Business as usual like never before! Continuity, rupture and anxiety management in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Cooperation and Conflict Pub Date : 2024-04-09 DOI:10.1177/00108367241241033
Ian Paterson
{"title":"Business as usual like never before! Continuity, rupture and anxiety management in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign","authors":"Ian Paterson","doi":"10.1177/00108367241241033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ontological security-seeking has traditionally been considered to rest upon the stability and continuity of core auto-biographical narratives and everyday routines. ‘Critical situations’ which fundamentally destabilise these foundations of ontological security have thus hitherto carried a negative valence. Constitutional referenda proposing a radical re-organisation of collective political identities and daily life, therefore, are intriguing. A source of severe consternation for some, for others, potential change is positive, even thrilling. This article investigates this puzzling contrast, drawing on Ontological Security Studies’ (OSS) recent recentring of Existentialist thought and debates exploring the heterogenous potential of anxiety, and utilising the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the strategies for anxiety management embedded in the pro-independence ‘Yes’ campaign. Through analysis of dominant discourses grounding the argument for independence, findings demonstrate the simultaneous deployment of contradictory anxiety management strategies: independence was framed as a pathway to escape the instability and uncertainty of the status quo; as a pathway to continuity; and as a chance to embrace anxiety, to relish the opportunity and excitement of change. This article thus contributes to the prevailing critique of OSS’ over-privileging of stability and continuity in ontological security-seeking, yet problematises ‘either/or’ approaches to understanding anxiety management in critical situations and beyond.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cooperation and Conflict","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367241241033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ontological security-seeking has traditionally been considered to rest upon the stability and continuity of core auto-biographical narratives and everyday routines. ‘Critical situations’ which fundamentally destabilise these foundations of ontological security have thus hitherto carried a negative valence. Constitutional referenda proposing a radical re-organisation of collective political identities and daily life, therefore, are intriguing. A source of severe consternation for some, for others, potential change is positive, even thrilling. This article investigates this puzzling contrast, drawing on Ontological Security Studies’ (OSS) recent recentring of Existentialist thought and debates exploring the heterogenous potential of anxiety, and utilising the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the strategies for anxiety management embedded in the pro-independence ‘Yes’ campaign. Through analysis of dominant discourses grounding the argument for independence, findings demonstrate the simultaneous deployment of contradictory anxiety management strategies: independence was framed as a pathway to escape the instability and uncertainty of the status quo; as a pathway to continuity; and as a chance to embrace anxiety, to relish the opportunity and excitement of change. This article thus contributes to the prevailing critique of OSS’ over-privileging of stability and continuity in ontological security-seeking, yet problematises ‘either/or’ approaches to understanding anxiety management in critical situations and beyond.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
前所未有的 "一切照旧"!2014 年苏格兰独立公投活动中的连续性、断裂和焦虑管理
寻求本体论安全感历来被认为是建立在核心自传叙事和日常惯例的稳定性和连续性之上的。因此,从根本上动摇了这些本体论安全基础的 "危急情况 "迄今为止都具有负面意义。因此,提议对集体政治身份和日常生活进行彻底重组的制宪公民投票令人好奇。对一些人来说,潜在的变革会引起严重的不安,而对另一些人来说,潜在的变革则是积极的,甚至是令人兴奋的。本文借鉴了本体论安全研究(OSS)最近对存在主义思想的研究和对焦虑的异质潜能的探讨,并利用 2014 年苏格兰独立公投和支持独立的 "赞成 "运动中蕴含的焦虑管理策略,对这种令人费解的反差进行了研究。通过分析作为独立论据基础的主流话语,研究结果表明同时部署了相互矛盾的焦虑管理策略:独立被描述为摆脱现状的不稳定性和不确定性的途径;连续性的途径;以及拥抱焦虑、享受变革带来的机遇和兴奋的机会。因此,这篇文章有助于对开放源码软件在寻求本体论安全的过程中过度追求稳定性和连续性的普遍批评,同时也对理解危急情况下和其他情况下的焦虑管理的 "非此即彼 "的方法提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Published for over 40 years, the aim of Cooperation and Conflict is to promote research on and understanding of international relations. It believes in the deeds of academic pluralism and thus does not represent any specific methodology, approach, tradition or school. The mission of the journal is to meet the demands of the scholarly community having an interest in international studies (for details, see the statement "From the Editors" in Vol. 40, No. 3, September 2005). The editors especially encourage submissions contributing new knowledge of the field and welcome innovative, theory-aware and critical approaches. First preference will continue to be given to articles that have a Nordic and European focus. Cooperation and Conflict strictly adheres to a double-blind reviewing policy.
期刊最新文献
The rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire’s religiously inspired status symbols Is world politics class politics? States, social forces and voting in the United Nations General Assembly 1946–2020 ‘Recognising Merit’ in late British colonial Cyprus The importance of being civilized: Opera houses as status symbols in International Relations Forum on Heikki Patomäki’s World Statehood: The Future of World Politics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1