Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.2012086
J. Bongers, Lynn Hillary, G. Wieman
ABSTRACT The story of European Integration has often been told as that of an ‘ever closer union’. This narrative has rightly attracted criticism over the years. However, it is worth exploring through which practices this ‘ever closer union’ is pursued, because these practices go to the heart of what the European Union is. Existing concepts used to interpret cooperation in the European Union, like harmonization, are unfulfilling, as they are used in different ways depending on the field in which they are applied. Currently, common ground and conceptual clarity are lacking. In an attempt to provide the kind of simplicity that facilitates cross-disciplinary analysis, we introduce the concept of aligning rulesets, a five-level framework for studying international cooperation (differentiating between (1) full alignment, (2) methods-based alignment, (3) ends-based alignment, (4) principles-based alignment and (5) no alignment). After introducing our framework, we demonstrate its applicability in the domains of statistical measurement, the responsibility for asylum applications, and the COVID-19 vaccine purchasing policy.
{"title":"Aligning rulesets: understanding cooperation in the European Union","authors":"J. Bongers, Lynn Hillary, G. Wieman","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.2012086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.2012086","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The story of European Integration has often been told as that of an ‘ever closer union’. This narrative has rightly attracted criticism over the years. However, it is worth exploring through which practices this ‘ever closer union’ is pursued, because these practices go to the heart of what the European Union is. Existing concepts used to interpret cooperation in the European Union, like harmonization, are unfulfilling, as they are used in different ways depending on the field in which they are applied. Currently, common ground and conceptual clarity are lacking. In an attempt to provide the kind of simplicity that facilitates cross-disciplinary analysis, we introduce the concept of aligning rulesets, a five-level framework for studying international cooperation (differentiating between (1) full alignment, (2) methods-based alignment, (3) ends-based alignment, (4) principles-based alignment and (5) no alignment). After introducing our framework, we demonstrate its applicability in the domains of statistical measurement, the responsibility for asylum applications, and the COVID-19 vaccine purchasing policy.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47997034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.2018266
T. N. Fjørtoft, Asimina Michailidou
ABSTRACT How is the power of independent agencies legitimized? This is a central question in modern democratic societies. Earlier research has privileged technical expertise as the predominant source of legitimacy for such agencies. While recent contributions have challenged this assumption, we have seen few attempts to systematically analyze the conditions under which different sources of legitimacy are established in public discourse. We address this gap by proposing a conceptual framework of four legitimation arguments and test their prevalence through an empirical analysis of the public legitimation of EU agencies. We hypothesize that the prevalence of each argument depends on characteristics of the agency, especially its scientific ‘hardness’ and its public salience. We test our hypotheses in three steps. We first combine automated text classification and qualitative content analysis to analyze Swedish news media coverage of three EU agencies, 2005–2019. In a third step, we quantitatively analyze aggregated data on the Swedish news coverage of all EU agencies 2005–2019. We find more technical-expertise discourse in coverage of hard-science agencies, and more political-control discourse where agencies are ‘softer’ or more salient. Our findings are therefore relevant for ongoing normative and empirical discussions on the legitimacy of independent agencies.
{"title":"Beyond expertise: the public construction of legitimacy for EU agencies","authors":"T. N. Fjørtoft, Asimina Michailidou","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.2018266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.2018266","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How is the power of independent agencies legitimized? This is a central question in modern democratic societies. Earlier research has privileged technical expertise as the predominant source of legitimacy for such agencies. While recent contributions have challenged this assumption, we have seen few attempts to systematically analyze the conditions under which different sources of legitimacy are established in public discourse. We address this gap by proposing a conceptual framework of four legitimation arguments and test their prevalence through an empirical analysis of the public legitimation of EU agencies. We hypothesize that the prevalence of each argument depends on characteristics of the agency, especially its scientific ‘hardness’ and its public salience. We test our hypotheses in three steps. We first combine automated text classification and qualitative content analysis to analyze Swedish news media coverage of three EU agencies, 2005–2019. In a third step, we quantitatively analyze aggregated data on the Swedish news coverage of all EU agencies 2005–2019. We find more technical-expertise discourse in coverage of hard-science agencies, and more political-control discourse where agencies are ‘softer’ or more salient. Our findings are therefore relevant for ongoing normative and empirical discussions on the legitimacy of independent agencies.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47997662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343
Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian
ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.
