Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:09:38.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volunteering and Civic Action: Boundaries Blurring, Boundaries Redrawn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Adalbert Evers and
Johan von EssenOpen the ORCID record for Johan von Essen[Opens in a new window]
Adalbert Evers*
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg, Centrum für soziale Investionen und Innovationen, Heidelberg, Germany
Johan von Essen*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Science, Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College, Box 441, 128 06 Stockholm, Sweden
*
adalbert.evers@csi.uni-heidelberg.de
johan.vonessen@esh.se
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this introduction to the special issue is to call into question the presumed conceptual divide between volunteering and civic action and suggest an analytical tool and four perspectives that bring to light the varying meanings of popular engagement. Volunteering and civic action are laden with different moral meanings, are associated with different theoretical approaches and, just as important, have been assigned different roles in society. This conceptual divide is reflected in the academic debate. Only rarely, however, has the academic debate explored and discussed how the meaning of volunteering and civic action has changed historically. Therefore, we argue for a contextual and relational interpretation of the different forms of popular engagement instead of the application of essentialist definitions of volunteering and civic action. In order to examine the variety of popular engagement without being caught up in pre-made or taken-for-granted conceptualisations of volunteering and civic action as two separate forms of popular engagement, we propose approaching variations of popular engagement with respect to two criteria: first, to what degree popular engagement is enacted in institutionalised spheres of politics or in social public spheres and, second, to what degree actions of popular engagement are controversial or operating in line with what is widely agreed upon and dominant in public opinion. Moreover, we argue that history, discourses, politics and a relational approach are four crucial perspectives in order to reveal the varying meanings of popular engagement.

