Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0332
The technological innovations during the 20th and 21st centuries that brought us radio, television, movies, the internet, and social media have created a class of people, celebrities, who, at first glance, wield enormous influence in our society—from setting fashion trends and hairstyles to advancing social movements and political causes. Donald Trump, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, and Ronald Reagan rode their celebrity to elective office. Other celebrities are increasingly using their status to influence politics by endorsing candidates for office and pushing for change in domestic and foreign policy. This essay focuses on the scholarship on the effect of celebrities in American politics. The study of celebrities in American politics is a largely interdisciplinary enterprise, with contributions from political science, sociology, marketing, history, cultural studies, mass communication, and communication studies. The literature on celebrities, and, more specifically, celebrities in American politics, has branched off into five key areas – (1) Celebrity Endorsements, (2) Celebrities and American Government Institutions, (3) Celebrity Politics and Celebrity Culture, and (4) Celebrities and the Environment.
{"title":"Celebrities in US Politics","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0332","url":null,"abstract":"The technological innovations during the 20th and 21st centuries that brought us radio, television, movies, the internet, and social media have created a class of people, celebrities, who, at first glance, wield enormous influence in our society—from setting fashion trends and hairstyles to advancing social movements and political causes. Donald Trump, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, and Ronald Reagan rode their celebrity to elective office. Other celebrities are increasingly using their status to influence politics by endorsing candidates for office and pushing for change in domestic and foreign policy. This essay focuses on the scholarship on the effect of celebrities in American politics. The study of celebrities in American politics is a largely interdisciplinary enterprise, with contributions from political science, sociology, marketing, history, cultural studies, mass communication, and communication studies. The literature on celebrities, and, more specifically, celebrities in American politics, has branched off into five key areas – (1) Celebrity Endorsements, (2) Celebrities and American Government Institutions, (3) Celebrity Politics and Celebrity Culture, and (4) Celebrities and the Environment.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47788835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-23DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0336
Secession and secessionists movements have proliferated since the end of the Second World War. The academic literature has extensively explored these movements from different aspects. To begin, scholars have developed several legal approaches to explain when and if so how secession should take place, resulting in debates about the normative basis and legality of self-determination. Normative and philosophical approaches have sought to establish a number of necessary preconditions for secession. States, according to some of these authors, should allow secession to happen when they believe that it is morally and practically acceptable. The political economy of secession and secessionist movements has been another key area of research. Debates among scholars in this area have focused on whether wealthy or poor regions are more or less likely to pursue secession, how the presence of oil resources may establish more opportunities for the groups to secede along with incentives for the state to hold onto the territory, and what role state capacity and movement capabilities play in secessionist dynamics. Scholars have also emphasized economic approaches to the study of secession that highlight the costs and benefits of staying in the union compared to seceding. Others have studied secessionism from an international perspective and have particularly focused on exploring the impact of external kin on secessionist movements and on why and how self-determination movements obtain international recognition. International approaches have also explored the roles of ethnic ties and vulnerability in stimulating and curbing secessionist movements. Other scholars have focused on institutional approaches by exploring how different domestic and international institutions have shaped secessionist conflicts. In particular, research in this area has explored the relationship between democracy and secession, institutional legacies, and the role of autonomy and lost autonomy on separatism. Scholars have also examined the strategic choices and behaviors used by both secessionist groups (violence vs. nonviolence) and by states (concession and repression), and relatedly how reputational concerns for resolve and setting precedents shape state behavior toward secessionists. Some research shows that most states are more likely to fight against secessionist movements than to grant them concessions, particularly states facing multiple (potential) separatists. However, other scholars have challenged these claims, and shown that states can use organizational lines to grant some concessions to secessionist groups without damaging their reputations. Looking toward solutions, some scholars have emphasized institutional solutions, such as consociationalism, and still others have looked to international organizations to resolve secessionist conflicts, while skeptics have suggested that approaches like partition are often the only way forward. Finally, there are several new datasets for s
