违反禁忌:香港与泰国诉求激进化的关系动态

IF 2.5 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Social Movement Studies Pub Date : 2022-10-25 DOI:10.1080/14742837.2022.2134107
M. Thompson, Edmund W. Cheng
{"title":"违反禁忌:香港与泰国诉求激进化的关系动态","authors":"M. Thompson, Edmund W. Cheng","doi":"10.1080/14742837.2022.2134107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Claims made during mass protests in Hong Kong in 2019 and Thailand in 2020 became increasingly transgressive. Localist demands and calls for the reform of the monarchy, respectively, violated conventional political norms in these two hybrid regimes. This paper examines the dynamics of opposition discursive radicalization during ongoing autocratization. Observational data and protest event analysis are employed to assess the scaling up of claims-making and its relationship to protest size and group solidarity. The paper argues that radicalization can best be understood relationally, between a hybrid regime, on the one hand, and moderates and radicals in the opposition, on the other. It identifies the following three points of convergence that lead to similar protest trajectories in both cases: the marginalization of moderates along with their gatekeeping role of transgressive discourses; the creation of digitally enabled protest networks that facilitated mass mobilization and claims diffusion; and the intensification of protest policing that provoked a departure from reformist to revolutionary claims. The argument offered here shows similarities to but also nuanced differences from the repression literature and casts doubt on the assumptions about the demobilizing impact of autocratization.","PeriodicalId":47507,"journal":{"name":"Social Movement Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transgressing taboos: the relational dynamics of claim radicalization in Hong Kong and Thailand\",\"authors\":\"M. Thompson, Edmund W. Cheng\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14742837.2022.2134107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Claims made during mass protests in Hong Kong in 2019 and Thailand in 2020 became increasingly transgressive. Localist demands and calls for the reform of the monarchy, respectively, violated conventional political norms in these two hybrid regimes. This paper examines the dynamics of opposition discursive radicalization during ongoing autocratization. Observational data and protest event analysis are employed to assess the scaling up of claims-making and its relationship to protest size and group solidarity. The paper argues that radicalization can best be understood relationally, between a hybrid regime, on the one hand, and moderates and radicals in the opposition, on the other. It identifies the following three points of convergence that lead to similar protest trajectories in both cases: the marginalization of moderates along with their gatekeeping role of transgressive discourses; the creation of digitally enabled protest networks that facilitated mass mobilization and claims diffusion; and the intensification of protest policing that provoked a departure from reformist to revolutionary claims. The argument offered here shows similarities to but also nuanced differences from the repression literature and casts doubt on the assumptions about the demobilizing impact of autocratization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Movement Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Movement Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2134107\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Movement Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2134107","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2019年香港和2020年泰国的大规模抗议活动中提出的指控越来越越界。地方主义者的要求和对君主制改革的呼吁,分别违反了这两个混合政权的传统政治规范。本文考察了正在进行的独裁统治中反对派话语激进化的动态。采用观察数据和抗议事件分析来评估索赔的规模及其与抗议规模和群体团结的关系。本文认为,激进化最好是在混合政权与反对派中的温和派和激进派之间的关系中理解。它确定了导致两种情况下类似抗议轨迹的以下三个趋同点:温和派的边缘化以及他们对越界话语的把关作用;创建数字化抗议网络,促进大规模动员和诉求传播;抗议警察的加强激起了从改革派到革命派的转变。这里提出的论点显示了与镇压文献的相似之处,但也有细微的差异,并对关于独裁的复员影响的假设提出了怀疑。
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
Transgressing taboos: the relational dynamics of claim radicalization in Hong Kong and Thailand
ABSTRACT Claims made during mass protests in Hong Kong in 2019 and Thailand in 2020 became increasingly transgressive. Localist demands and calls for the reform of the monarchy, respectively, violated conventional political norms in these two hybrid regimes. This paper examines the dynamics of opposition discursive radicalization during ongoing autocratization. Observational data and protest event analysis are employed to assess the scaling up of claims-making and its relationship to protest size and group solidarity. The paper argues that radicalization can best be understood relationally, between a hybrid regime, on the one hand, and moderates and radicals in the opposition, on the other. It identifies the following three points of convergence that lead to similar protest trajectories in both cases: the marginalization of moderates along with their gatekeeping role of transgressive discourses; the creation of digitally enabled protest networks that facilitated mass mobilization and claims diffusion; and the intensification of protest policing that provoked a departure from reformist to revolutionary claims. The argument offered here shows similarities to but also nuanced differences from the repression literature and casts doubt on the assumptions about the demobilizing impact of autocratization.
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
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.70%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Offside politics during the democratic erosion: social movements and May 2023 presidential election cycle in Turkey Negotiating politics on campus: dynamic (de-)politicization among student activists in post-2011 Egypt Saving ourselves: from climate shocks to climate action Saving ourselves: from climate shocks to climate action , by Dana R. Fisher, New York, Columbia University Press, 2024, ix + 210 pp., $19.95/£16.99 (hardcover), ISBN: 9780231209304, $18.95/£15.99 (e-book), ISBN: 9780231557870 Woman, life, freedom movement: dynamics of a movement in progress Performing civic spheres: aesthetic-political public appearance in the balfour protest in Israel
×
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