两极分化的病毒:德国关于Covid-19的在线辩论

IF 1.8 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Exchange Pub Date : 2022-11-28 DOI:10.1080/2474736x.2022.2150087
Fabiana Schmid, Oliver Treib, F. Eckardt
{"title":"两极分化的病毒:德国关于Covid-19的在线辩论","authors":"Fabiana Schmid, Oliver Treib, F. Eckardt","doi":"10.1080/2474736x.2022.2150087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To what extent do online debates display features of political polarization and in how far does polarization pose a problem for democracy? We zoom in on affective polarization: the formation of societal groups with hostile feelings towards each other, arguing that affective polarization is particularly problematic for democracy if it features elements of political intolerance, which undermines key tenets of even the most conflict-prone theories of democracy. While affective polarization has been on the rise in several countries, Germany has been considered to be a country with low, and even declining levels of affective polarization. But does this still hold true during the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw a rapid rise in conspiracy theories? Based on a qualitative discourse analysis of online debates about Covid-19 on the Facebook platforms of a mainstream and a non-mainstream German media outlet, we find strong traces of affective polarization on both platforms, involving clear indications of political intolerance. Our findings suggest that the democratic discourse is threatened by the nature of online debates about Covid-19, and it is threatened not only by anti-rationalist conspiracists at the ideological extremes but also by the intolerance of more moderate rationalists at the centre of the political spectrum. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The virus of polarization: online debates about Covid-19 in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Fabiana Schmid, Oliver Treib, F. Eckardt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2474736x.2022.2150087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To what extent do online debates display features of political polarization and in how far does polarization pose a problem for democracy? We zoom in on affective polarization: the formation of societal groups with hostile feelings towards each other, arguing that affective polarization is particularly problematic for democracy if it features elements of political intolerance, which undermines key tenets of even the most conflict-prone theories of democracy. While affective polarization has been on the rise in several countries, Germany has been considered to be a country with low, and even declining levels of affective polarization. But does this still hold true during the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw a rapid rise in conspiracy theories? Based on a qualitative discourse analysis of online debates about Covid-19 on the Facebook platforms of a mainstream and a non-mainstream German media outlet, we find strong traces of affective polarization on both platforms, involving clear indications of political intolerance. Our findings suggest that the democratic discourse is threatened by the nature of online debates about Covid-19, and it is threatened not only by anti-rationalist conspiracists at the ideological extremes but also by the intolerance of more moderate rationalists at the centre of the political spectrum. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Exchange\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Research Exchange\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2022.2150087\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Exchange","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2022.2150087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

网络辩论在多大程度上显示了政治两极分化的特征?两极分化在多大程度上对民主构成了问题?我们将重点放在情感极化上:形成对彼此怀有敌意的社会群体,认为如果情感极化以政治不容忍为特征,那么它对民主来说尤其有问题,因为政治不容忍破坏了最容易发生冲突的民主理论的关键原则。虽然情感两极分化在一些国家呈上升趋势,但德国一直被认为是一个情感两极分化水平较低甚至下降的国家。但在阴谋论迅速兴起的新冠肺炎大流行期间,这种说法是否仍然成立?基于对德国主流媒体和非主流媒体Facebook平台上关于Covid-19的在线辩论的定性话语分析,我们发现两个平台上都有强烈的情感两极分化痕迹,包括明显的政治不容忍迹象。我们的研究结果表明,关于Covid-19的在线辩论的性质威胁着民主话语,它不仅受到极端意识形态的反理性主义阴谋论者的威胁,还受到政治光谱中心更温和的理性主义者的不容忍的威胁。©2022作者。由Informa UK Limited出版,以Taylor & Francis Group的名义进行交易。
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
The virus of polarization: online debates about Covid-19 in Germany
To what extent do online debates display features of political polarization and in how far does polarization pose a problem for democracy? We zoom in on affective polarization: the formation of societal groups with hostile feelings towards each other, arguing that affective polarization is particularly problematic for democracy if it features elements of political intolerance, which undermines key tenets of even the most conflict-prone theories of democracy. While affective polarization has been on the rise in several countries, Germany has been considered to be a country with low, and even declining levels of affective polarization. But does this still hold true during the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw a rapid rise in conspiracy theories? Based on a qualitative discourse analysis of online debates about Covid-19 on the Facebook platforms of a mainstream and a non-mainstream German media outlet, we find strong traces of affective polarization on both platforms, involving clear indications of political intolerance. Our findings suggest that the democratic discourse is threatened by the nature of online debates about Covid-19, and it is threatened not only by anti-rationalist conspiracists at the ideological extremes but also by the intolerance of more moderate rationalists at the centre of the political spectrum. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
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
Political Research Exchange
Political Research Exchange POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Online repression and transnational social movements: Thailand and the #MilkTeaAlliance Did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unite Europe? Cohesion and divisions of the European Parliament on Twitter Quantifying the ideational context: political frames, meaning trajectories and punctuated equilibria in Spanish mainstream press during the Catalan nationalist challenge Breakdown by disengagement: Tunisia’s transition from representative democracy Merging the Great Patriotic War and Russian warfare in Ukraine. A case-study of Russian military patriotic clubs in 2022
×
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