Keywords

VolunteeringCivic actionHistoryDiscoursesPoliticsRelational

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 2019, pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, J. C. (1998). Introduction. Civil society I, II, III: Constructing an empirical concept from normative controversies and historical transformations. In Alexander, J. C. (Ed.), Real civil societies: Dilemmas of institutionalization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195162509.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, J. C., & Smith, P. (1993). The discourse of American civil society: A new proposal for cultural studies. Theory and Society, 22(2), 151–207. doi: 10.1007/BF00993497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. (1981). Vita active oder Vom tätigen Leben. Munich: Piper.Google Scholar
Barkay, T. (2012). Employee volunteering: Soul, body and CSR. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(1), 48–62. doi: 10.1108/17471111211196566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition, and Jürgen Habermas. In Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berman, S. (2006). The primacy of politics. Social democracy and the making of Europe’s twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Maldes, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Castoriadis, C. (1997). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(3), 364–383. doi: 10.1177/0899764096253006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cnaan, R. A., & Park, S. (2016). The multifaced nature of civic participation. A literature review. Voluntaristic Review, 1(1), 1–73. doi: 10.1163/24054933-12340001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation in America. Political Studies, 56(1), 76–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, J. (2014). How structural factors promote instrumental motivations within youth volunteering: A qualitative analysis of volunteer brokerage. Voluntary Sector Review, 5(2), 231–247. doi: 10.1332/204080514X14013591527611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). Volunteering and values. An introduction. In Dekker, P. & Halman, L. (Eds.), The values of volunteering. Cross-cultural perspectives. New York, NY: Kluwer doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0145-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300. doi: 10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasoph, N. (1997). “Close to home”: The work of avoiding politics. Theory and Society, 26(5), 605–647. doi: 10.1023/A:1006881913230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasoph, N. (2009). Top down civic projects are not grass roots associations. How the differences matter in every day life. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(3), 291–308. doi: 10.1007/s11266-009-9087-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliasoph, N. (2011). Making volunteers: Civic life after welfare’s end. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press doi: 10.23943/princeton/9780691147093.001.0001.Google Scholar
Eribon, D. (2013). Returning to reims. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 6(2), 159–182. doi: 10.1007/BF02353995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A. (2019). Inter-sectoral and multi-purpose. Two different kinds of hybridity and ways of dealing with them. In Billis, D. & Rochester, C. (Eds.), Handbook of hybrid organisations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. in press.Google Scholar
Evers, A., & Brandsen, T. (2016). Social innovations as messages: Democratic experimentation in local welfare systems. In Brandsen, T., Cattacin, S., Evers, A., & Zimmer, A. (Eds.), Social Innovations in the Urban Context. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Gavelin, K., & Svedberg, L. (2011). Estimating the scope and magnitude of volunteerism worldwide. Bonn: United Nations Volunteers, External Paper BP1, State of the World’s Volunteerism Report Project.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Griggs, S., & Howarth, D. (2014). Post-structuralism, social movements and citizen politics. In van der Heijden, H. A. (Ed.), Handbook of political citizenship and social movements. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Grubb, A. (2016). ”Vi skal bare hjælpe og spise chokoladekiks” – En kvalitativ undersøgelse af unge frivilliges deltagelse i en ikke-medlemsbaseret, digitalt koordineret organiseringsform af frivilligt socialt arbejde” (Diss). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
Guattari, F. (2009). Soft subversions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hasenfeld, Y., & Gidron, B. (2005). Understanding multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organizations: The contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and non-profit organizations. Journal of Civil Society, 1(2), 97–112. doi: 10.1080/17448680500337350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, L. S., & Svedberg, L. (2010). Volunteering and social activism: Moving beyond the traditional divide. Journal of Civil Society. Special Issue: Volunteering and Social Activism, 6(2), 95–98.Google Scholar
Hustinx, L. (2003). Reflexive modernity and styles of volunteering. The case of the Flemish Red Cross volunteers. (Diss.), Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Hustinx, L., Cnaan, R. A., & Handy, F. (2010). Navigating theories of volunteering: A hybrid map for a complex phenomenon. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4), 410–434. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2010.00439.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hustinx, L., & Meijs, L. (2011). Re-embedding volunteering: In search for a new collective ground. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1), 5–21. doi: 10.1332/204080511X560594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publ doi: 10.4135/9781849208871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radial democratic politics. London, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Lefort, C. (1991). Democracy and political theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lichterman, P., & Eliasoph, N. (2014). Civic action. American Journal of Sociology, 120(3), 798–863. doi: 10.1086/679189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorentzen, H., & Hustinx, L. (2007). Civil involvement and modernization. Journal of Civil Society, 3(2), 101–118. doi: 10.1080/17448680701554282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, M., Wijkström, F., & Clary, G. (1998). Comparative studies of volunteering: What is being studied?. Voluntary Action, 1(1), 45–54.Google Scholar
Marchart, O. (2007). Post-foundational political thought. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press doi: 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748624973.001.0001.Google Scholar
Melucci, A. (1980). The new social movements: A theoretical approach. Social Science Information, 19(2), 199–226. doi: 10.1177/053901848001900201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkoff, D. C. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 377–401. doi: 10.1177/0899764002313004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, Ch (2005). On the political. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Musick, M., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers. A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Religion and Society in East and West. (2016). Illiberal and Authoritarian Tendencies in Eastern Europe RSEW, 44 (9–10).Google Scholar
Rucht, D. (2016). Social movement studies in Europe. Achievements, gaps and challenges. In Acconero, G. & Fillieule, O. (Eds.), Social movement studies in Europe: The state of the art. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Sachar, I. (2017). The making of corporate volunteering. A multi-sited ethnography (Diss.). Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Ghent: Ghent University.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1996). Social origins of civil society. Explaining the non-profit sector cross-nationally. Working papers of the Johns Hopkins comparative non-profit sector project, 1–23.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1017/S175577390999021X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schudson, M. (2006). The Varieties of civic experience. Citizenship Studies, 10(5), 591–606. doi: 10.1080/13621020600955033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciulli, D. (1986). Voluntaristic action as a distinct concept. Theoretical foundations of societal constitutionalism. American Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 743–766. doi: 10.2307/2095365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurdson, O. (2000). Den lyckliga filosofin: etik och politik hos Hägerström, Tingsten, makarna Myrdal och Hedenius. Eslöv: Östlings bokförlag Symposion.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. (1999). How Americans became civic. In Skocpol, T. & Fiorina, M. (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, D.C. and New York: Brookings Institution and Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. (1999). Making sense of the civic debate. In Skocpol, T. & Fiorina, M. (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy. Washington, D.C. and New York: Brookings Institution and Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Sörbom, A. (2010). It is merely changing. An analysis of the concept of individualization in relation to contemporary political participation. In Amnå, E. (Ed.), New forms of citizen participation. Normative implications. Nomos: Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
Svedberg, L. (1996). Frivillighet som ideologiskt slagträ och faktisk verksamhet. Ojämlikhet från vaggan till graven–på väg in i 2/3-samhället. FKF Fakta.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2002). On social imaginary. Public Culture, 14(1), 91–124. doi: 10.1215/08992363-14-1-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torfing, J. (2002). Discourse analysis and the post-structuralism of Laclau and Mouffe. European Political Science, 2(1), 749–787. doi: 10.1057/eps.2002.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Social Research, 52(4), 749–787.Google Scholar
Trägårdh, L. (2007). The “Civil Society” debate in Sweden: The welfare state challenged. In Trägårdh, L. (Ed.), State and civil society in Northern Europe. The Swedish model reconsidered. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, S., & Almond, G. (1963). The civic culture. Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Verba, S., Schlozman, K., & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality. Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijkström, F. (2011). Charity speak and business talk. The on-going (re)hybridization of civil society. In Wijkström, F. & Zimmer, A. (Eds.), Nordic civil society at a cross-roads. Baden-Baden: Nomos doi: 10.5771/9783845231624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Revue of Sociology, 26(1), 215–240. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212. doi: 10.1177/0899764011434558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion. Caring for others and helping our selves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar