重新思考政治两极分化

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1093/psquar/qqad038
Andreas Schedler
{"title":"重新思考政治两极分化","authors":"Andreas Schedler","doi":"10.1093/psquar/qqad038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The comparative study of political polarization has been central to current debates on the global crisis of democracy. It has been built on uncertain conceptual foundations, though. Established uses of the concept lack a distinctive semantic core as multiple meanings compete against each other. On the basis of a broad reading of the comparative literature, I seek to circumscribe the use and reconstruct the core of political polarization as an instance of extraordinary democratic conflict. In a first step, I delineate the basic parameters of debate by distinguishing between cluster-analytic and conflict-analytic approaches and by specifying the generic type of political conflict that characterizes the polarization of democratic polities. In a second step, I argue for political intolerance as the defining trait of both ideological and social polarization. In a final step, I introduce a third, democratic dimension into the debate: the breakdown of basic democratic trust that leads actors to view their adversaries as “enemies of democracy.” Such perceptions spell the end of democratic consolidation. When played among “democratic enemies,” democracy stops being “the only game in town.”","PeriodicalId":51491,"journal":{"name":"Political Science Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Political Polarization\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Schedler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/psquar/qqad038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The comparative study of political polarization has been central to current debates on the global crisis of democracy. It has been built on uncertain conceptual foundations, though. Established uses of the concept lack a distinctive semantic core as multiple meanings compete against each other. On the basis of a broad reading of the comparative literature, I seek to circumscribe the use and reconstruct the core of political polarization as an instance of extraordinary democratic conflict. In a first step, I delineate the basic parameters of debate by distinguishing between cluster-analytic and conflict-analytic approaches and by specifying the generic type of political conflict that characterizes the polarization of democratic polities. In a second step, I argue for political intolerance as the defining trait of both ideological and social polarization. In a final step, I introduce a third, democratic dimension into the debate: the breakdown of basic democratic trust that leads actors to view their adversaries as “enemies of democracy.” Such perceptions spell the end of democratic consolidation. When played among “democratic enemies,” democracy stops being “the only game in town.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":51491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad038\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

政治两极分化的比较研究一直是当前全球民主危机辩论的核心。然而,它建立在不确定的概念基础上。这个概念的现有用法缺乏一个独特的语义核心,因为多个含义相互竞争。在广泛阅读比较文学的基础上,我试图界定政治两极分化的用途,并将其作为非同寻常的民主冲突的一个实例来重构。在第一步中,我通过区分集群分析和冲突分析方法,并通过指定具有民主政治两极分化特征的政治冲突的一般类型,来描述辩论的基本参数。第二步,我认为政治不宽容是意识形态和社会两极分化的决定性特征。在最后一步,我在辩论中引入了第三个民主维度:基本民主信任的崩溃,导致参与者将他们的对手视为“民主的敌人”。这种看法预示着民主巩固的终结。当在“民主敌人”之间博弈时,民主就不再是“镇上唯一的游戏”。
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
Rethinking Political Polarization
The comparative study of political polarization has been central to current debates on the global crisis of democracy. It has been built on uncertain conceptual foundations, though. Established uses of the concept lack a distinctive semantic core as multiple meanings compete against each other. On the basis of a broad reading of the comparative literature, I seek to circumscribe the use and reconstruct the core of political polarization as an instance of extraordinary democratic conflict. In a first step, I delineate the basic parameters of debate by distinguishing between cluster-analytic and conflict-analytic approaches and by specifying the generic type of political conflict that characterizes the polarization of democratic polities. In a second step, I argue for political intolerance as the defining trait of both ideological and social polarization. In a final step, I introduce a third, democratic dimension into the debate: the breakdown of basic democratic trust that leads actors to view their adversaries as “enemies of democracy.” Such perceptions spell the end of democratic consolidation. When played among “democratic enemies,” democracy stops being “the only game in town.”
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 Science Quarterly
Political Science Quarterly POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Published continuously since 1886, Political Science Quarterly or PSQ is the most widely read and accessible scholarly journal covering government, politics and policy. A nonpartisan journal, PSQ is edited for both political scientists and general readers with a keen interest in public and foreign affairs. Each article is based on objective evidence and is fully refereed.
期刊最新文献
The Governance Cycle in Parliamentary Democracies: A Computational Social Science Approach by Scott de Marchi and Michael Laver The World Is Our Stage: The Global Rhetorical Presidency and the Cold War by Allison M. Prasch No Blank Check: The Origins and Consequences of Public Antipathy Towards Presidential Power by Andrew Reeves and Jon C. Rogowski The Pursuit of Dominance: 2000 Years of Superpower Grand Strategy by Christopher J. Fettweis Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion: Elite Power Struggles in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao by Joseph Torigian
×
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