Suchergebnisse

This collection investigates how different countries approach the inclusion or exclusion of immigrants in their armed forces, and offers immigrant military participation as a way to provide a pathway to citizenship, foster greater societal integration, and achieve a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive military.

Dear SComS readers, We are happy to present you the first issue of 2019. As has happened quite regularly since the migration of SComS to the HOPE platform, also this issue features, beyond the general section, a thematic section. This time, our thematic section is devoted to crises seen from a perspective of political communication. We are happy and proud that many authors and contributors are willing to publish thematic sections with SComS, which propose cutting-edge research and open fresh perspectives on communication studies. You might consult our open calls for thematic sections on the journal webpage, www.scoms.ch.

Die Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Bandes diskutieren das Verhältnis von Emanzipation und politischen Bildungsprozessen und setzen sich aus der Pespektive verschiedener Teilbereiche und Disziplinen (u.a. demokratietheoretisch, sozioökonomisch, lebensweltlich, exklusionskritisch, bildungspraktisch) mit didaktischen Konzepten um Mündigkeit und Aufklärung auseinander. Mündigkeit als Ziel politischer Bildung spiegelt sich am Begriff "Emanzipation". Doch wie spiegeln sich die gesellschaftlichen Diskurse in den didaktischen Strategien wider? Welche Konzepte mündiger BürgerInnenschaft werden verhandelt und welche Herausforderungen ergeben sich im Kontext von Unmündigkeit und kritischer Subjektbildung? Das Grundlagenbuch vereint Beiträge aus Wissenschaft, Hochschullehre und Unterrichtspraxis und richtet sich an Lehrkräfte, MultiplikatorInnen und DozentInnen der schulischen und außerschulischen politischen Bildung sowie der LehrerInnenbildung.

In light of the ongoing public controversy surrounding fashion sustainability, this paper sets out to identify misalignments that relate to the definitions of sustainable fashion. It does so by examining the discourse of different agents in this polylogical argumentation - fashion companies and the European Parliament as well as citizens, small brands and NGOs - as revealed through documents and tweets published online. Our findings show misalignments in the opening stage of the argumentative discussion at the level of explicit and implicit definitions of sustainability as well as in how the agents responsible are discursively portrayed. We argue that the existence of these misalignments may explain the ongoing controversy surrounding sustainable fashion: the different actors do not share univocal starting points and representations of this phenomenon. Methodologically, this paper also advances research on argumentative polylogues, by demonstrating a method for comparing argumentation by different actors using different data sources.

In light of the ongoing public controversy surrounding fashion sustainability, this paper sets out to identify misalignments that relate to the definitions of sustainable fashion. It does so by examining the discourse of different agents in this polylogical argumentation - fashion companies and the European Parliament as well as citizens, small brands and NGOs - as revealed through documents and tweets published online. Our findings show misalignments in the opening stage of the argumentative discussion at the level of explicit and implicit definitions of sustainability as well as in how the agents responsible are discursively portrayed. We argue that the existence of these misalignments may explain the ongoing controversy surrounding sustainable fashion: the different actors do not share univocal starting points and representations of this phenomenon. Methodologically, this paper also advances research on argumentative polylogues, by demonstrating a method for comparing argumentation by different actors using different data sources.

While these lines were written, Taliban were conquering Afghanistan, establishing a regime of terror in the country, while concurrently provoking a wide conflict in the Western public sphere about responsibilities and consequences of this situation. More specifically, Europe witnesses a racist and xenophobic wave of discourses against a new possible escape of refugees toward Europe; presently such discourses abound in politics and the media. It is more than a truism nowadays that, in crisis-stricken Europe, there is an increasing politicization of migration, which takes place against the background and mutual overlapping of diverse crises. More specifically, migration has become a focal and quite polarizing issue in the European public sphere especially since the numbers of refugees, escaping from conflict territories of the Middle East (e. g., Syria), crossing the Mediterranean, dramatically increased starting in 2014 (Bevelander & Wodak, 2019a). The so-called "refugee crisis," as this movement was portrayed by mainstream media and powerful political figures in Europe (Krzyżanowski, Triandafyllidou, & Wodak, 2018), contributed to social and economic tensions (such as the Eurozone "debt crisis") that took place in the European Union and played into Brexit that followed.

