我们对人民政治了解多少?检验理解不同政治概念的新框架

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Alternatives Pub Date : 2023-11-09 DOI:10.1177/03043754231211725
Carl Görtz
{"title":"我们对人民政治了解多少?检验理解不同政治概念的新框架","authors":"Carl Görtz","doi":"10.1177/03043754231211725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to increase the understanding of citizens’ different conceptions of politics. This is done by constructing a framework based on Heywood’s seminal works (2002; 2004) on three prominent understandings of politics. Guided by the framework and adopting a factor-analytic approach using the National SOM survey conducted in Sweden in autumn 2020 ( N = 1845), I found two theoretically interesting dimensions: a ‘macro-politics’ dimension that covers content related to government and the welfare state and a ‘micro-politics’ dimension that concerns content associated with everyday life. The largest group of respondents consists of people whose conceptions of politics solely cover ‘macro-politics’ (76.4%). The second largest group are those who do not consider either of these two dimensions to be political (12.9%). The opposite view to this, which combines ‘macro-politics’ and ‘micro-politics’, is held by a slightly smaller group (9.4%). A minor group was also found, consisting of people whose conception of politics only covers ‘micro-politics’ (1.2%). We ran analyses based on previous important findings on people’s conceptions of politics. Contrary to prevailing knowledge, the results show that left-leaners conceptualize (only) ‘micro-politics’ content as political more frequently than right-leaners, older people do not perceive more content as political than younger people (but view different content as political), and women, compared to men, identify more areas as political irrespective of content.","PeriodicalId":46677,"journal":{"name":"Alternatives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Do We Know About People’s Politics? Testing a New Framework for Understanding Different Conceptions of Politics\",\"authors\":\"Carl Görtz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03043754231211725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to increase the understanding of citizens’ different conceptions of politics. This is done by constructing a framework based on Heywood’s seminal works (2002; 2004) on three prominent understandings of politics. Guided by the framework and adopting a factor-analytic approach using the National SOM survey conducted in Sweden in autumn 2020 ( N = 1845), I found two theoretically interesting dimensions: a ‘macro-politics’ dimension that covers content related to government and the welfare state and a ‘micro-politics’ dimension that concerns content associated with everyday life. The largest group of respondents consists of people whose conceptions of politics solely cover ‘macro-politics’ (76.4%). The second largest group are those who do not consider either of these two dimensions to be political (12.9%). The opposite view to this, which combines ‘macro-politics’ and ‘micro-politics’, is held by a slightly smaller group (9.4%). A minor group was also found, consisting of people whose conception of politics only covers ‘micro-politics’ (1.2%). We ran analyses based on previous important findings on people’s conceptions of politics. Contrary to prevailing knowledge, the results show that left-leaners conceptualize (only) ‘micro-politics’ content as political more frequently than right-leaners, older people do not perceive more content as political than younger people (but view different content as political), and women, compared to men, identify more areas as political irrespective of content.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternatives\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternatives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231211725\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternatives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231211725","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在增进对公民不同政治观念的了解。这是通过基于海伍德的开创性作品(2002;2004)关于三个突出的政治理解。在框架的指导下,采用因素分析方法,利用2020年秋季在瑞典进行的国家SOM调查(N = 1845),我发现了两个理论上有趣的维度:一个“宏观政治”维度,涵盖与政府和福利国家相关的内容,一个“微观政治”维度,涉及与日常生活相关的内容。受访者中最大的群体是那些对政治只有“宏观政治”概念的人(76.4%)。第二大群体是那些认为这两个维度都不具有政治意义的人(12.9%)。与此相反的观点是“宏观政治”和“微观政治”相结合,持有这一观点的人数略少(9.4%)。对政治的认识只局限于“微观政治”(1.2%)的人占少数。我们根据之前关于人们政治观念的重要发现进行了分析。与主流知识相反,结果表明,左倾者比右倾者更频繁地将“微观政治”内容概念化,老年人并不比年轻人认为更多的内容是政治性的(但认为不同的内容是政治性的),而与男性相比,女性认为更多的领域是政治性的,而不考虑内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What Do We Know About People’s Politics? Testing a New Framework for Understanding Different Conceptions of Politics
This study aims to increase the understanding of citizens’ different conceptions of politics. This is done by constructing a framework based on Heywood’s seminal works (2002; 2004) on three prominent understandings of politics. Guided by the framework and adopting a factor-analytic approach using the National SOM survey conducted in Sweden in autumn 2020 ( N = 1845), I found two theoretically interesting dimensions: a ‘macro-politics’ dimension that covers content related to government and the welfare state and a ‘micro-politics’ dimension that concerns content associated with everyday life. The largest group of respondents consists of people whose conceptions of politics solely cover ‘macro-politics’ (76.4%). The second largest group are those who do not consider either of these two dimensions to be political (12.9%). The opposite view to this, which combines ‘macro-politics’ and ‘micro-politics’, is held by a slightly smaller group (9.4%). A minor group was also found, consisting of people whose conception of politics only covers ‘micro-politics’ (1.2%). We ran analyses based on previous important findings on people’s conceptions of politics. Contrary to prevailing knowledge, the results show that left-leaners conceptualize (only) ‘micro-politics’ content as political more frequently than right-leaners, older people do not perceive more content as political than younger people (but view different content as political), and women, compared to men, identify more areas as political irrespective of content.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Alternatives
Alternatives INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: A peer-reviewed journal, Alternatives explores the possibilities of new forms of political practice and identity under increasingly global conditions. Specifically, the editors focus on the changing relationships between local political practices and identities and emerging forms of global economy, culture, and polity. Published in association with the Center for the Study of Developing Societies (India).
期刊最新文献
What Do We Know About People’s Politics? Testing a New Framework for Understanding Different Conceptions of Politics Running in Place: “Czeching” out the W/E(a)stern Performative Presidential Geoprostitution Discoursive Region Building in Latvia: The Case for a Contemporary Identity Search Civil-military Relations in Mexico: From One-Party Dominance to Post-Transitional Insecurity Sovereignty, Discipline, Governmentality, and Pastorate: The Ménage à Quatre of Contemporary Authoritarian and Right-Wing Populist Power
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1