4
voluntary group connections expose them to the recruitment attempts of others. Evidence
for both claims is surprisingly weak, given their prominence in the literature.
Pollock (1982) examines both mechanisms in detail, but creates a false dichotomy
between them. By his account, voluntary groups engage in either the intentional
mobilization of group members or their unintentional mobilization via the promotion of
civic skills. In the absence of respondent accounts of either process, Pollock simply
classifies groups as engaged in one or the other. As a result, his finding that intentional
mobilization occurs in political groups seems trivial. Moreover, numerous groups whose
primary purpose is not political nevertheless mobilize their members from time to time.
Church groups and unions are obvious examples. Pollock also focuses narrowly on
recruitment by group leaders. Other possibilities – members recruiting one another,
outsiders tapping the group for support, and so forth – are not considered.
Rosenstone and Hansen (1993) provide a far more extensive theory of the
recruitment mechanism. Theirs is the most comprehensive study to date of the role of
recruitment in the participatory calculus. They reason that certain individuals are more
likely to be recruited to political activity, including voluntary group members.
Unfortunately, Rosenstone and Hansen provide no direct evidence of their propensity to
be recruited. Instead they use proxies for social involvement
1
and generalize their
findings to voluntary groups. As Leighley puts it, evidence for their claim “that voluntary
1
Home ownership, church attendance, union membership, and length of residence in the community.
Convention