Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- About the Author -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- 1: Introduction -- 1.1 Research Rationale -- 1.2 Literature Review -- Immigrant Language in Immigration Countries -- Chinese Language Use in Major Immigration Countries -- Chinese Language Use in Australia -- 1.3 Theoretical Framework: Dual-Track Culturalisation -- Reviewing the Existing Concepts -- Structure of the 'Dual-Track Culturalisation' Framework -- What Is the 'Dual-Track Culturalisation' Framework? -- 1.4 Data and Methodology -- Data Collection Methods -- Fieldwork in Australia -- Data Analysis and Management -- 1.5 Book Structure and Outline -- References -- 2: Motivations Analysis: From Blind Followers to Diligent Cultivators -- 2.1 Decision-Making Process in Learning the Chinese Language -- Chinese Parents: More Than Involvement and Encouragement -- The Increase of Self-consciousness and the Polarisation of Behaviours -- Peers: Companionship, Modelling, Pressure, and Conformity -- The Dynamic Trend of the Decision-Making Process -- 2.2 Understanding the Hierarchical Structure of Motivational Factors -- Conformity to Community Practices -- Instrumental Motivations -- Culture-Oriented Motivations -- The Hierarchical Structure of Motivations -- 2.3 The Complexity and Dynamics of Motivational Factors -- The Complexity of Motivational Factors -- The Dynamics of Motivational Factors -- 2.4 Summary -- References -- 3: In-between Chinese and English: Chinese Language Learning Process -- 3.1 Chinese Australian Children's Language Preference -- Development of Both Chinese and English Languages -- Change of Language Preference from Chinese to English -- Negotiation Among the Mainstream Language, the Chinese Language, and the Other Languages -- 3.2 Non-continuity and Continuity of Chinese Language Learning.

The present investigation engages in the debate on populism from a demand/acceptance perspective by providing examinations and explanations within the Chinese context. It clarifies the heterogeneity of China's populism, separating rights-oriented populism, which shares the element of anti-elitism with the populism found in most European nations, from responsibility-oriented populism, which has ideological roots in China's specific socio-political contexts. The study finds responsibility-oriented populism to be predominant in China (occupying 76.92% of the populist sample), with rights-oriented populism only representing 18.04% of the populist respondents. Using these results, we examine associations between each type of populism and a series of political ideations. Statistics suggest that China's rights-oriented populism is negatively correlated with system justification and national identification. In contrast, stronger responsibility-oriented populism associates with higher system justification, greater national identification, more satisfaction with life, and higher right-wing authoritarianism. Finally, implications for research on populism and on China's public opinion are discussed.

AbstractWhile previous research suggests that conspiratorial reasoning and populist ideology often walk hand‐in‐hand, this study explores their correlations by considering their internal heterogeneity in the sociopolitical context of China. Through an online survey (N = 807), the present investigation identifies two subtypes of populism (right‐ vs. responsibility‐oriented), alongside two subtypes of conspiracy beliefs (pro‐system vs. anti‐system), and examines the associations between them. The results demonstrate that while China's right‐oriented populism is positively correlated with anti‐system conspiratorial beliefs, it has no significant correlations with pro‐system conspiracy thinking. Responsibility‐driven populism, however, is positively correlated with pro‐system conspiratorial mindsets, and negatively correlated with anti‐system conspiratorial beliefs. This study moves away from viewing populism and conspiracy belief as homogeneous concepts, providing an often‐neglected Chinese context for these political–psychological ideations.

Most current academic work on political polarization treats partisanship as the dominant motivational driver behind social cleavage and mass polarization. This essay engages in the debate by moving beyond the conceptual straitjacket of partisanship-driven polarization, recasting the primary motives behind political polarization into the three situated and interrelated ideologies that drive the phenomenon of polarization at a mass level, namely, populism, system-justifying attitudes, and state-sponsored ideologies (including religiosity and other cultural identities). By signposting more open-ended, processual, and ambivalent conceptions behind polarization, this article attempts to systematically map the alternative motives of polarization, and in doing so supplement our understanding of the deep ideological divides present not only in Western democracies, but also in many (semi-)authoritarian contexts. The article offers a point of departure for appreciating the coexistence, coevolution, and mutual constitution of the different ideological motives behind polarization, and suggests ways to develop paths to depolarization through a grounded, processual–relational analysis of the world.