{"title":"Secession and Secessionist Movements","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0336","url":null,"abstract":"Secession and secessionists movements have proliferated since the end of the Second World War. The academic literature has extensively explored these movements from different aspects. To begin, scholars have developed several legal approaches to explain when and if so how secession should take place, resulting in debates about the normative basis and legality of self-determination. Normative and philosophical approaches have sought to establish a number of necessary preconditions for secession. States, according to some of these authors, should allow secession to happen when they believe that it is morally and practically acceptable. The political economy of secession and secessionist movements has been another key area of research. Debates among scholars in this area have focused on whether wealthy or poor regions are more or less likely to pursue secession, how the presence of oil resources may establish more opportunities for the groups to secede along with incentives for the state to hold onto the territory, and what role state capacity and movement capabilities play in secessionist dynamics. Scholars have also emphasized economic approaches to the study of secession that highlight the costs and benefits of staying in the union compared to seceding. Others have studied secessionism from an international perspective and have particularly focused on exploring the impact of external kin on secessionist movements and on why and how self-determination movements obtain international recognition. International approaches have also explored the roles of ethnic ties and vulnerability in stimulating and curbing secessionist movements. Other scholars have focused on institutional approaches by exploring how different domestic and international institutions have shaped secessionist conflicts. In particular, research in this area has explored the relationship between democracy and secession, institutional legacies, and the role of autonomy and lost autonomy on separatism. Scholars have also examined the strategic choices and behaviors used by both secessionist groups (violence vs. nonviolence) and by states (concession and repression), and relatedly how reputational concerns for resolve and setting precedents shape state behavior toward secessionists. Some research shows that most states are more likely to fight against secessionist movements than to grant them concessions, particularly states facing multiple (potential) separatists. However, other scholars have challenged these claims, and shown that states can use organizational lines to grant some concessions to secessionist groups without damaging their reputations. Looking toward solutions, some scholars have emphasized institutional solutions, such as consociationalism, and still others have looked to international organizations to resolve secessionist conflicts, while skeptics have suggested that approaches like partition are often the only way forward. Finally, there are several new datasets for s","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42054245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2022.2048398
K. Hytten
ABSTRACT It is clear that transitioning towards environmental sustainability requires a strong and sustained effort to address climate change. However, despite high levels of public concern about climate change, it has remained a highly politicised and hotly contested issue in Australia, and Australia’s climate change policy remains inadequate and ineffective. Climate change first emerged as a key election issue in Australia’s 2007 federal election and remained a highly contentious issue in the 2010 election. Although climate change was much less prominent during the 2013 and 2016 election campaigns, it re-emerged as a major election issue in 2019. This paper uses critical discourse analysis to identify and trace climate change discourses in the media through these five federal election campaigns. It explores the main arguments, actors, and discursive strategies associated with two key discourses, how climate change was constructed during each campaign, and the implications of these constructions for the development of Australia’s climate change policy. It is argued that while the discourse of climate change activism has put climate change firmly on the national agenda, the discourse of climate change denialism has contributed to stymieing the development of effective climate change policy in Australia.
{"title":"Exploring climate change discourses across five Australian federal elections","authors":"K. Hytten","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2022.2048398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2022.2048398","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is clear that transitioning towards environmental sustainability requires a strong and sustained effort to address climate change. However, despite high levels of public concern about climate change, it has remained a highly politicised and hotly contested issue in Australia, and Australia’s climate change policy remains inadequate and ineffective. Climate change first emerged as a key election issue in Australia’s 2007 federal election and remained a highly contentious issue in the 2010 election. Although climate change was much less prominent during the 2013 and 2016 election campaigns, it re-emerged as a major election issue in 2019. This paper uses critical discourse analysis to identify and trace climate change discourses in the media through these five federal election campaigns. It explores the main arguments, actors, and discursive strategies associated with two key discourses, how climate change was constructed during each campaign, and the implications of these constructions for the development of Australia’s climate change policy. It is argued that while the discourse of climate change activism has put climate change firmly on the national agenda, the discourse of climate change denialism has contributed to stymieing the development of effective climate change policy in Australia.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45218723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2021.2022902
D. Hall
ABSTRACT The Climate Change Commission (CCC) has a mandate to provide independent, expert advice to the New Zealand Government to enhance the clarity and stability of climate change policies. This institutional innovation has occasionally been rationalised as a form of expert rule, especially by analogy with central banks. In reality, however, the CCC only has advisory powers, so lacks the practical authority to enforce rules or operate policy instruments. How then might the CCC exert greater influence on the low-emissions transition? One option is to double-down on the model of expert rule – that is, to create exceptions to parliamentary sovereignty and to empower the CCC as a technocratic (or epistocratic) institution that has independence over the means (and ends) of climate change policy. Subsequently, the CCC would have a right not only to be believed, but obeyed. But this is politically improbable and also increases the CCC’s susceptibility to trends in political culture and mass media that erode the epistemic privilege of experts. Accordingly, this paper offers reasons for the CCC to deepen its entanglement with democracy, such that its epistemic authority might achieve greater practical authority by informing the ends of popular sovereignty.
