Search results

This book develops a general explanation for party polarization in America from both historical and contemporary perspectives. Prior polarization studies focused exclusively on the modern era, but this work traces party polarization from the constitutional convention of 1787 to the present. Using such a broad historical perspective shows that what was unusual in American history was the period of low polarization from the Great Depression through 1980, rather than the period of high polarization of the modern era. Polarization is the norm of the American system, not the exception, and is likely to persist in the future. More theoretically, party polarization in America has been due to class-based conflict and rent-seeking by the patrician and plebian classes in various historical eras, rather than conflict over cultural values. As in earlier historical eras, modern party polarization has largely been elite-driven, with party entrepreneurs cunningly and strategically using polarization to their advantage.

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface -- 1 The Philosophy of Polarization Phenomena -- 2 The Psychology of Group Polarization -- 3 The Epistemology of Group Polarization -- 4 Four Models of Group Polarization -- 5 The Reductive Virtue/Vice Model -- 6 The Collective Heuristic/Bias Model -- 7 The Reductive Heuristic/Bias Model -- 8 The Collective Virtue/Vice Model -- 9 Mitigating the Epistemic Pitfalls of Group Polarization -- Conclusion: Future Directions -- References -- Index.

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- About the Author -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Introduction: Polarization, Fandom and Meeting in the Middle -- What Exactly is Polarization? -- Finding Political Talk Online -- Why Fan Studies? -- Anti-fandom and the Study of Dislike -- Why Facebook? -- Where to from Here? -- References -- Chapter 2: Getting Down in the Muck: Polarization and Online Debate -- Introduction -- Moving Beyond Ideological Polarization -- Affective Polarization -- Populism and Affective Polarization -- Political Fragmentation Through Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles -- An Emotionally Charged World -- Beyond the Ideals of Deliberation and Rational Consensus -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: Finding the Fan and Anti-fan: Fan Studies as an Interpretative Frame for Political Polarization -- Introduction -- You Call Yourself a Fan? -- Intensity of Affective Engagement -- Pleasure from Consumption, Collective Meaning-Making and Appropriation -- Community, Social Interaction and Identity Performance -- Anti-fandom: Loving to Hate -- Politics, Fandom, Activism and Citizenship -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 4: Loving to Hate: Fandom Fuelling Polarized Behaviour -- Introduction -- Identity Performance -- The Role of Emotion and Affective Investment -- Pleasure, Entertainment and Humour -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 5: Can We Debate Away the Hate? -- Introduction -- The Group -- Locating the Fan -- Moderation and the Importance of Policing -- Community Life Cycle -- Disembedding as a Participatory Practice -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 6: 'Fake news,' Polarization and Fan-like Behaviours -- Introduction -- What Is Fake News? -- Media Trust and the Fake News Label -- The Role of Social Media -- Affective Interpretation of Information -- Politics of Against and Fake News -- The Who, Not the What.

Renowned political scientist Alan I. Abramowitz presents a groundbreaking argument that the most important divide in American politics is not between left and right but rather between citizens who are politically engaged and those who are not. It is the engaged members of the public, he argues, who most closely reflect the ideals of democratic citizenship—but this is also the group that is most polarized. Polarization at the highest levels of government, therefore, is not a sign of elites' disconnection from the public but rather of their responsiveness to the more politically engaged parts of it. Though polarization is often assumed to be detrimental to democracy, Abramowitz concludes that by presenting voters with clear choices, polarization can serve to increase the public's interest and participation in politics and strengthen electoral accountability

"This collection explores the discursive strategies and linguistic resources underpinning conflict and polarization, taking a multidisciplinary approach to examine the ways in which conflict is constructed across a diverse range of contexts. The volume is divided into two sections as a means of identifying two different dimensions to conflict construction and bridging the gap between different perspectives through a constructivist framework. The first part comprises chapters looking at socio-political conflicts across specific geographic contexts across the US, Europe, and Latin America. The second half of the book unpacks socio-cultural conflicts, those not defined by physical borders but shaped by ideological differences on core values, such as on religion, gender, and the environment. Drawing on frameworks across such fields as linguistics, critical discourse analysis, rhetoric studies, and cognitive studies, the book offers new insights into the discursive polarization that permeates contemporary communicative interactions and the ways in which a better understanding of conflict and its origins might serve as a mechanism for providing new ways forward. This book will be of particular interest to students and scholars in critical discourse analysis, linguistics, rhetoric studies, and peace and conflict studies"--

"The book brings together an international team of experts, enabling a broad, multidisciplinary approach that examines hate speech, dislike, polarization, and enclave deliberation as cross axes that influence offline and digital conversations. The diverse case studies herein offer insights into international news media, television drama and social media in a range of contexts, suggesting an academic frame of reference for examining this emerging phenomenon within the field of communication studies. Offering thoughtful and much-needed analysis, this collection will be of great interest to scholars and students working in communication studies, media studies, journalism, sociology, political science, political communication, and cultural industries"--

ch 1. Introduction / by Immanuel Wallerstein -- ch. 2. Ecology and the geography of capitalism / by Ana Esther Cecena -- ch. 3. Economic inequality, stratification, and mobility / by Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz and Timothy Patrick Moran -- ch. 4. Cities / by Peter J. Taylor, Michael Hoyler, and Dennis Smith -- ch. 5. Peasantries / by Eric Vanhaute, Hanne Cottyn, and Yang Wang -- ch. 6. Large enterprises and corporate power / by Jorge Fonseca -- ch. 7. Intellectual property / by Ravi Sundaram -- ch. 8. The States / by Atilio A. Borom and Paloma Nottebohm -- ch. 9. Citizenship / by Oleksandr Fisun and Volodymyr Golovko -- ch. 10. Women's spaces and a patriarchal system / by Linda Christiansen-Ruffman -- ch. 11. Deviance / by Ari Sitas. [et al.] -- ch. 12. Conclusion / by Immanuel Wallerstein.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- Chapter 2 Ecology and the Geography of Capitalism -- Chapter 3 Economic Inequality, Stratification, and Mobility -- Chapter 4 Cities -- Chapter 5 Peasantries -- Chapter 6 Large Enterprises and Corporate Power -- Chapter 7 Intellectual Property -- Chapter 8 The States -- Chapter 9 Citizenship -- Chapter 10 Women's Spaces and a Patriarchal System -- Chapter 11 Deviance -- Chapter 12 Conclusion -- Bibliography -- About the Author.

Congressional debates are increasingly defined by gridlock and stalemate, with partisan showdowns that lead to government shutdowns. Compromise in Congress seems hard to reach. But do politicians deserve all the blame? Legislators who resist concessions and stand firm to their convictions might be doing just what voters want them to do. If this is true, however, then citizens must shoulder some of the responsibility for gridlock in Congress. This book challenges this wisdom and argues that Americans value compromise as a way to resolve differences in times of partisan division. Using evidence from a variety of surveys and innovative experiments, the book demonstrates that citizens want more from politics than just ideological representation - they also care about the processes by which disagreements are settled.