Suchergebnisse

Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation
are critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should
be made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both
the intention behind an actor's act, for example, what motivates the action,
must be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet,
intentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than
the authors make them out to be—especially online.

This article argues that clicktivism is a legitimate political act. It emphasizes that such acts, through a recurrent negative discourse, have been marginalized. As a result, new modes of participation that draw upon the simplification of social connectivity have largely been ignored in the mainstream Political Science literature. In addressing this issue, the article develops a heuristic that identifies seven dimensions (or characteristics) of clicktivism. This new heuristic will allow for the analysis of clicktivism as a form of civic engagement separate from digital activism more broadly. Subsequently, the article applies the heuristic to several popular forms of clicktivism, including social buttons and the creation of memes, demonstrating both its utility and flexibility.

AbstractIn 1967 the Church of Scientology's tax-exempt status was revoked on the basis that it failed to meet the criteria outlined in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service. Between its loss, and eventual reacquisition in 1993, the Church of Scientology employed a number of political based tactics in an attempt to legitimize itself to the public sector. This article explores these tactics in relation to the religion's use of perception management. The article argues that the processes of both legal recognition and legitimization draw upon each other in a new faith's transition to mainstream theology. In this, the Church employed perception management in attempt to influence both processes. In exploring this, the paper contributes to our understanding of role that public legitimacy plays in a new faith's development.

AbstractIn a recent issue of The Political Quarterly, Richards and Smith critiqued Flinders' work on anti‐politics, suggesting that there needs to be much more focus on supply‐side explanations and recognising that much of the problem lies with politicians, contra Flinders. Here, we argue instead that it is crucial to recognise how supply‐side and demand side explanations interact. For us, politicians need to be more responsive to citizens, but, at the same time, citizens need to recognise problems of contemporary governing. Overall, much is changing in the way in which citizens engage and it is crucial that these changes are understood.