{"title":"Expertise within democracy: the case of New Zealand’s climate change commission","authors":"D. Hall","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.2022902","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.2022902","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Climate Change Commission (CCC) has a mandate to provide independent, expert advice to the New Zealand Government to enhance the clarity and stability of climate change policies. This institutional innovation has occasionally been rationalised as a form of expert rule, especially by analogy with central banks. In reality, however, the CCC only has advisory powers, so lacks the practical authority to enforce rules or operate policy instruments. How then might the CCC exert greater influence on the low-emissions transition? One option is to double-down on the model of expert rule – that is, to create exceptions to parliamentary sovereignty and to empower the CCC as a technocratic (or epistocratic) institution that has independence over the means (and ends) of climate change policy. Subsequently, the CCC would have a right not only to be believed, but obeyed. But this is politically improbable and also increases the CCC’s susceptibility to trends in political culture and mass media that erode the epistemic privilege of experts. Accordingly, this paper offers reasons for the CCC to deepen its entanglement with democracy, such that its epistemic authority might achieve greater practical authority by informing the ends of popular sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42426375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT A huge number of climate change adaptation projects are underway to manage risk and minimise vulnerability for communities and businesses. Yet, adaptation processes are often ineffective because of deeply entrenched structures of power and different value systems leading to conflicting priorities for action. This paper draws on the notion of cultural politics to understand climate change adaptation in the tourism sector of Aotearoa New Zealand, a sector that depends on the environment for its survival but neglects it for short-term gains, often precipitating maladaptation in the process. Building on insights into how and why the tourism industry – in a pre-COVID19 context – struggled to adapt to the urgent imperatives of climate change, the paper goes on to show how a culture-centred, deliberative democratic approach can be applied to identify pathways for a transition to an environmentally sustainable tourism sector that can adapt to a climate-changed and pandemic-affected world.
{"title":"The cultural politics of climate change adaptation: an analysis of the tourism sector in Aotearoa New Zealand","authors":"Priya Kurian, Debashish Munshi, Raven Cretney, Sandra L. Morrison, Lyn Kathlene","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.2021803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.2021803","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A huge number of climate change adaptation projects are underway to manage risk and minimise vulnerability for communities and businesses. Yet, adaptation processes are often ineffective because of deeply entrenched structures of power and different value systems leading to conflicting priorities for action. This paper draws on the notion of cultural politics to understand climate change adaptation in the tourism sector of Aotearoa New Zealand, a sector that depends on the environment for its survival but neglects it for short-term gains, often precipitating maladaptation in the process. Building on insights into how and why the tourism industry – in a pre-COVID19 context – struggled to adapt to the urgent imperatives of climate change, the paper goes on to show how a culture-centred, deliberative democratic approach can be applied to identify pathways for a transition to an environmentally sustainable tourism sector that can adapt to a climate-changed and pandemic-affected world.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49247868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2021.2019591
W. Dreyer, Elisabeth Ellis
ABSTRACT An emerging consensus among scholars of environmental politics includes public participation in the legislative process as a critical condition of the transition to sustainability. The select committee process in Aotearoa New Zealand has long been celebrated for its apparent openness to public participation. We examine the select committee process as it functioned in the case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019, employing a quantitative analysis that mapped categories of submitters’ policy propositions through the constant comparative method, and compare them against the recommendations of the majority and minority perspectives of the Environment Select Committee. In addition, we compare the majority and minority recommendations to the Departmental Report. The results of this case study incline us to question the assumption that submitters have influence with select committees and the extent of committee deliberation. If the transition to sustainability depends on the government’s capacity for transformative change, and that capacity in turn depends on the strength of its deliberative system, then our study provides some reason to worry about the capacity of government in Aotearoa New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change.