{"title":"Direct social action beyond party politics. How new subjectivities change the idea of social transformation","authors":"Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46367014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1989314
François Randour
ABSTRACT The literature on national parliaments and the EU has built up its knowledge on the strength and activities of domestic parliaments in the European Union. While these studies were of outmost importance to understand how and why parliaments and MPs act on EU affairs, we still know little on the influence of domestic parliaments on the EU policy of their executive and on EU policy-making more generally. The article first presents the current gaps in knowledge as well as the challenges to study the influence of parliaments in EU affairs and ends by presenting a research strategy which advocates ‘reconnecting’ empirical works on national parliaments and the EU with the Principal-Agent model. This research agenda could foster new theoretical and empirical studies with important implications for the debate on the (re)parliamentarisation of the European Union as well as on EU negotiations.
{"title":"Studying the influence of national parliaments in EU affairs: reconnecting empirical research and the Principal-Agent approach","authors":"François Randour","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1989314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1989314","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The literature on national parliaments and the EU has built up its knowledge on the strength and activities of domestic parliaments in the European Union. While these studies were of outmost importance to understand how and why parliaments and MPs act on EU affairs, we still know little on the influence of domestic parliaments on the EU policy of their executive and on EU policy-making more generally. The article first presents the current gaps in knowledge as well as the challenges to study the influence of parliaments in EU affairs and ends by presenting a research strategy which advocates ‘reconnecting’ empirical works on national parliaments and the EU with the Principal-Agent model. This research agenda could foster new theoretical and empirical studies with important implications for the debate on the (re)parliamentarisation of the European Union as well as on EU negotiations.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43948875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734
Andreas Schedler
ABSTRACT Even before the invention of modern democracy, political theorists have warned about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyrannies.’ While the concept has been perennially suspicious of serving as an antidemocratic stratagem, I propose to revalue it as an antipopulist tool of horizontal accountability among citizens (‘demos accountability’). Subverting the populist narrative of popular unity and virtue, it allows aggrieved minorities to call their majoritarian fellow citizens to account for the injustices they help to produce. Given its metaphorical quality, however, its rootedness in the image of the personal tyrant, the idea of majoritarian tyranny carries deep democratic ambiguities. To recognize these ambiguities, I argue, we need to resist the suggestive power of its animating metaphor and take the empirical complexities of its logical building blocks seriously: the exercise of tyranny, the exclusive targeting of minorities, and collective action by the majority. My stepwise analytical reconstruction of these three constitutive elements of majoritarian tyrannies reveals two metaphorical pitfalls that threaten the democratic fertility of the concept: its vilifying and its simplifying assumptions.
{"title":"An ambiguous tool of demos accountability: taking the metaphorical concept of majoritarian tyranny seriously","authors":"Andreas Schedler","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Even before the invention of modern democracy, political theorists have warned about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyrannies.’ While the concept has been perennially suspicious of serving as an antidemocratic stratagem, I propose to revalue it as an antipopulist tool of horizontal accountability among citizens (‘demos accountability’). Subverting the populist narrative of popular unity and virtue, it allows aggrieved minorities to call their majoritarian fellow citizens to account for the injustices they help to produce. Given its metaphorical quality, however, its rootedness in the image of the personal tyrant, the idea of majoritarian tyranny carries deep democratic ambiguities. To recognize these ambiguities, I argue, we need to resist the suggestive power of its animating metaphor and take the empirical complexities of its logical building blocks seriously: the exercise of tyranny, the exclusive targeting of minorities, and collective action by the majority. My stepwise analytical reconstruction of these three constitutive elements of majoritarian tyrannies reveals two metaphorical pitfalls that threaten the democratic fertility of the concept: its vilifying and its simplifying assumptions.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47973071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049
Taavi Sundell
ABSTRACT Plan S, promoted by cOAlition S, is a significant attempt to hegemonize a specific form of Open Access (OA) as the future of academic publishing on a global level. It mandates that the results from Coalition-funded research must be published in fora compliant with its criteria. This article questions the Plan’s supposed radicalness from a political economy perspective with the help of post-foundational discourse theory. Specific attention will be paid to its implications for property rights as the contingent foundation of knowledge production. The Plan and OA will be examined within the context of globally unequal structures of scientific knowledge production and attempts to transform them into a more equal system. The analyzed data consist of the archive from the following sequence: (i) the publication of draft guidance on the implementation of the Plan, released by the Coalition in November 2018, (ii) a collection of feedback statements on the draft by the Coalition from November 2018 to February 2019, and (iii) release of the updated guidance adopted and published by the Coalition in May 2019. The primary object of analysis is the antagonism articulated towards the Plan within what is here termed the conservative-propertarian discursive formation.
