Revisiting norms of citizenship in times of democratic change

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Politics Pub Date : 2021-07-27 DOI:10.1177/02633957211031799
Christian Schnaudt, Jan W. van Deth, Carolin V. Zorell, Yannis Theocharis
{"title":"Revisiting norms of citizenship in times of democratic change","authors":"Christian Schnaudt, Jan W. van Deth, Carolin V. Zorell, Yannis Theocharis","doi":"10.1177/02633957211031799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last two decades, scholars have investigated norms of citizenship by focussing primarily on ‘dutiful’ and ‘engaged’ norms. In the meantime, contemporary democracies have witnessed growing demands for more sustainable styles of living and increasing public support for authoritarian and populist ideas. These developments point to both a change and an expansion of conventional understandings and conceptions of what a ‘good citizen’ in a democratic polity ought to do. Specifically, they raise questions about whether demands for more sustainability and increasing support for populist ideas establish new facets of democratic citizenship, and if so, how they can be meaningfully incorporated into existing images of citizenship. This study provides a re-conceptualization of citizenship norms and empirically tests a new measurement instrument using original data collected in Germany in 2019. The empirical application of an expanded set of items demonstrates the existence of more variegated facets of norms of citizenship, including norms to safeguard a sustainable future and distinct populist facets emphasizing the relevance of trust in authorities and experts as well as reliance on feelings and emotions. Contemporary conceptions of citizenship thus go beyond conventional distinctions between dutiful and engaged norms of citizenship.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/02633957211031799","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957211031799","RegionNum":3,"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: 8

Abstract

Over the last two decades, scholars have investigated norms of citizenship by focussing primarily on ‘dutiful’ and ‘engaged’ norms. In the meantime, contemporary democracies have witnessed growing demands for more sustainable styles of living and increasing public support for authoritarian and populist ideas. These developments point to both a change and an expansion of conventional understandings and conceptions of what a ‘good citizen’ in a democratic polity ought to do. Specifically, they raise questions about whether demands for more sustainability and increasing support for populist ideas establish new facets of democratic citizenship, and if so, how they can be meaningfully incorporated into existing images of citizenship. This study provides a re-conceptualization of citizenship norms and empirically tests a new measurement instrument using original data collected in Germany in 2019. The empirical application of an expanded set of items demonstrates the existence of more variegated facets of norms of citizenship, including norms to safeguard a sustainable future and distinct populist facets emphasizing the relevance of trust in authorities and experts as well as reliance on feelings and emotions. Contemporary conceptions of citizenship thus go beyond conventional distinctions between dutiful and engaged norms of citizenship.
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
在民主变革时期重新审视公民准则
在过去的二十年里,学者们通过主要关注“尽职”和“参与”规范来研究公民规范。与此同时,当代民主国家对更可持续的生活方式的要求越来越高,公众对威权主义和民粹主义思想的支持也越来越多。这些发展表明,对于民主政体中的“好公民”应该做些什么,传统的理解和观念发生了变化和扩展。具体来说,它们提出的问题是,对更多可持续性的要求和对民粹主义思想越来越多的支持是否建立了民主公民的新方面,如果是这样,如何将它们有意义地纳入现有的公民形象。本研究对公民身份规范进行了重新概念化,并利用2019年在德国收集的原始数据对一种新的测量工具进行了实证测试。对一组扩展项目的实证应用表明,公民规范存在更多样化的方面,包括保障可持续未来的规范,以及强调对当局和专家的信任以及对感觉和情感的依赖的独特的民粹主义方面。因此,当代的公民权概念超越了传统的义务公民权和敬业公民权之间的区别。
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
Politics
Politics Multiple-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.
期刊最新文献
Legacies of States and Social Revolutions Decolonising politics curricula: Exploring the experiences and views of racially minoritised students ‘Importing’ the personal vote to maximise the party vote? ‘Parachute personalization’ in an intraparty preference electoral system The European Union, immigration and the Left–Right divide: Explaining voting preferences for Western European radical right parties Reflections on an anniversary
×
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