{"title":"英国脱欧作为一种身份:政治身份与政策规范","authors":"James Tilley, S. Hobolt","doi":"10.1017/S1049096523000367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The decision by a narrow majority of British voters to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016 was a political earthquake that few had seen coming. It produced new political divisions, not only between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe but also within the United Kingdom. In particular, the referendum campaign and the outcome generated two new political identities: “Leavers” and “Remainers.” These Brexit identities crosscut partisan identities and voters formed deep emotional attachments to them (Curtice 2018; Evans and Schaffner 2019). Moreover, this Brexit divide led to affective polarization in the form of out-group animosity and discrimination (Hobolt, Leeper, and Tilley 2021). It also shaped perceptions of the economy (Sorace and Hobolt 2021), attitudes toward immigration (Pickup et al. 2021), vote choices (Hobolt and Rodon 2020), and losers’ consent (Schaffner 2021; Tilley and Hobolt 2023a). Brexit identities have been shown to be salient and politically consequential. Yet, we know much less about whether these new identities are rooted in policy norms that go beyond preferences about the desirability of leaving the EU. In this article, we thus explore the nature of Brexit identities and how they relate to policy norms.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"56 1","pages":"546 - 552"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brexit as an Identity: Political Identities and Policy Norms\",\"authors\":\"James Tilley, S. Hobolt\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1049096523000367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The decision by a narrow majority of British voters to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016 was a political earthquake that few had seen coming. It produced new political divisions, not only between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe but also within the United Kingdom. In particular, the referendum campaign and the outcome generated two new political identities: “Leavers” and “Remainers.” These Brexit identities crosscut partisan identities and voters formed deep emotional attachments to them (Curtice 2018; Evans and Schaffner 2019). Moreover, this Brexit divide led to affective polarization in the form of out-group animosity and discrimination (Hobolt, Leeper, and Tilley 2021). It also shaped perceptions of the economy (Sorace and Hobolt 2021), attitudes toward immigration (Pickup et al. 2021), vote choices (Hobolt and Rodon 2020), and losers’ consent (Schaffner 2021; Tilley and Hobolt 2023a). Brexit identities have been shown to be salient and politically consequential. Yet, we know much less about whether these new identities are rooted in policy norms that go beyond preferences about the desirability of leaving the EU. In this article, we thus explore the nature of Brexit identities and how they relate to policy norms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ps-Political Science & Politics\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"546 - 552\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ps-Political Science & Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000367\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
2016年,英国选民以微弱多数决定退出欧盟,这是一场几乎没有人预料到的政治地震。它产生了新的政治分歧,不仅在英国和欧洲其他国家之间,而且在英国内部。特别是,公投运动和结果产生了两种新的政治身份:“脱欧派”和“留欧派”。这些脱欧身份跨越了党派身份,选民对他们形成了深刻的情感依恋(Curtice 2018;Evans and Schaffner 2019)。此外,这种脱欧分歧导致了以群体外仇恨和歧视的形式出现的情感两极分化(Hobolt, Leeper, and Tilley 2021)。它还影响了人们对经济的看法(Sorace and Hobolt 2021)、对移民的态度(Pickup et al. 2021)、投票选择(Hobolt and Rodon 2020)和失败者的同意(Schaffner 2021;蒂利和霍伯特2023a)。英国脱欧身份已被证明具有突出和政治意义。然而,我们对这些新身份是否根植于政策规范的了解要少得多,这些政策规范超越了人们对是否愿意离开欧盟的偏好。因此,在本文中,我们将探讨英国脱欧身份的本质及其与政策规范的关系。
Brexit as an Identity: Political Identities and Policy Norms
The decision by a narrow majority of British voters to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016 was a political earthquake that few had seen coming. It produced new political divisions, not only between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe but also within the United Kingdom. In particular, the referendum campaign and the outcome generated two new political identities: “Leavers” and “Remainers.” These Brexit identities crosscut partisan identities and voters formed deep emotional attachments to them (Curtice 2018; Evans and Schaffner 2019). Moreover, this Brexit divide led to affective polarization in the form of out-group animosity and discrimination (Hobolt, Leeper, and Tilley 2021). It also shaped perceptions of the economy (Sorace and Hobolt 2021), attitudes toward immigration (Pickup et al. 2021), vote choices (Hobolt and Rodon 2020), and losers’ consent (Schaffner 2021; Tilley and Hobolt 2023a). Brexit identities have been shown to be salient and politically consequential. Yet, we know much less about whether these new identities are rooted in policy norms that go beyond preferences about the desirability of leaving the EU. In this article, we thus explore the nature of Brexit identities and how they relate to policy norms.
期刊介绍:
PS: Political Science & Politics provides critical analyses of contemporary political phenomena and is the journal of record for the discipline of political science reporting on research, teaching, and professional development. PS, begun in 1968, is the only quarterly professional news and commentary journal in the field and is the prime source of information on political scientists" achievements and professional concerns. PS: Political Science & Politics is sold ONLY as part of a joint subscription with American Political Science Review and Perspectives on Politics.