{"title":"Political economy of Plan S: a post-foundational perspective on Open Access","authors":"Taavi Sundell","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Plan S, promoted by cOAlition S, is a significant attempt to hegemonize a specific form of Open Access (OA) as the future of academic publishing on a global level. It mandates that the results from Coalition-funded research must be published in fora compliant with its criteria. This article questions the Plan’s supposed radicalness from a political economy perspective with the help of post-foundational discourse theory. Specific attention will be paid to its implications for property rights as the contingent foundation of knowledge production. The Plan and OA will be examined within the context of globally unequal structures of scientific knowledge production and attempts to transform them into a more equal system. The analyzed data consist of the archive from the following sequence: (i) the publication of draft guidance on the implementation of the Plan, released by the Coalition in November 2018, (ii) a collection of feedback statements on the draft by the Coalition from November 2018 to February 2019, and (iii) release of the updated guidance adopted and published by the Coalition in May 2019. The primary object of analysis is the antagonism articulated towards the Plan within what is here termed the conservative-propertarian discursive formation.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49183980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532
Tim Vlandas, Dan McArthur, Michael Ganslmeier
ABSTRACT Population ageing, and the decline in the working-age population, represent a profound global demographic shift. What political consequences do ageing populations have for the economies of advanced democracies? To address this question, we carry out a wide-ranging, systematic literature review using network-based community detection algorithms and manual coding to select almost 150 articles. We find that research in this area typically focuses on a few mechanisms and is therefore – by design – unable to identify gaps in existing knowledge or assess interactions between different strands of literature. Our review suggests that ageing has important implications for a variety of domains including electoral behaviour, social policy preferences, and public spending. Taken together, the political consequences of population ageing are likely to have previously overlooked and indirect impacts on economic outcomes. Future research should, therefore, examine how population ageing shapes political dynamics and policy choices in ways that also affect the economy.
{"title":"Ageing and the economy: a literature review of political and policy mechanisms","authors":"Tim Vlandas, Dan McArthur, Michael Ganslmeier","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Population ageing, and the decline in the working-age population, represent a profound global demographic shift. What political consequences do ageing populations have for the economies of advanced democracies? To address this question, we carry out a wide-ranging, systematic literature review using network-based community detection algorithms and manual coding to select almost 150 articles. We find that research in this area typically focuses on a few mechanisms and is therefore – by design – unable to identify gaps in existing knowledge or assess interactions between different strands of literature. Our review suggests that ageing has important implications for a variety of domains including electoral behaviour, social policy preferences, and public spending. Taken together, the political consequences of population ageing are likely to have previously overlooked and indirect impacts on economic outcomes. Future research should, therefore, examine how population ageing shapes political dynamics and policy choices in ways that also affect the economy.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45836544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149
Enrique Hernández, Margarita Torre, Antoni-Italo de Moragas
ABSTRACT The distinction between constitutional monarchies and republics constitutes a striking divide in how modern democracies are institutionalized. However, the lack of data about citizens' preferences for a monarchic or republican model of democracy has hindered the analysis of public opinion about this topic. This research note introduces a comprehensive survey that gauges citizens' attitudes towards the monarchy in Spain. The survey was fielded in late 2020 and provides unique information such as respondents' preferences about different models of democracy, how they define an ideal monarch, and their evaluations of whether current and former Spanish kings live up to these ideals. We first highlight the unique features of the dataset and provide a detailed account of the variables included. We then illustrate the potential of this survey for the study of political culture through descriptive analyses of some of the key variables included in the dataset.
