Pub Date : 2024-05-17DOI: 10.1177/10659129241253602
Levi G. Allen
Why do individuals defect from the partisan pull of their social identities? Previous explanations of social sorting often neglect to account for these defectors whose partisanship cannot be explained by simply tallying up their social identities. I call these individuals political heretics. To better understand this phenomenon, I leverage white evangelicals, one of the most socially and politically sorted groups in the United States, who support the Democratic Party as a case study. I find that, based upon 68 face-to-face interviews across seven churches, two explanations emerge that explain their heresy. First, some find their way into Democratic congregations that shield them from the pressure exerted by residing in a religious tradition that has undergone extensive political sorting. Second, some choose to remain in predominately Republicans churches and offset the cost of this political pressure with some other benefit. However, for those who choose the latter, electing to remain in a church where they are in the political minority, they face significant headwinds to either update their political preferences or leave. Despite these embattled defectors choosing to remain in Republican congregations, the pressure of polarization may eventually force them out.
{"title":"Embattlement and Resilience Among White Evangelical Democrats","authors":"Levi G. Allen","doi":"10.1177/10659129241253602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241253602","url":null,"abstract":"Why do individuals defect from the partisan pull of their social identities? Previous explanations of social sorting often neglect to account for these defectors whose partisanship cannot be explained by simply tallying up their social identities. I call these individuals political heretics. To better understand this phenomenon, I leverage white evangelicals, one of the most socially and politically sorted groups in the United States, who support the Democratic Party as a case study. I find that, based upon 68 face-to-face interviews across seven churches, two explanations emerge that explain their heresy. First, some find their way into Democratic congregations that shield them from the pressure exerted by residing in a religious tradition that has undergone extensive political sorting. Second, some choose to remain in predominately Republicans churches and offset the cost of this political pressure with some other benefit. However, for those who choose the latter, electing to remain in a church where they are in the political minority, they face significant headwinds to either update their political preferences or leave. Despite these embattled defectors choosing to remain in Republican congregations, the pressure of polarization may eventually force them out.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"36 27","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140966406","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 : 2024-05-14DOI: 10.1177/10659129241253220
Esther Mary L. Calvo, Hanna Bäck, Royce Carroll
Radical right populist parties have often been treated as “pariahs,” being excluded from coalition politics in parliamentary democracies. We argue that negative rhetoric targeted at radical right populist parties in legislative debates is used by the established parties to distance themselves from such parties and that the incentives to do so depend on the political context. Using sentiment analysis of speeches in the Swedish Riksdag from 2010 to 2022, we find that rhetoric targeted toward the radical right Sweden Democrats is more negative than speech concerning other parties on average. We also find that this negative rhetoric declined over time, particularly from the center-right parties, as the formerly marginal Sweden Democrats gained more seats and became a potential partner for cooperation. Our analysis demonstrates how tracking parliamentary discourse provides insights into changing party dynamics. Our findings suggest that, as the prospects for populists' pariah status change, rhetoric from established parties reflects this shifting role in party politics, with enduring negativity accompanied by reduced hostility among the center-right parties with the greatest potential for cooperation.