{"title":"Do New Zealand select committees still make a difference? The case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019","authors":"W. Dreyer, Elisabeth Ellis","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.2019591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.2019591","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An emerging consensus among scholars of environmental politics includes public participation in the legislative process as a critical condition of the transition to sustainability. The select committee process in Aotearoa New Zealand has long been celebrated for its apparent openness to public participation. We examine the select committee process as it functioned in the case of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill 2019, employing a quantitative analysis that mapped categories of submitters’ policy propositions through the constant comparative method, and compare them against the recommendations of the majority and minority perspectives of the Environment Select Committee. In addition, we compare the majority and minority recommendations to the Departmental Report. The results of this case study incline us to question the assumption that submitters have influence with select committees and the extent of committee deliberation. If the transition to sustainability depends on the government’s capacity for transformative change, and that capacity in turn depends on the strength of its deliberative system, then our study provides some reason to worry about the capacity of government in Aotearoa New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44488688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2021.2019592
V. Dinica
ABSTRACT This article explores how key political parties have operationalised the only three economic models discussed politically in New Zealand, since 2009: green growth (GG); circular economy (CE), bioeconomy (BE). For the later, two approaches are distinguished, given the different sustainability performance expected: a ‘natural bioeconomy’ (BE-1) and a ‘genetic engineering bioeconomy’ (BE-2). Findings indicate that all parties and governments have predominantly supported weak and partial sustainability operationalisations of these models. The conservative National Party conflates resource-intensive capitalism with GG and BE-2. The Labour Party’s approaches to CE and BE-1 are fragmented and narrow, with no overarching national strategies; since retaking power in 2017, governmental initiatives remain dominated by the timid GG approach of the past. Labour is mildly open towards several types of high-risk genetic-engineering, consistent with BE-2. The National Party supports BE-2 transitions as wholeheartedly as the Green Party opposes them. Surprisingly, Labour’s interest in BE-1 and CBE-1 innovations is limited, framed only by climate mitigation goals. It is unclear whether any political party New Zealand currently understands or wishes to implement contemporary conceptualisations of an innovative, ecologically-sound circular natural bioeconomy (CBE-1).
{"title":"New Zealand’s transition attempts to a more sustainable economy: political statements and governance realities","authors":"V. Dinica","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2021.2019592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2021.2019592","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article explores how key political parties have operationalised the only three economic models discussed politically in New Zealand, since 2009: green growth (GG); circular economy (CE), bioeconomy (BE). For the later, two approaches are distinguished, given the different sustainability performance expected: a ‘natural bioeconomy’ (BE-1) and a ‘genetic engineering bioeconomy’ (BE-2). Findings indicate that all parties and governments have predominantly supported weak and partial sustainability operationalisations of these models. The conservative National Party conflates resource-intensive capitalism with GG and BE-2. The Labour Party’s approaches to CE and BE-1 are fragmented and narrow, with no overarching national strategies; since retaking power in 2017, governmental initiatives remain dominated by the timid GG approach of the past. Labour is mildly open towards several types of high-risk genetic-engineering, consistent with BE-2. The National Party supports BE-2 transitions as wholeheartedly as the Green Party opposes them. Surprisingly, Labour’s interest in BE-1 and CBE-1 innovations is limited, framed only by climate mitigation goals. It is unclear whether any political party New Zealand currently understands or wishes to implement contemporary conceptualisations of an innovative, ecologically-sound circular natural bioeconomy (CBE-1).","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58932213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/00323187.2022.2037440
Sam Crawley, V. Dinica
ABSTRACT Politics is critical to understanding the pathways to a sustainable future. In recent years, a scholarly field has emerged, seeking to understand whether transitions towards more sustainable societies and economies occur and, if so, how they unfold. However, this field has not always fully incorporated the role of politics in shaping discourses, institutions and economic visions, or considered regions outside of Europe and North America. In this introduction to the special issue, we briefly review the field of sustainability transitions, highlighting the need to better capture the role played by political factors, institutions and (debates on) economic innovations in these transitions. We explain that sustainability is a contested concept, with two dominant conceptualisations: weak and strong sustainability. The framework of sustainability transitions allows us to position the contributions of the articles included in this special issue, which examine governance and institutions, media discourses, the role of industry and alternative economic models. The special issue focuses on two jurisdictions infrequently discussed in the literature on sustainability transitions: New Zealand and Australia. The special issue thus contributes new theoretical and empirical perspectives on the role of politics, political institutions and economic visions in sustainability transitions in the South Pacific.
