Suchergebnisse

Borchard, M.: Sprichst du Volkspartei? - S. 27-31 Sarcinelli, U.: Reden oder Schweigen? - S. 9-14 Berschin, H.: "Caesar non est supra grammaticos". - S. 19-22 Oberreuter, H.: Politische Kommunikation als Sprachstrategie. - S. 15-18 Kneuer, M.: Politischer Sprengstoff Sprache. - S. 23-26

Die Beiträge des vorliegenden Sammelbands, den dieser Aufsatz einleitet, folgen einem gemeinsamen Grundschema: Charakterisierung des Themengebietes, Hauptlinien der Forschung, Kontroversen der Forschung, Perspektiven der Forschung, Forschungslücken sowie Rezeption der ausländischen Forschung und Spezifika der deutschen Forschung. Der Einleitungsbeitrag zeichnet die Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland nach und arbeitet nationale Besonderheiten des Fachs heraus. Ein Überblick über die wissenschaftlichen Schulen in der deutschen Politikwissenschaft schließt sich an. Der Einleitungsbeitrag schließt mit einer Darstellung der einzelnen Beiträge, die sich zu vier Themengebieten gruppieren: übergreifende Darstellungen, vergleichende Regierungslehre und Innenpolitik, internationale Beziehungen sowie politische Theorie und Methodik. (ICE2)

The recent decades more than anything else have revealed the ambivalence not only of the articulated expectations about the digital public sphere but also of the 'real' development itself. This thematic issue of Media and Communication highlights some of the criticalities and specificities of the evolution of the public sphere during this period where digital communication ecosystems are becoming increasingly central. The different articles offer a polyphonic perspective and thus contribute significantly to the debate on the transformations of the public sphere, which—in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic—dramatically affect the very essence of our democracy.

The recent decades more than anything else have revealed the ambivalence not only of the articulated expectations about the digital public sphere but also of the "real" development itself. This thematic issue of Media and Communication highlights some of the criticalities and specificities of the evolution of the public sphere during this period where digital communication ecosystems are becoming increasingly central. The different articles offer a polyphonic perspective and thus contribute significantly to the debate on the transformations of the public sphere, which -in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic- dramatically affect the very essence of our democracy.

AbstractThe governments' mitigation measures to fight the COVID-19 pandemic are unprecedented in our post-war history. For overcoming this crisis, citizens were expected to act in compliance with these measures in order to control the spread of the virus and keep public health systems functional. This call for protecting the public health at the same time confronted citizens with several and severe limitations of their democratic freedoms and rights: confinement, restriction on freedoms of movement, religion, specific provisions for public protest and finally also limitations to the right of education by school closures. This paper analyzes how citizens perceive the threat the COVID-19 pandemic and especially the mitigation measures posed for democracy. We assume that pandemic waves and pandemic fatigue have an impact on the perception of threat. To see the overall societal picture, we exploit a large-scale archive of online discourse on Twitter out of which we extract democracy-related discourse with the same temporal and geospatial coverage for our investigation. From that data source, we apply computational methods to extract time series data reflecting aggregated opinions and their evolution over time concerned with the correlation of attitudes towards democracy. We them move deeper using a longitudinal panel survey we conducted in November/December 2020, March/April 2021, and July/August 2021. to have a view of the relationship between citizens' socio-economic status and basic political attitudes. Our multi-method analysis bases on the German case and covers the period from December 2020 to August 2021.

Solidarity is one of the central concepts in social theory and has gained much attention due to the multiple challenges that the EU has been facing the last decade and due to the most recent COVID-19 pandemic. Although the debate on the nature and conditions of solidarity has been revitalized, there remains a large variety in how to conceptualize solidarity. In contrast to other approaches, we do not conceive solidarity as normative concept, but as descriptive–analytical one. Therefore, we provide a theory-based definition that is prone to capture the empirical dimensions of solidarity. Accounting for the dynamic and interactive character of solidarity as subject to permanent societal and political renegotiation, we conceptualize solidarity from a discourse perspective and follow a multilevel design breaking down the understandings of solidarity on different levels. This approach contributes to the research of solidarity that is interested to capturing the 'real world' dimensions of solidarity.