{"title":"Debating the Populist Pariah: Changing Party Dynamics and Elite Rhetoric in the Swedish Riksdag","authors":"Esther Mary L. Calvo, Hanna Bäck, Royce Carroll","doi":"10.1177/10659129241253220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241253220","url":null,"abstract":"Radical right populist parties have often been treated as “pariahs,” being excluded from coalition politics in parliamentary democracies. We argue that negative rhetoric targeted at radical right populist parties in legislative debates is used by the established parties to distance themselves from such parties and that the incentives to do so depend on the political context. Using sentiment analysis of speeches in the Swedish Riksdag from 2010 to 2022, we find that rhetoric targeted toward the radical right Sweden Democrats is more negative than speech concerning other parties on average. We also find that this negative rhetoric declined over time, particularly from the center-right parties, as the formerly marginal Sweden Democrats gained more seats and became a potential partner for cooperation. Our analysis demonstrates how tracking parliamentary discourse provides insights into changing party dynamics. Our findings suggest that, as the prospects for populists' pariah status change, rhetoric from established parties reflects this shifting role in party politics, with enduring negativity accompanied by reduced hostility among the center-right parties with the greatest potential for cooperation.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"90 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140978599","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 : 2024-05-08DOI: 10.1177/10659129241252373
Reed M. Wood
Despite the global expansion in women’s access to political leadership in recent decades, female parliamentarians remain a distinct minority in most national legislatures. Previous studies have linked variations in women’s descriptive representation to international and domestic security threats, such as interstate war and transnational terrorist campaigns. However, existing research has thus far overlooked how the turbulence, unrest, and violence often associated with the election process itself may produce gendered electoral outcomes. I argue that violent contention in the period immediately preceding elections introduces gendered distortions to the political recruitment process that determines the gender composition of legislatures. The cumulative effect of these distortions is a reduction in the proportion of legislative seats subsequently held by women. To evaluate my hypothesis, I analyze data from 620 nominally competitive legislative elections in 128 countries between 1990 and 2012. Consistent with expectations, the results suggest that higher levels of election-related violence are associated with lower rates of women's descriptive representation.
{"title":"The Effects of Electoral Violence on Women’s Legislative Representation","authors":"Reed M. Wood","doi":"10.1177/10659129241252373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241252373","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the global expansion in women’s access to political leadership in recent decades, female parliamentarians remain a distinct minority in most national legislatures. Previous studies have linked variations in women’s descriptive representation to international and domestic security threats, such as interstate war and transnational terrorist campaigns. However, existing research has thus far overlooked how the turbulence, unrest, and violence often associated with the election process itself may produce gendered electoral outcomes. I argue that violent contention in the period immediately preceding elections introduces gendered distortions to the political recruitment process that determines the gender composition of legislatures. The cumulative effect of these distortions is a reduction in the proportion of legislative seats subsequently held by women. To evaluate my hypothesis, I analyze data from 620 nominally competitive legislative elections in 128 countries between 1990 and 2012. Consistent with expectations, the results suggest that higher levels of election-related violence are associated with lower rates of women's descriptive representation.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":" 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140999522","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 : 2024-05-08DOI: 10.1177/10659129241252660
Danhua Qi, James C. Garand
In this paper, we explore how the effects of perceived immigrant threat, American national identity, and attitudes toward immigration-dominated racial/ethnic groups on perceptions of immigrant contributions differ for documented and undocumented immigrants. We contend that different levels of perceived risk associated with undocumented and documented immigrants activate the effects of immigrant threat and American identity in different ways. We consider the varying effects of general perceptions of immigrant threat, and we also differentiate the effects of American pride (i.e., positive sentiments about being an American) and American exclusion (i.e., negative sentiments associated with criteria needed to be considered an American). We use data from the 2016 to 2017 Voter Study Group surveys, which includes a survey experiment with respondents randomly assigned to documented and undocumented immigrant treatments. We find strong negative effects of immigrant threat perceptions on Americans support for both immigrant groups, with observed effects significantly stronger for undocumented immigrants. Further, while American exclusion has strong negative effects on attitudes for both immigrant groups, American pride depresses support only for undocumented immigrants. We also find that evaluations of Hispanics have effects on perceptions of contributions for documented and undocumented immigrants, though the effect of Asian evaluations is limited to documented immigrants.
