Suchergebnisse

"Confronting the Environmental Crisis" examines the role anti-environmentalism played in the unification of conservative thought in the 1960s and 1970s. American conservatism during these decades was no monolith. Rather, it was an incredibly diverse political philosophy capable of sheltering a number of disparate strains of thought under its broad canopy. But these strains did not always exist in harmony with one another. In fact, for much of the period under consideration, the four major conservative philosophies – traditionalism, libertarianism, fusionism, and neoconservatism – existed in explicit tension within one another. Unless the ideological barriers separating these contrasting impulses were somehow smoothed over, American conservatism would remain fractured and incapable of influencing national politics in any meaningful way. This dissertation argues that opposition to environmentalism in the 1970s served as a unifying force for American conservatism. It served as the glue that held together the opposing varieties of conservatism despite the persistence of ideological divisions in other areas of thought. The emergence of conservative anti-environmentalism in the 1970s owed much to the transformation of the American environmental movement. In the 1960s, many conservative intellectuals supported the environmental protection because they believed their philosophical principles supported environmental protection. But beginning in the 1970s, the environmental movement transformed into something that American conservatives no longer recognized. They perceived that their values no longer aligned so neatly with those held by environmentalists. Some conservative intellectuals continued to support environmental measures, but for many more this divergence in values led them to repudiate their former position and to embrace an unyielding opposition to environmentalism. By the end of the 1970s, anti-environmentalism had become a defining feature of American conservatism. The unification of American conservatism ...

The environment is traditionally considered as a valence issue where all political parties endorse the same position and differ only on the degree to which they emphasize it. Our paper challenges this view by arguing that the environment is increasingly perceived as a positional issue. We examine cross-country mass survey data and demonstrate that many voters perceive a trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth. This perception is increasingly reflected in the discourse of political parties. In particular, expert surveys and party manifesto data indicate the existence of anti-environmental positions among radical right/nationalist parties, a finding which challenges the view that the environment is a distinctively left-wing issue. By qualitatively analyzing the most recent national and European election manifestos of thirteen radical right parties in Western Europe we demonstrate the ways in which these parties frame their anti-environmental positions and conclude that analyses of voting behaviour should take into account the positional nature of the issues associated with environmental protection.

The environment is traditionally considered as a valence issue where all political parties endorse the same position and differ only on the degree to which they emphasize it. Our paper challenges this view by arguing that the environment is increasingly perceived as a positional issue. We examine cross-country mass survey data and demonstrate that many voters perceive a trade-off between environmental protection and economic growth. This perception is increasingly reflected in the discourse of political parties. In particular, expert surveys and party manifesto data indicate the existence of anti-environmental positions among radical right/nationalist parties, a finding which challenges the view that the environment is a distinctively left-wing issue. By qualitatively analyzing the most recent national and European election manifestos of thirteen radical right parties in Western Europe we demonstrate the ways in which these parties frame their anti-environmental positions and conclude that analyses of voting behaviour should take into account the positional nature of the issues associated with environmental protection.

The social dominance–environmentalism nexus proposes that orientations for inequality and domination are expressed both in human–human and human–nature relations. In two studies, the present work applies and extends this proposition to understand endorsement of environmental values, concern with climate change, support for climate policies, and responsibility for climate action. In study one, using a representative random sample from Portugal (N = 1270, 53.3% female; European Social Survey, ESS8), social dominance orientation showed unique associations with concern with climate change. Moreover, opposition to immigration (as expression of anti-egalitarianism in intergroup relations) showed unique associations with all four measures of environmentalism. In study two, multi-level analyses using representative random samples from 20 other countries in Europe (N = 38830, 51.5% female; ESS8) confirmed the associations between opposition to immigration and environmentalism, controlling for a set of sociodemographic covariates, political orientation, and nesting at the country level. However, there were differences in the strength and direction of these associations based on country levels of societal development (i.e., Human Development Index; HDI). These differences reinforce the notion that context or situational variables may shape the links between diverse expressions of (anti-)egalitarianism and (anti-)environmentalism. Inputs for applied research on hierarchy-affirming tendencies toward others and the natural environment are proposed and discussed. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

The social dominance-environmentalism nexus proposes that orientations for inequality and domination are expressed both in human-human and human-nature relations. In two studies, the present work applies and extends this proposition to understand endorsement of environmental values, concern with climate change, support for climate policies, and responsibility for climate action. In study one, using a representative random sample from Portugal (N=1270, 53.3% female; European Social Survey, ESS8), social dominance orientation showed unique associations with concern with climate change. Moreover, opposition to immigration (as expression of anti-egalitarianism in intergroup relations) showed unique associations with all four measures of environmentalism. In study two, multi-level analyses using representative random samples from 20 other countries in Europe (N=38830, 51.5% female; ESS8) confirmed the associations between opposition to immigration and environmentalism, controlling for a set of sociodemographic covariates, political orientation, and nesting at the country level. However, there were differences in the strength and direction of these associations based on country levels of societal development (i.e., Human-Development-Index; HDI). These differences reinforce the notion that context or situational variables may shape the links between diverse expressions of (anti )egalitarianism and (anti-)environmentalism. Inputs for applied research on hierarchy affirming tendencies toward others and the natural environment are proposed and discussed. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

This article considers the format and cultural politics of the hugely successful UK television program Top Gear (BBC 2002–2015). It analyzes how—through its presenting team—it constructed an informal address predicated around anti-authoritarian or contrarian banter and protest masculinity. Regular targets for Top Gear presenter's protest—curtailed by broadcast guidelines in terms of gender and ethnicity—are deflected onto the "soft" targets of government legislation on environmental issues or various forms of regulation "red tape". Repeated references to speed cameras, central London congestion charges and "excessive" signage are all anti-authoritarian, libertarian discourses delivered through a comedic form of performance address. Thus, the BBC's primary response to complaints made about this program was to defend the program's political views as being part of the humor. The article draws on critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis to consider how the program licensed a particular form of engagement that helped it to deflect criticisms, and considers the limits to such discursive positioning. We conclude by examining the controversies that finally led, in 2015, to the removal of the main presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, and the ending of this version of the program through the departure of the team to an on-demand online television service.