Linking The Micro- And Meso-Level in The Study of Mass Demonstrations – The Case of G20

The characteristics and constitutions of mass demonstrations are complex to study. On the micro-level, this is due to a multiplicity of individual attitudes, motivations and protest experiences. On the meso level, the diversity of mobilizing alliances and organizations and differences in terms of diagnostic framing, core values and strategies add to this complexity. After a “strange lacuna” (Andretta and della Porta 2014), social movement studies have only recently rediscovered standardized survey methods in order to analyze attitudes, socio-economic characteristics and mobilization contexts of protesters at mass demonstrations. Several case studies and comparative research projects have shed light on the (lacking) “normalization of the protester” (van Aelst and Walgrave 2001) in today’s “social movement societies”. But while researchers know more and more about this micro level of the individual protester and her distinctiveness vis a vis the larger population, the link to the meso level is yet understudied. In how far can we use aggregate survey data in order to identify distinct groups of protesters in terms of shared attitudes, motivations and beliefs? And in how far do these groups correspond to the heterogeneity of mobilizing organizations and their collective beliefs, values and (diagnostic) framing? Using survey data from two mass demonstrations (July 2 and July 8) against the G20 summit in Hamburg in July 2017, we follow up these questions. Summit protests are particularly interesting within this context, as they potentially gather a wide array of mobilizing organizations and their constituents. Based on an analysis of mobilizing calls and the respective organizations, we formulate expectations with regards to the identification of groups among the participants at both demonstrations. These expectations are tested by means of factor and cluster analysis. Survey questions about organizational membership and individual mobilization history allow to test the rigor of the identified clusters and – additionally – to check in how far individual protesters follow strategic preferences, framings and beliefs of their organizations. Conclusion about the prospects and pitfalls of establishing a micro-meso-link in the analysis of demonstration survey data are drawn.