{"title":"Institutionalising environmental sustainability transitions in New Zealand and Australia: Introduction to the special issue","authors":"Sam Crawley, V. Dinica","doi":"10.1080/00323187.2022.2037440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00323187.2022.2037440","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Politics is critical to understanding the pathways to a sustainable future. In recent years, a scholarly field has emerged, seeking to understand whether transitions towards more sustainable societies and economies occur and, if so, how they unfold. However, this field has not always fully incorporated the role of politics in shaping discourses, institutions and economic visions, or considered regions outside of Europe and North America. In this introduction to the special issue, we briefly review the field of sustainability transitions, highlighting the need to better capture the role played by political factors, institutions and (debates on) economic innovations in these transitions. We explain that sustainability is a contested concept, with two dominant conceptualisations: weak and strong sustainability. The framework of sustainability transitions allows us to position the contributions of the articles included in this special issue, which examine governance and institutions, media discourses, the role of industry and alternative economic models. The special issue focuses on two jurisdictions infrequently discussed in the literature on sustainability transitions: New Zealand and Australia. The special issue thus contributes new theoretical and empirical perspectives on the role of politics, political institutions and economic visions in sustainability transitions in the South Pacific.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46825727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-24DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0328
Robert Browning
In 1979, a new US cable television network was created. It was called C-SPAN, an acronym reflecting its origin. The Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network was created to record public affairs programming and deliver it by cable and satellite into US homes. Cable was a nascent industry at that time. It began mostly as a retransmission of broadcast signals into areas that had poor terrestrial reception. The satellite revolution of the 1970s known as “Open Skies” made it possible for new networks to deliver their signals to home satellite dishes, but more importantly, to cable operators who were offered new exclusive, nonbroadcast networks that they could sell to the local subscribers. Home Box Office, or HBO, was successful delivering movies this way, which allowed commercial-free content offered for a premium. Cable operators were thus interested in this new satellite-delivered content that would distinguish cable and give customers reasons to subscribe. Brian Lamb was one of these network entrepreneurs, who with a background in radio, broadcast television, public affairs, satellite policy, and cable television, envisioned a cable satellite network that would bring unedited, Washington, DC–based public affairs programming delivered over cable television systems to American homes. He convinced some cable television executives, with a complementary entrepreneur spirit, to invest in his idea. The result was a nonprofit network dedicated to public affairs events in their entirety. It would be paid for by monthly, per-home license fees paid by the cable operators to the network in exchange for receiving the television signal. This, however, was just half of the story of the origin of C-SPAN. While Brian Lamb was developing his idea and thinking of how content from Washington, DC, events could be delivered via satellite to cable systems, another group was also working on a similar idea. The year was 1977 and the group was the United States House of Representatives. The mid-1970s were a heady time for the US Congress. President Nixon resigned in 1974 after congressional investigations of the 1972 Watergate break in. Congress passed the far-reaching War Powers Act and Congressional Budget Impoundment Act over presidential vetoes to strengthen Congress over what noted historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote was the “Imperial Presidency.” When the US House of Representatives first televised its proceedings on 19 March 1979, C-SPAN began transmitting the signal via satellite and the new network was available.
{"title":"Impact of C-SPAN on US Democracy","authors":"Robert Browning","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0328","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0328","url":null,"abstract":"In 1979, a new US cable television network was created. It was called C-SPAN, an acronym reflecting its origin. The Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network was created to record public affairs programming and deliver it by cable and satellite into US homes. Cable was a nascent industry at that time. It began mostly as a retransmission of broadcast signals into areas that had poor terrestrial reception. The satellite revolution of the 1970s known as “Open Skies” made it possible for new networks to deliver their signals to home satellite dishes, but more importantly, to cable operators who were offered new exclusive, nonbroadcast networks that they could sell to the local subscribers. Home Box Office, or HBO, was successful delivering movies this way, which allowed commercial-free content offered for a premium. Cable operators were thus interested in this new satellite-delivered content that would distinguish cable and give customers reasons to subscribe. Brian Lamb was one of these network entrepreneurs, who with a background in radio, broadcast television, public affairs, satellite policy, and cable television, envisioned a cable satellite network that would bring unedited, Washington, DC–based public affairs programming delivered over cable television systems to American homes. He convinced some cable television executives, with a complementary entrepreneur spirit, to invest in his idea. The result was a nonprofit network dedicated to public affairs events in their entirety. It would be paid for by monthly, per-home license fees paid by the cable operators to the network in exchange for receiving the television signal. This, however, was just half of the story of the origin of C-SPAN. While Brian Lamb was developing his idea and thinking of how content from Washington, DC, events could be delivered via satellite to cable systems, another group was also working on a similar idea. The year was 1977 and the group was the United States House of Representatives. The mid-1970s were a heady time for the US Congress. President Nixon resigned in 1974 after congressional investigations of the 1972 Watergate break in. Congress passed the far-reaching War Powers Act and Congressional Budget Impoundment Act over presidential vetoes to strengthen Congress over what noted historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote was the “Imperial Presidency.” When the US House of Representatives first televised its proceedings on 19 March 1979, C-SPAN began transmitting the signal via satellite and the new network was available.","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47247409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-12DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0327