{"title":"The crown: a survey about the Spanish monarchy","authors":"Enrique Hernández, Margarita Torre, Antoni-Italo de Moragas","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The distinction between constitutional monarchies and republics constitutes a striking divide in how modern democracies are institutionalized. However, the lack of data about citizens' preferences for a monarchic or republican model of democracy has hindered the analysis of public opinion about this topic. This research note introduces a comprehensive survey that gauges citizens' attitudes towards the monarchy in Spain. The survey was fielded in late 2020 and provides unique information such as respondents' preferences about different models of democracy, how they define an ideal monarch, and their evaluations of whether current and former Spanish kings live up to these ideals. We first highlight the unique features of the dataset and provide a detailed account of the variables included. We then illustrate the potential of this survey for the study of political culture through descriptive analyses of some of the key variables included in the dataset.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41963189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-30DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652
Bastian Becker
ABSTRACT Widespread unawareness and indifference arguably contribute to growing inequalities. However, previous studies have paid little attention to the applicability of these arguments over time. This paper demonstrates that perceptions of inequality and their effects on attitudes towards inequality and redistribution can change considerably. Using social survey data from the United States (1987–2009), it is shown that perceptions of income inequality do not have the same effect on attitudes throughout the period under study. Perceptions of opportunity inequality, which have received less attention in prior studies, produce more stable results. Accounting for and explaining such changes is necessary to advance research on inequality and public opinion.
{"title":"Temporal change in inequality perceptions and effects on political attitudes","authors":"Bastian Becker","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Widespread unawareness and indifference arguably contribute to growing inequalities. However, previous studies have paid little attention to the applicability of these arguments over time. This paper demonstrates that perceptions of inequality and their effects on attitudes towards inequality and redistribution can change considerably. Using social survey data from the United States (1987–2009), it is shown that perceptions of income inequality do not have the same effect on attitudes throughout the period under study. Perceptions of opportunity inequality, which have received less attention in prior studies, produce more stable results. Accounting for and explaining such changes is necessary to advance research on inequality and public opinion.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42915633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206
Nardine Alnemr, T. Choucair, Nicole Curato
ABSTRACT There are many ways of amplifying the voices of the poor in today’s multimedia saturated societies. In this article, we argue that the dominant portrayals of poverty in the media privilege voices that exclude the poor from authentic and consequential deliberations that affect their lives. We make a case for amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency – the performance of political justification in the public sphere – when creating media content. Through two illustrative examples, we demonstrate that amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency is both normatively desirable and politically possible. We begin with the case of Brazil where we discuss how slow journalism drew attention to the diversity of the poor’s political claims about a mining disaster, followed by the case of citizen journalism in Lebanon where a protest movement shifted the dominant arguments about the garbage crisis from an issue of the dirty poor to an issue of the corrupt elite. Through these examples, this article makes a normative case for portraying poor communities as democratic agents who are bearers of ideas, reasons, justifications, and aspirations. We argue that this portrayal is essential for promoting virtues of deliberative democracy – inclusiveness, pluralistic reason-giving, and reflexivity – that are very much needed in contemporary times.
{"title":"Can the poor exercise deliberative agency in a multimedia saturated society? Lessons from Brazil and Lebanon","authors":"Nardine Alnemr, T. Choucair, Nicole Curato","doi":"10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are many ways of amplifying the voices of the poor in today’s multimedia saturated societies. In this article, we argue that the dominant portrayals of poverty in the media privilege voices that exclude the poor from authentic and consequential deliberations that affect their lives. We make a case for amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency – the performance of political justification in the public sphere – when creating media content. Through two illustrative examples, we demonstrate that amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency is both normatively desirable and politically possible. We begin with the case of Brazil where we discuss how slow journalism drew attention to the diversity of the poor’s political claims about a mining disaster, followed by the case of citizen journalism in Lebanon where a protest movement shifted the dominant arguments about the garbage crisis from an issue of the dirty poor to an issue of the corrupt elite. Through these examples, this article makes a normative case for portraying poor communities as democratic agents who are bearers of ideas, reasons, justifications, and aspirations. We argue that this portrayal is essential for promoting virtues of deliberative democracy – inclusiveness, pluralistic reason-giving, and reflexivity – that are very much needed in contemporary times.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47592619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：