Dimensionality, contextuality, and conceptual equivalence: the case of critical citizens

Abstract

The paper argues that dimensionality and contextuality analyses are essential to maintaining conceptual equivalence in comparative studies of critical citizens. It argues that underlying the concept of critical citizens is a two-dimensional typology of citizens. One dimension is trust in existing state institutions, and the other is adherence to the underlying regime principles. Measuring each dimension with a dichotomy, we gobserve four types of citizens: (1) trustful system supporters; (2) trustful system opponents; (3) distrustful system supporters; (4) distrustful system opponents. Critical citizens are distrustful system supporters in established democracies, where the concept originates. However, the concept is stretched when applied to non-democracies like China, where critical citizens are distrustful system opponents. The paper generalises the concept, arguing that critical citizens have two defining features. First, they distrust the national government, whether it is democratically elected or self-appointed. Second, they accept electoral and representative democracy as the ideal form of government. Drawing on a national survey, the study finds that about twelve percent of Chinese people are critical citizens. Furthermore, it shows that individuals dissatisfied with the economy, government performance and corruption control are more likely to be critical citizens.