Nadia E. Brown, G. Caballero, S. Gershon
At its heart, intersectionality is a study of relative power. As such, political scientists have employed this approach as both a theory and method to examine political behavior and the state’s interaction with social groups as citizens and noncitizens. Intersectionality is a framework that recognizes the interconnectedness of sociopolitical categories that overlap with systems of discrimination or disadvantage. The study of intersectionality is interdisciplinary and does not have one academic home. As such, we compiled a list of texts that have used this concept, methodological framework, or theoretical approach to answer questions using a political science lens with the goal of providing a broad summary of contemporary research in this field. Furthermore, we made an effort to represent research that highlights the variation among social groups, regions, and issues as a way to illustrate the diversity within intersectional research projects. In political science, intersectionality has been used as a normative theoretical argument and a methodological approach to empirical research. Rooted in Black feminist theory and praxis, intersectionality has been employed as an analytical tool to bring to light issues of marginalization and systematic oppression that were previously invisible by using a single axis approach. Much of political science research seeks to understand the experiences of those with one or more marginalized identities as political actors. The research in this field is diverse in the populations and questions examined as well as the methods employed. Contemporary research on intersectionality includes comparative and international research on nations around the world. It explores the role of institutions, culture, and context as well as individual political identities, attitudes, and behavior. This scholarship also examines the differences of experiences within populations—such as women and racial, ethnic, or religious minorities often grouped for analysis in other fields. In applying an intersectional analysis to political experiences of these populations, this research often highlights the ways in which different identities are associated with distinct attitudes, behavior, and political outcomes. As a result, intersectionality research in political science offers deeper insights into political phenomena that were previously examined with a single axis approach. For example, studies of women’s political involvement that did not account for difference among groups of women failed to account for how ethno-racial, sexual orientation, nativity, disability, or religion may have influenced women’s political experiences and political outcomes. Among the debates engaged by this literature are questions revolving around the political experiences associated with multiple marginalized identities. Specifically, do groups, candidates, or public officials who possess multiple marginalized identities experience a so-called double disadvantage? So
{"title":"Intersectionality in Political Science","authors":"Nadia E. Brown, G. Caballero, S. Gershon","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0327","url":null,"abstract":"At its heart, intersectionality is a study of relative power. As such, political scientists have employed this approach as both a theory and method to examine political behavior and the state’s interaction with social groups as citizens and noncitizens. Intersectionality is a framework that recognizes the interconnectedness of sociopolitical categories that overlap with systems of discrimination or disadvantage. The study of intersectionality is interdisciplinary and does not have one academic home. As such, we compiled a list of texts that have used this concept, methodological framework, or theoretical approach to answer questions using a political science lens with the goal of providing a broad summary of contemporary research in this field. Furthermore, we made an effort to represent research that highlights the variation among social groups, regions, and issues as a way to illustrate the diversity within intersectional research projects. In political science, intersectionality has been used as a normative theoretical argument and a methodological approach to empirical research. Rooted in Black feminist theory and praxis, intersectionality has been employed as an analytical tool to bring to light issues of marginalization and systematic oppression that were previously invisible by using a single axis approach. Much of political science research seeks to understand the experiences of those with one or more marginalized identities as political actors. The research in this field is diverse in the populations and questions examined as well as the methods employed. Contemporary research on intersectionality includes comparative and international research on nations around the world. It explores the role of institutions, culture, and context as well as individual political identities, attitudes, and behavior. This scholarship also examines the differences of experiences within populations—such as women and racial, ethnic, or religious minorities often grouped for analysis in other fields. In applying an intersectional analysis to political experiences of these populations, this research often highlights the ways in which different identities are associated with distinct attitudes, behavior, and political outcomes. As a result, intersectionality research in political science offers deeper insights into political phenomena that were previously examined with a single axis approach. For example, studies of women’s political involvement that did not account for difference among groups of women failed to account for how ethno-racial, sexual orientation, nativity, disability, or religion may have influenced women’s political experiences and political outcomes. Among the debates engaged by this literature are questions revolving around the political experiences associated with multiple marginalized identities. Specifically, do groups, candidates, or public officials who possess multiple marginalized identities experience a so-called double disadvantage? So","PeriodicalId":20275,"journal":{"name":"Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47748892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：