英国到底有多分裂?英国脱欧后的象征边界与社会凝聚力

IF 2.2 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Ps-Political Science & Politics Pub Date : 2023-08-10 DOI:10.1017/S1049096523000240
Lindsay Richards, Anthony F. Heath
{"title":"英国到底有多分裂?英国脱欧后的象征边界与社会凝聚力","authors":"Lindsay Richards, Anthony F. Heath","doi":"10.1017/S1049096523000240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In post-Brexit and post-devolution Britain, relationships among the four nations appear fragile. This article aims to discover where British citizens draw the symbolic boundaries that define in-group and out-group members between nations—in particular, England, Scotland, and Wales—and within England. Within England, we also examine class divides and the North–South divide. We operationalize symbolic boundaries through a set of new innovative measures administered in an online survey in 2019. Questions ascertain agreement that the various groups “share my values,” are “people I could get on with,” and are “straightforward and honest.” Results of our descriptive analysis suggest that boundaries are blurred between the British and the Welsh but sharper for the Scottish. We also find sharp but asymmetrical boundaries within England, between the working class and the middle class, and between Northerners and Southerners. Regional differences in perceptions of Southerners map closely onto those of how well Westminster looks after regional interests, which suggests that power imbalances reduce social cohesion.","PeriodicalId":48096,"journal":{"name":"Ps-Political Science & Politics","volume":"28 1","pages":"553 - 559"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Divided Is Britain? Symbolic Boundaries and Social Cohesion in Post-Brexit Britain\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay Richards, Anthony F. Heath\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1049096523000240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In post-Brexit and post-devolution Britain, relationships among the four nations appear fragile. This article aims to discover where British citizens draw the symbolic boundaries that define in-group and out-group members between nations—in particular, England, Scotland, and Wales—and within England. Within England, we also examine class divides and the North–South divide. We operationalize symbolic boundaries through a set of new innovative measures administered in an online survey in 2019. Questions ascertain agreement that the various groups “share my values,” are “people I could get on with,” and are “straightforward and honest.” Results of our descriptive analysis suggest that boundaries are blurred between the British and the Welsh but sharper for the Scottish. We also find sharp but asymmetrical boundaries within England, between the working class and the middle class, and between Northerners and Southerners. Regional differences in perceptions of Southerners map closely onto those of how well Westminster looks after regional interests, which suggests that power imbalances reduce social cohesion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ps-Political Science & Politics\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"553 - 559\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ps-Political Science & Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000240\",\"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/S1049096523000240","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: 0

摘要

在脱欧和权力下放后的英国,四国之间的关系显得脆弱。这篇文章的目的是发现英国公民在哪里划定了国家之间(特别是英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士)和英格兰内部的群体内和群体外成员的象征性边界。在英格兰,我们还研究了阶级分化和南北分化。我们在2019年的一项在线调查中通过一系列新的创新措施来实施象征性边界。问题确定了不同的团体“分享我的价值观”,是“我可以相处的人”,并且是“坦率和诚实的”。我们的描述性分析结果表明,英国人和威尔士人之间的界限是模糊的,但苏格兰人之间的界限则更清晰。我们还发现,在英格兰内部,工人阶级和中产阶级之间,北方人和南方人之间,存在着明显但不对称的界限。对南方人看法的地区差异与威斯敏斯特如何照顾地区利益密切相关,这表明权力不平衡降低了社会凝聚力。
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
How Divided Is Britain? Symbolic Boundaries and Social Cohesion in Post-Brexit Britain
ABSTRACT In post-Brexit and post-devolution Britain, relationships among the four nations appear fragile. This article aims to discover where British citizens draw the symbolic boundaries that define in-group and out-group members between nations—in particular, England, Scotland, and Wales—and within England. Within England, we also examine class divides and the North–South divide. We operationalize symbolic boundaries through a set of new innovative measures administered in an online survey in 2019. Questions ascertain agreement that the various groups “share my values,” are “people I could get on with,” and are “straightforward and honest.” Results of our descriptive analysis suggest that boundaries are blurred between the British and the Welsh but sharper for the Scottish. We also find sharp but asymmetrical boundaries within England, between the working class and the middle class, and between Northerners and Southerners. Regional differences in perceptions of Southerners map closely onto those of how well Westminster looks after regional interests, which suggests that power imbalances reduce social cohesion.
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
Ps-Political Science & Politics
Ps-Political Science & Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
27.30%
发文量
166
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.
期刊最新文献
The Invincible Gender Gap in Political Ambition Logging in to Learn: The Effects of Online Civic Education Pedagogy on a Latinx and AAPI Civic Engagement Youth Conference A Case for Description COVID-19 Direct Relief Payments and Political and Economic Attitudes among Tertiary Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study – CORRIGENDUM Escalating Political Violence and the Intersectional Impacts on Latinas in National Politics
×
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