efficiency and the market. Totowa, NJ: Rowman &Allanheld.

Butler, P. and N. Collins. (1999). A conceptual framework for political marketing. InB. Newman (Ed.), Handbook of political marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Butler, P. and N. Collins. (2001). Payment on delivery: Recognising constituencyservice as political marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35(9=10),1026–1037.

Clarke, J. (2004). Creating citizen-consumers: The trajectory of an identity. Paperpresented at CASCA Annual Conference, London, Ontario, May.

Cohen, L. (2003). A consumer’s republic: The politics of mass consumption inpostwar America. New York: A. Knopf.

Corner, J. (2003). Mediated persona and political culture. In J. Corner and D. Pels(Eds.), Media and the restyling of politics. London: Sage.

Couldry, N. (2004). The productive ‘consumer’ and the dispersed ‘citizen’ inter-national. Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(21), 21–32.

Couldry, N. (2005). Culture and citizenship: The missing link? European Journal ofCultural Studies, 9(3), 321–340.

Dahlgren, P. (2003). Reconfiguring civic culture in the new media milieu. In J. Cornerand D. Pels (Eds.), Media and the restyling of politics. London: Sage.

De Botton, A. (2004). Status anxiety. London: Penguin.Denver, D. (1997). Dealignment vindicated: The 1997 general election. Politics

Review, 9(4), 18–27.Edwards, T. (2000). Contradictions of consumption. Concepts, practices and politics

in consumer society. Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday

life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ewen, S. (1992). From citizen to consumer? Intermedia, 20(3), 22–23.Fitchett, J. (2004). The fantasies, orders and roles of sadistic consumption: Game shows

and the service encounter. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 7(4), 285–306.Follesdal, A. (2004). Political consumerism as chance and challenge. In M. Micheletti,

A. Follesdal, and D. Stolle (Eds.), Politics, products and markets. Exploringpolitical consumerism past and present. New York: Transaction Publishers.

Gabriel, Y. and T. Lang. (1995). The unmanageable consumer. London: Sage.Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern

age. Cambridge: Polity.Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge:

Polity Press.Giddens, A. (2002). Introduction. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash. Reflexive

modernisation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

290 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Ginzburg, C. (1980). Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and scientificmethod. History Workshop, 9.

Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis. A critical introduction. Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave.

Heath, A., R. Jowell, and J. Curtice. (1988). Class dealignment and the explanation ofpolitical change: A reply to Dunleavy. West European Politics, X1, 146–148.

Hinich, M. and M. Minger. (1997). Analytical politics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernisation and post modernisation: Cultural, economic andpolitical change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Jackson, D. (2008). Citizens, consumers and the demands of market-driven news. InD. Lilleker and R. Scullion (Eds.), Voters or consumers: Imagining the contem-porary electorate. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kesteloot, S., P. De Vries, and C. De Landtsheer. (2008). Branding the mayor:Introducing political consumerism in Belgian municipal elections. In D. Lillekerand R. Scullion (Eds.), Voters or consumers: Imagining the contemporaryelectorate. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kozinets, R. (2001). Utopian enterprise: Articulating the meaning of Star Trek’sculture of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 67–88.

Lasch, C. (1978). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishingexpectations. New York: Norton.

Lees-Marshment, J. (2004). The political marketing revolution: Transforming thegovernment of the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lilleker, D., N. Jackson, and R. Scullion. (Eds). (2006). The marketing of political par-ties: Political marketing at the 2005 British general election. Manchester:Manchester Univerity Press.

Lilleker, D. and R. Scullion. (2008). Voters or consumers: Imagining the contempor-ary electorate. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Marshall, T. (1964). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mauser, G. (1983). Political marketing. An approach to campaign strategy. NewYork: Praeger.

Micheletti, M., A. Follesdal, and D. Stolle (Eds.). (2004). Politics, products and mar-kets. Exploring political consumerism past and present. New York: TransactionPublishers.

Miles, S. (1998). Consumerism as a way of life. London: Sage.Miller, D. (1997). Consumption and its consequences. In H. Mackay (Ed.), Consump-

tion and everyday life. London: Sage.Moran, J. (2003). Benjamin and boredom. Critical Quarterly, 45(1–2), 168–181.Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. London: Verso.Negrine, R., P. Mancini, C. Holtz-Bacah, and S. Papathanassopoulos (Eds.). (2007).