This open access book addresses communicative aspects of the current COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation from the perspective of argumentation theory. Argumentation theory is uniquely placed to understand and account for the challenges of public reason as expressed through argumentative discourse. The book thus focuses on the extent to which the forms, norms and functions of public argumentation have changed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. This question is investigated along the three main research lines of the COST Action project CA 17132: European network for Argumentation and Public PoLicY analysis (APPLY): descriptive, normative, and prescriptive. The volume offers a broad range of contributions which treat argumentative phenomena that are directly related to the changes in public discourse in the wake of the outburst of COVID-19. The volume additionally places particular emphasis on expert argumentation, given (i) the importance expert discourse has had over the last two years, and (ii) the challenges that expert argumentation has faced in the public sphere as a result of scientific uncertainty and widespread misinformation. Contributions are divided into three groups, which (i) examine various features and aspects of public and institutional discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic, (ii) scrutinize the way health policies have been discussed, debated, attacked and defended in the public sphere, and (iii) consider a range of proposals meant to improve the quality of public discourse, and public deliberation in particular, in such a way that concrete proposals for argumentative literacy will be brought to light. Overall, this volume constitutes a timely inquiry into all things argumentative in pandemic discourse. This volume is of interest to a broad readership including philosophers, linguists, communication and legal scholars, and members of the wider public who seek to better understand the discourse surrounding communicative phenomena in times of crisis. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a funding organisation for research and innovation networks. For more information: www.cost.eu

Chapter 1. The Pandemic of Argumentation -- Part I: Arguing About The Pandemic -- Chapter 2. Arguing About "COVID": Metalinguistic Arguments on What Counts As A "Covid-19 Death". Chapter 3. 'Covid-19': Meaning and Reference -- Chapter 4. Political Interference and Argumentative Styles -- Chapter 5. The Evaluative Component in Pragmatic Argumentation: An Analysis of Public Discourse During the First Wave of the Sars-Cov-2 Pandemic in Italy -- Chapter 6. Spaces of Argumentation and their Interaction: Some Elements of Thought Inspired by Controversies and Dispute in France During the Covid-19 Crisis -- Chapter 7. The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About Covid-19 Vaccines. Chapter 8. Analysing the Public Debate About Lockdown -- Chapter 9. Responding to the COVID Conspiracy Theories: Why Narratives Themselves are More Powerful Arguments than Fact-Checking -- Chapter 10. Reshaping Society through an Expanded Understanding of the Role of Analogy: Or How the Co-Vid Crisis Can Lead to a Better World -- Chapter 11. Expert Uncertainty: Arguments Bolstering the Ethos of Expertise in Situations of Uncertainty -- Chapter 12. Conditional Perfection, Scientific Schizophrenia and Political Decisions: On the Argumentative Dark Side of Pandemic Discourse -- Part II: Justifying and Promoting Health Policies -- Chapter 13. Good and Ought in Argumentation: COVID-19 as a Case Study -- Chapter 14. Visual Argumentation and Law: Broadcasting and Justifying the Norms During the Pandemic -- Chapter 15. Securitisation and the Rediscovery of the Invisible Enemy in Times of Pandemic: Analysing Political Discourses from the European South -- Chapter 16. The UK Government's 'Balancing Act' in the Pandemic. Arguing from Competing Concerns: Lives, Livelihoods and Liberties -- Chapter 17. Practical Conflicts between Law and Morality: An Argumentative Analysis of the Case of Coronavirus Contact-Tracing Apps -- Chapter 18. How to Deal with Deep Disagreements? The Role of Rhetoric in Crisis Communication: The Case of COVID-19 -- Chapter 19. On Arguments from Ignorance in Policy-Making -- Chapter 20. Persuasion, Politics, and COVID-19: Audience as a Political Category -- Part III: Elements of Argumentative Literacy -- Chapter 21. Inoculating Students Against Conspiracy Theories: The Case of Covid-19 -- Chapter 22. Staying up to Date with Argument Checking: Outdated News as Defeasible Arguments -- Chapter 23. Combatting Conspiratorial Thinking with Controlled Argumentation Dialogue Environments -- Chapter 24. Is Interpretation of Conspiracy Theories done in a Fair and Useful Way? -- Chapter 25. How to Handle Reasonable Disagreement: The Case of Covid-19 -- Chapter 26. Constructing Arguments about COVID-19 Governmental Guidelines -- Chapter 27. "I (Don't) Agree with You, So You Are (In)Competent" The Role of One's Own Opinion in Accepting Arguments from Expert Opinion.

In the current urge for sustainable policies, public institutions such as the European Union or NGOs have denounced the lack of sustainability in the fashion industry. Sustainability is then defined both in terms of environmental impact of materials, products and processes, and in terms of violations of human rights in the supply chain. Critics argue, however, that the arguments for fashion sustainability are not widely accepted, as some unsustainable practices continue "undisturbed" in the fashion industry. In front of such a situation of potential impasse, it is important to ask the question why these appeals for sustainability are not accepted and/or not acted upon. This paper sets out to make a contribution to this research question, by investigating discourses on fashion sustainability by different involved stakeholders (public institutions, NGOs, companies, private citizens) on different platforms (websites, media, social media). We will identify the main gaps in discourses of these different stakeholders, looking in particular at (a) misalignments as to the definition of discussion issues, in particular how the concept of sustainability is defined and what is seen as problematic; (b) conflicting frames concerning agentivity and responsibility for actions that could ensure such sustainability. The goal of this empirical study is to make sense of where the main problems in the controversy on fashion sustainability are to be located, ultimately in order to contribute to suggesting how to redefine the public discussion on this topic in view of avoiding impasse.