{"title":"Perceptions of Threat, American National Identity, and Americans’ Attitudes Toward Documented and Undocumented Immigrants","authors":"Danhua Qi, James C. Garand","doi":"10.1177/10659129241252660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241252660","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we explore how the effects of perceived immigrant threat, American national identity, and attitudes toward immigration-dominated racial/ethnic groups on perceptions of immigrant contributions differ for documented and undocumented immigrants. We contend that different levels of perceived risk associated with undocumented and documented immigrants activate the effects of immigrant threat and American identity in different ways. We consider the varying effects of general perceptions of immigrant threat, and we also differentiate the effects of American pride (i.e., positive sentiments about being an American) and American exclusion (i.e., negative sentiments associated with criteria needed to be considered an American). We use data from the 2016 to 2017 Voter Study Group surveys, which includes a survey experiment with respondents randomly assigned to documented and undocumented immigrant treatments. We find strong negative effects of immigrant threat perceptions on Americans support for both immigrant groups, with observed effects significantly stronger for undocumented immigrants. Further, while American exclusion has strong negative effects on attitudes for both immigrant groups, American pride depresses support only for undocumented immigrants. We also find that evaluations of Hispanics have effects on perceptions of contributions for documented and undocumented immigrants, though the effect of Asian evaluations is limited to documented immigrants.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"7 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141001518","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 : 2024-05-06DOI: 10.1177/10659129241251843
Sarah E. Anderson, Daniel M. Butler, Laurel Harbridge‐Yong, Zoe Nemerever
Pivotal legislators’ positions are critical to legislative outcomes, but does this heightened importance in policymaking translate into heightened electoral accountability or voter knowledge? Arguments about clarity of responsibility suggest that pivotal legislators, who are decisive in determining legislative outcomes, may be held to higher standards, while perspectives rooted in electoral incentives for position taking suggest they may not. Two survey experiments show that voters do not respond more strongly to pivotal legislators’ votes on policy. Moreover, observational data analysis rejects the expectation that constituents have more knowledge about the votes of pivotal moderate legislators compared to non-pivotal moderate legislators. These results suggest that pivotal legislators face similar, if not lower, accountability for their votes. Combined with the policy-concessions pivotal legislators can secure, these patterns point to the benefits that accrue to pivotal legislators from institutional rules that give them key veto power over policy.
{"title":"Legislator Pivotality and Voter Accountability","authors":"Sarah E. Anderson, Daniel M. Butler, Laurel Harbridge‐Yong, Zoe Nemerever","doi":"10.1177/10659129241251843","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241251843","url":null,"abstract":"Pivotal legislators’ positions are critical to legislative outcomes, but does this heightened importance in policymaking translate into heightened electoral accountability or voter knowledge? Arguments about clarity of responsibility suggest that pivotal legislators, who are decisive in determining legislative outcomes, may be held to higher standards, while perspectives rooted in electoral incentives for position taking suggest they may not. Two survey experiments show that voters do not respond more strongly to pivotal legislators’ votes on policy. Moreover, observational data analysis rejects the expectation that constituents have more knowledge about the votes of pivotal moderate legislators compared to non-pivotal moderate legislators. These results suggest that pivotal legislators face similar, if not lower, accountability for their votes. Combined with the policy-concessions pivotal legislators can secure, these patterns point to the benefits that accrue to pivotal legislators from institutional rules that give them key veto power over policy.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141008550","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 : 2024-05-02DOI: 10.1177/10659129241251783
H. Hassell, Robert A. Lytle
Understanding the origins of primary elections has important implications for evaluating their role in American elections. While there is little argument about the importance of primaries to the American electoral system, there is less agreement about why states adopted the direct primary and what they were intended to accomplish. Previous scholarship has laid out three theories: the strength of the progressive movement, parties' efforts to maintain one-party rule, and the urbanization of American society. Using comprehensive state-level data from 1892 to 1930, we test these theories of states' adoption of direct primaries. We find a strong influence of the strength of the progressive movement and the rate of urbanization on the adoption of the direct primary, but we do not, however, find any influence of state partisan competition. Our findings reinforce original arguments about the importance of the progressive movement and urbanization in the adoption of the direct primary.