Das Video startet mit der Verleihung des Gero Erdmann-Preis für vergleichende Area-Forschung 2016 durch Prof. Marianne Kneuer (Preisträger: Dr. Johannes Gerschewski, Dr. Dorothea Keudel-Kaiser). Danach folgt die Podiumsdiskussion. Moderation: Dr. Rolf Frankenberger (Universität Tübingen), Dr. Steffen Kailitz (HAIT, Dresden) Diskussionsteilnehmer: Prof. Ursula Birsl (Universität Marburg), Prof. Michael Minkenberg (Universität Frankfurt/ Oder), Prof. Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa) und Prof. Adrian Vatter (Universität Bern)

Der Brexit, die Wahl Donald Trumps, die Zugewinne des Front National in Frankreich, der AfD in Deutschland und Geert Wilders in den Niederlanden: Der Populismus erlebt derzeit einen Höhenflug. Was sind die Ursachen und die Effekte dieser Erfolgswellen? Nach Ansicht von Norbert Berthold, Universität Würzburg, spricht einiges dafür, dass die Globalisierung populistische Entwicklungen begünstigt. Wichtiger scheinen allerdings der technische Fortschritt, da er die einfache Arbeit benachteilige, und die Migrationsströme in reiche Länder zu sein. Zudem spielen auch kulturelle Elemente, Informationslücken, Vorurteile und Stereotypen eine wichtige Rolle. Adalbert Winkler, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, sieht unter anderem die Ursachen für das Erstarken populistischer Strömungen darin, dass die Finanz-, Euro- und Flüchtlingskrise die Zahl der Menschen, die abgehängt sind oder sich abgehängt fühlen, erheblich haben steigen lassen und die etablierten Parteien überfordert sind, diese Krisen zu bekämpfen. Sascha O. Becker, Thiemo Fetzer und Dennis Novy, University of Warwick, kommen nach der Analyse von Daten aus 380 Landkreisen Großbritanniens zu dem Schluss, dass Faktoren, wie Demographie, Bildung und Wirtschaftsstruktur, einen deutlich größeren Einfluss auf die Brexit-Entscheidung der britischen Wähler hatten als Faktoren, die eine direkte Verbindung zur EU beinhalten. Für Marianne Kneuer, Universität Hildesheim, waren die Krisen sicher ein trigger, aber nicht die Ursache für das derzeitige Phänomen von Populismus. Hier seien tieferliegende strukturelle Gründe verantwortlich: zum einen die wirtschaftlichen Unsicherheiten, wie wachsende Ungleichheit, das Gefühl, ein Globalisierungsverlierer zu sein, Angst vor sozialem Abstieg, zum andern politische Gründe, da die repräsentative Demokratie in einer tiefen Vertrauenskrise stecke und Populisten von den funktionalen Defiziten, die in den Parteien und den Parteienlandschaften über die Jahre Eingang gefunden haben, profit

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic influence on mortality and public health and generated much speculation on potential impacts on international politics. Fast-moving crises such as the COVID pandemic and 2008 financial crises entail many challenges for scholarship; events evolve rapidly, our prior knowledge base is limited, it is unclear whether existing theories or analogies apply, and new research findings emerge quickly but also erratically. Researchers face demands to engage with policy and general audiences when normal standards of scholarship may be difficult to apply. Crises can also have a dramatic impact on how we conduct research and interact with other scholars. The forum introduction outlines how crises pose challenges for scholarship and policy and the value of approaching crises such as COVID-19 in comparative perspective. Milner highlights the important differences between the immediately observable short-term impact of crises and the more difficult to evaluate long-run impacts. Kneuer examines how crises can impact political change, detailing how COVID countermeasures can serve as a pretext for autocratization and the safeguards afforded by institutions. Solingen examines the impact of serial crises on global value chains and the difficulties in tracing impacts when crises are compounded. De Alba-Ulloa documents how scholars in the Global South and North face similar challenges during the COVID pandemic, but differences in resources to mitigate can exacerbate inequalities. Davies highlights the difficulties in studying public opinion during COVID and need for behavioral data to understand global health emergencies. Ghosn examines dilemmas in interacting with severely affected communities during crises and offers advice on better practices.