The professionalisation of political communication. Bristol, UK: Intellect.Negrine, R. and D. Lilleker, D. (2003). The professionalisation of media-based

campaigning in Britain 1966–2001: The rise of a proactive local media strategyin British political communication: Clear continuities and evolutionary change1966–2001. Journalism Studies, 4(2), 305–323.

Newman, B. (1999). Handbook of political marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Newman, B. (1999). The marketing of the president: Political marketing as campaignstrategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Shaughnessy, N. (2001). Towards an ethical framework for political marketing.Journal of Psychology and Marketing, 19(12), 1079–1094.

Offe, C. (1999). How can we trust our fellow citizens? In M. Warren (Ed.), Democracyand trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pattie, C. and P. Seyd. (2003). Citizenship and civic engagement: Attitudes andbehaviour in Britain. Political Studies, 51, 443–468.

Pels, D. (2003), Aesthetic representation and political style: Re-balancing identity anddifference in media democracy. In J. Corner and D. Pels (Eds.), Media and therestyling of politics. London: Sage.

Plummer, K. (2003). Intimate citizenship. Private decisions and public dialogues.Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Putman, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of Americancommunity. New York: Touchstone.

Rieff, P. (1966). The triumph of the therapeutic. New York: Harper and Row.Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Savigny, H. (2008). The construction of the political consumer. (Or politics: What not

to consume. In D. Lilleker and R. Scullion (Eds.), Voters or consumers: Imagin-ing the contemporary electorate. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Scammel, M. (1995). Designer politics: How elections are held. Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Scammell, M. (1999). Political marketing: Lessons for political science. PoliticalStudies, 47(4), 718–739.

Scammell, M. (2003). Citizen consumer: Towards a new marketing of politics? InJ. Corner and D. Pels (Eds.), Media and the restyling of politics. London: Sage.

Scammell, M. (2008). Brand Blair: Marketing politics in the consumer age. InD. Lilleker and R. Scullion (Eds.), Voters or consumers: Imagining the contem-porary electorate. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen. A history of American civic life. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Scullion, R. (2006). Investigating electoral choice through a consumer as choose-maker lens. In D. Lilleker, N. Jackson, and R. Scullion (Eds.), The marketingof political parties. Political marketing at the 2005 British general election.Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Scullion, R. and J. Dermody. (2005). The value of party election broadcasts forelectoral engagement: A content analysis of the 2001 British general electioncampaign. International Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 345–372.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character. New York: Norton.Shankar, A., J. Whittaker, and J. Fitchett. (2006). Heaven knows I’m miserable now.

Marketing Theory, 9, 75–94.Shaw, D., T. Newholm, and R. Dickinson. (2006). Consumption as voting: An

explanation of consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing,40(9=10), 1049–1067.

Slater, D. (1997). Consumer culture and modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

292 R. Scullion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

Sullivan, R. (1994). An introduction to Kant’s ethics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Teixeira, R. and R. Teixeira. (1992). The disappearing American voter. Washington,DC: Brookings Institute.

Turner, B. (2001). The erosion of citizenship. British Journal of Sociology, 52(2),198–209.

Turner, V. (1982). From ritual to theatre: The human seriousness of play. New York:Paj Publications.

Valentine, V. and W. Gordon. (2000). The 21st century consumer. Conferenceproceedings, Market Research Society, London.

Warde, A. (2002). Consumption, identity-formation and uncertainty. In P. Beilharz(Ed.), Zygmunt Bauman. Sage Masters of Modern Social Thought. Volume IV.

Zwick, D., J. Denegree-Knott, and J. Schroder. (2007). The social pedagogy ofWall Street: Stock trading as political activism? Journal of Consumer Policy,30(3), 177–199.

AUTHOR NOTE

Richard Scullion is a senior lecturer in the Media School at BournemouthUniversity, where he teaches marketing communications and politicalcommunication courses. He is also a PhD candidate at the London Schoolof Economics, Media Department, and his thesis looks at electoral choicefrom a consumer behavior perspective. He has published widely on thesubject of political marketing and advertising, including editing two bookson the subject, the last being Voters or Consumers: Imagining the Contempor-ary Electorate (coedited with Darren Lilleker). He is secretary of the Academyof Marketing special interest group ‘‘Political Marketing.’’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kni

hovn

a U

nive

rzity

Pal

acke

ho]

at 0

1:01

22

Apr

il 20

12

the emergence of the accidental citizen; implications for political marketing

Documents