{"title":"Testing Theories of States' Adoption of the Direct Primary","authors":"H. Hassell, Robert A. Lytle","doi":"10.1177/10659129241251783","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241251783","url":null,"abstract":"Understanding the origins of primary elections has important implications for evaluating their role in American elections. While there is little argument about the importance of primaries to the American electoral system, there is less agreement about why states adopted the direct primary and what they were intended to accomplish. Previous scholarship has laid out three theories: the strength of the progressive movement, parties' efforts to maintain one-party rule, and the urbanization of American society. Using comprehensive state-level data from 1892 to 1930, we test these theories of states' adoption of direct primaries. We find a strong influence of the strength of the progressive movement and the rate of urbanization on the adoption of the direct primary, but we do not, however, find any influence of state partisan competition. Our findings reinforce original arguments about the importance of the progressive movement and urbanization in the adoption of the direct primary.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"58 S2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141017932","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 : 2024-03-29DOI: 10.1177/10659129241242040
Li Shao, Dongshu Liu, Fangfei Wang
Autocrats selectively tolerate political criticism, which may erode regime support. The literature suggests that regimes contain criticism by encouraging more supportive voices, but the mechanisms remain unclear. We theorize two mechanisms: winning more supporters (persuasion) or mobilizing existing supporters to speak out (mobilization). These mechanisms can be created by censoring evidence that supports criticism and adopting propaganda to arouse nationalism or promise material gains. We conducted two survey experiments in China with a novel measurement of supporter mobilization: respondents’ written defenses against criticism. We find evidence of a mobilization mechanism but not persuasion. Censoring facts strongly encourages supportive comments. Ideological propaganda’s effects are moderate, whereas propaganda on material benefits has no effect.
{"title":"Suppression by Mobilization: How Information Control Strategies Contain Political Criticism in Autocracies","authors":"Li Shao, Dongshu Liu, Fangfei Wang","doi":"10.1177/10659129241242040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241242040","url":null,"abstract":"Autocrats selectively tolerate political criticism, which may erode regime support. The literature suggests that regimes contain criticism by encouraging more supportive voices, but the mechanisms remain unclear. We theorize two mechanisms: winning more supporters (persuasion) or mobilizing existing supporters to speak out (mobilization). These mechanisms can be created by censoring evidence that supports criticism and adopting propaganda to arouse nationalism or promise material gains. We conducted two survey experiments in China with a novel measurement of supporter mobilization: respondents’ written defenses against criticism. We find evidence of a mobilization mechanism but not persuasion. Censoring facts strongly encourages supportive comments. Ideological propaganda’s effects are moderate, whereas propaganda on material benefits has no effect.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"68 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140366417","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 : 2024-03-28DOI: 10.1177/10659129241243038
Phillip Pinell
The language argument is a classic argument for human distinctiveness that, for millenia, has been used to distinguish humans from non-human animals. Generative language models (GLMs) pose a challenge to traditional language-based models of human distinctiveness precisely because they can communicate and respond in a manner resembling humanity’s linguistic capabilities. This article asks: have GLMs acquired natural language? Employing Gadamer’s theory of language, I argue that they have not. While GLMs can reliably generate linguistic content that can be interpreted as “texts,” they lack the linguistically mediated reality that language provides. Missing from these models are four key features of a linguistic construction of reality: groundedness to the world, understanding, community, and tradition. I conclude with skepticism that GLMs can ever achieve natural language because they lack these characteristics in their linguistic development.
{"title":"Does Artificial Intelligence Speak Our Language?: A Gadamerian Assessment of Generative Language Models","authors":"Phillip Pinell","doi":"10.1177/10659129241243038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241243038","url":null,"abstract":"The language argument is a classic argument for human distinctiveness that, for millenia, has been used to distinguish humans from non-human animals. Generative language models (GLMs) pose a challenge to traditional language-based models of human distinctiveness precisely because they can communicate and respond in a manner resembling humanity’s linguistic capabilities. This article asks: have GLMs acquired natural language? Employing Gadamer’s theory of language, I argue that they have not. While GLMs can reliably generate linguistic content that can be interpreted as “texts,” they lack the linguistically mediated reality that language provides. Missing from these models are four key features of a linguistic construction of reality: groundedness to the world, understanding, community, and tradition. I conclude with skepticism that GLMs can ever achieve natural language because they lack these characteristics in their linguistic development.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"25 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140372379","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 : 2024-03-01DOI: 10.1177/10659129241236685
Jon Green, Kelsey Shoub, Rachel Blum, Lindsey Cormack
Legislative activity—whether votes or communications—is often represented in a single partisan or ideological dimension. But as lawmakers communicate in various venues (e.g., traditional, direct, or social media), the extent to which these estimates are interchangeable—reflecting a common underlying dimension—is unclear. We estimate a partisan dimension in members’ tweets, Facebook posts, e-newsletters, press releases, and one-minute House floor speeches for the 116th U.S. Congress and test the extent to which representations remain consistent across different venues. We find that while Democrats are consistently separable from Republicans, members’ relative intra-party positions frequently shift between venues. This is likely driven by differences in the affordances and audiences present in each venue, as venues with more nationalized audiences (such as social media) show higher levels of rhetorical polarization than venues with more local audiences (e-newsletters). These results suggest that the level of polarization we observe depends on where we look, and that the scholars of congressional communication should explicitly consider the input they use to measure partisanship.
