Political Parties and Civility in Parliament: The Case of Australia from 1901 to 2020

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Parliamentary Affairs Pub Date : 2023-04-24 DOI:10.1093/pa/gsad008
Alfonso Martínez Arranz, Steven T. Zech, Matteo Bonotti
{"title":"Political Parties and Civility in Parliament: The Case of Australia from 1901 to 2020","authors":"Alfonso Martínez Arranz, Steven T. Zech, Matteo Bonotti","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsad008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Incivility in parliaments is always prominently displayed in media reports, often with the implicit or explicit commentary that the situation is getting worse. This paper processes and analyses the records of verbal interactions in the Australian Parliament for over 100 years to provide a first approximation on the evolution of civility. It provides a framework for understanding the multidimensional nature of civility that examines both ‘politeness’ and ‘argumentation’, with the latter grounded in notions of public-mindedness. The analysis focuses on the interactions between parties of the orators and the party in power, the chamber of utterance, and the year. The results indicate that instances of impoliteness have increased since the 1970s but only modestly and remain highly infrequent. Minor parties, particularly those representing right-wing and Green politics are more likely to use dismissive or offensive language than the dominant centre-left and centre-right parties, although direct insults and swearwords are the particular remits of right-wing ‘system-wrecker’ parties. All these minor parties, nonetheless, also display higher levels of argumentation in their interventions. This combination of aggressive language and increased argumentation highlights the pressures on minor parties to convey their points in a forceful way, a challenge that is particularly pressing in two-party systems like the Australian one.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsad008","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Incivility in parliaments is always prominently displayed in media reports, often with the implicit or explicit commentary that the situation is getting worse. This paper processes and analyses the records of verbal interactions in the Australian Parliament for over 100 years to provide a first approximation on the evolution of civility. It provides a framework for understanding the multidimensional nature of civility that examines both ‘politeness’ and ‘argumentation’, with the latter grounded in notions of public-mindedness. The analysis focuses on the interactions between parties of the orators and the party in power, the chamber of utterance, and the year. The results indicate that instances of impoliteness have increased since the 1970s but only modestly and remain highly infrequent. Minor parties, particularly those representing right-wing and Green politics are more likely to use dismissive or offensive language than the dominant centre-left and centre-right parties, although direct insults and swearwords are the particular remits of right-wing ‘system-wrecker’ parties. All these minor parties, nonetheless, also display higher levels of argumentation in their interventions. This combination of aggressive language and increased argumentation highlights the pressures on minor parties to convey their points in a forceful way, a challenge that is particularly pressing in two-party systems like the Australian one.
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
政党与议会礼仪:以1901年至2020年的澳大利亚为例
议会中的不文明行为总是在媒体报道中突出显示,通常会含蓄或明确地评论情况正在恶化。本文对澳大利亚议会100多年来的言语互动记录进行了处理和分析,以初步了解文明的演变。它为理解文明的多维本质提供了一个框架,考察了“礼貌”和“论证”,后者以公众意识为基础。分析的重点是演讲者的政党与执政党、演讲厅和年份之间的互动。研究结果表明,自20世纪70年代以来,不礼貌的情况有所增加,但只是适度的,而且仍然非常罕见。与占主导地位的中左翼和中右翼政党相比,小政党,特别是代表右翼和绿色政治的政党,更有可能使用轻蔑或攻击性的语言,尽管直接侮辱和脏话是右翼“制度破坏者”政党的特殊失职。尽管如此,所有这些小党派在干预中也表现出了更高水平的论证。这种咄咄逼人的语言和不断增加的论证相结合,凸显了小党派在以强有力的方式表达观点方面的压力,这一挑战在澳大利亚这样的两党制中尤为紧迫。
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
Parliamentary Affairs
Parliamentary Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Parliamentary Affairs is an established, peer-reviewed academic quarterly covering all the aspects of government and politics directly or indirectly connected with Parliament and parliamentary systems in Britain and throughout the world. The journal is published in partnership with the Hansard Society. The Society was created to promote parliamentary democracy throughout the world, a theme which is reflected in the pages of Parliamentary Affairs.
期刊最新文献
Cleaning Up UK Politics: What Would Better Lobbying Regulation Look Like? Big Little Election Lies: Cynical and Credulous Evaluations of Electoral Fraud Paralysed Governments: How Political Constraints Elicit Cabinet Termination What Do We Call an ‘MP’? On Categories of Thought in the Anthropology of Parliaments Beyond Institutional Adaptation: Legislative Europeanisation and Parliamentary Attention to the EU in the Hungarian Parliament
×
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