{"title":"Cross-Platform Partisan Positioning in Congressional Speech","authors":"Jon Green, Kelsey Shoub, Rachel Blum, Lindsey Cormack","doi":"10.1177/10659129241236685","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241236685","url":null,"abstract":"Legislative activity—whether votes or communications—is often represented in a single partisan or ideological dimension. But as lawmakers communicate in various venues (e.g., traditional, direct, or social media), the extent to which these estimates are interchangeable—reflecting a common underlying dimension—is unclear. We estimate a partisan dimension in members’ tweets, Facebook posts, e-newsletters, press releases, and one-minute House floor speeches for the 116th U.S. Congress and test the extent to which representations remain consistent across different venues. We find that while Democrats are consistently separable from Republicans, members’ relative intra-party positions frequently shift between venues. This is likely driven by differences in the affordances and audiences present in each venue, as venues with more nationalized audiences (such as social media) show higher levels of rhetorical polarization than venues with more local audiences (e-newsletters). These results suggest that the level of polarization we observe depends on where we look, and that the scholars of congressional communication should explicitly consider the input they use to measure partisanship.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"115 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140088217","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 : 2024-02-18DOI: 10.1177/10659129241228489
Germaine A. Hoston
This article explores the relationship between materialism and philosophical idealism in the political philosophy of Marxist revolutionary movements, by illuminating the influence of Neo-Confucian idealism on the sinification of Marxism. Although they had virtually no access to the writings of the young Marx, Li Dazhao and Mao Zedong incorporated idealist philosophical ideas into their sinified Marxism. I argue that three elements of Neo-Confucian idealism contributed to the sinification of Marxism that emerged by the 1940s: (1) acknowledgment of the real existence of the material world as apprehended by the mind-and-heart in Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism; (2) emphasis on human will and consciousness, drawn from Wang Yangming’s Neo-Confucianism; and (3) recognition of an autonomous, even decisive role of consciousness and culture in revolutionary change. The resulting sinified Marxism constituted a revolutionary New Confucianism, highlighting the most universal, humanistic, liberative elements in the Chinese philosophical tradition. These community-affirming and spiritually rich elements can be mobilized against authoritarian forces to support the continuing struggle for human rights and democratization within and well beyond China today.
{"title":"Revolutionary Confucianism? Neo-Confucian Idealism and Modern Chinese Revolutionary Thought","authors":"Germaine A. Hoston","doi":"10.1177/10659129241228489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241228489","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the relationship between materialism and philosophical idealism in the political philosophy of Marxist revolutionary movements, by illuminating the influence of Neo-Confucian idealism on the sinification of Marxism. Although they had virtually no access to the writings of the young Marx, Li Dazhao and Mao Zedong incorporated idealist philosophical ideas into their sinified Marxism. I argue that three elements of Neo-Confucian idealism contributed to the sinification of Marxism that emerged by the 1940s: (1) acknowledgment of the real existence of the material world as apprehended by the mind-and-heart in Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism; (2) emphasis on human will and consciousness, drawn from Wang Yangming’s Neo-Confucianism; and (3) recognition of an autonomous, even decisive role of consciousness and culture in revolutionary change. The resulting sinified Marxism constituted a revolutionary New Confucianism, highlighting the most universal, humanistic, liberative elements in the Chinese philosophical tradition. These community-affirming and spiritually rich elements can be mobilized against authoritarian forces to support the continuing struggle for human rights and democratization within and well beyond China today.","PeriodicalId":508652,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Quarterly","volume":"36 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140452742","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：