Lecture 10 Flashcards
The internet as democratizing, egalitarian technology, then versus now
Then:
empowers the voiceless, it removes distortions in the marketplace of ideas caused by governments.
Now:
Social media nowadays as an anti-democratic force due to issues such as misinformation and fake news etc.
Key point of social media
social media can be used to strengthen but also to undermine democracy
internet was initially hailed as ‘; liberation technology’ and democratizing force
Potential solution for various complex problems
This has increasingly been replaced by concerns that social media threatens liberal democracy
Two challenges for the internet as medium for egalitarian democratic deliberation:
The empire strikes back: useful technology for authoritarian governments
what about censorship and propaganda tools to distort public discourses?
Anti-liberal radical forces: what about bad acters that are promoting violence, xenophobia etc.
Flooding/digital propaganda tools: social bots
fake accounts, are false amplifiers: give the false impression that certain actors or opinions are more popular than they are
often associated with Russian ‘troll factory’ and support for right-wing populists and anti-immigration views
Misleading people and propaganda are obviously not a new phenomenon, example?
far-right mobilization:
‘Social movements studies- which has traditionally focused on the progressive left-libertarian movements- has been slow to address the ‘bad side’ of social movement activism’
Far-right natvism
: non-native people and ideas are threating the nation0state restrictive notion of citizenship
E.g.: ultra-nationalist, xenophobic etc.
What sets the radical right apart as a third pole is its challenge of both the left and the center-right over cultural issues by strongly opposing Immigration, multiculturalism and European integration
EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT NATIVE AND THREATING THE NATION-STATE!!
3 types of far right
Nativism
Radical: not necessary against democracy and democracy/democratic means should be upheld
anti-Islam & ethno-pluralism
vs
Extreme: against democracy and using violence
fascism & ethno-pluralism
Why do people join/participate om far-right movements and protests?
Feeling of being lost in the current society| psychological reason| they feel like an outgroup because the Muslims are seen as an ingroup
Sense of belonging: social reason Ideology:
someone wants to voice his/her grievances and discontent, expressive motivation
Modernization will lead to a loss of identity: related to fear Instrumentality: someone wants to change the state of affairs
goal-oriented
Fear of ‘them’ invading the ‘us’ Identity: someone wants to engage with like-minded others, socially oriented
Feelings of being replaced and loss of native values and culture Micro level: individual background characteristics and viewpoints matter
Difficulty to cope with change Meso-level: characteristics and strategies of organizations matter (Resource mobilization theory)
Nativism
Macro-level: characteristics of the political-institutional system matter
Neo-Nazism information
Classical theories grievances
resource mobilization organizational strength
political opportunities contextual constrains
cultural turn framing/identification
What is then interplay between the electoral arena and protest arena
Stronger far-right parties lead to more far-right street protests
electoral politics get more attention than street politics
cultural polarization dramatically increased and this development went hand in hand with an increase in participation
Most research shows: the stronger the far-right parties, the less protest activity on the street
negative relation
Voices against immigration are more prominent in the protest arena of those countries where the populist radical right could not as successfully establish itself in the electoral arena
Discursive opportunities
Discursive constraints/opportunities: openings offered by the public debate in the media
The basic idea is that, standing on their own, social movements as relative outsiders lack the resources and power to define a given (perceived) situation as a ‘social problem’ and to make it an issue on the political agenda
Discursive opportunities: have positive impact
The increasing numbers of refugees only came to be perceived as a social and political problem among the general public once they were identified as such by leading politicians.
Three mechanisms:
Visibility: do statements of far-right movements/about nativist issues get media coverage?
Resonance: any reactions in public debate
Legitimacy: are the reactions positive or negative?
Political opportunities
determine both the amount of protest and the form of protest
‘Such opportunity structures also determine whether or not the mobilization of social movements will take a violent form. Where other forms to express the movement’s demands in a potentially effective way are available, it is less likely that the challenge will take a violent form. When another channel of access to the political system are closed, on the other hand, protesters are more likely to resort to the option of violence.’
Koopmans study demonstrated a negative correlation: between access to local and national political representation through anti-immigration parties (political opportunities) and racist and radical right violence
Discursive opportunities
The central idea is that mass media discourse provides organizers of (and potential participants in) political actions with indications as to the chances of different actions forms succeeding”.
Contradictory effects!!
Political opportunities (electoral success of far-right parties) have negative relationship with the amount of right-wing violence.
Discursive opportunities (intensity of public debate) have positive relationship with amount of right-wing violence.
discursive makes sure that immigration is always high on political agenda, that why people have the idea that migrants are a problem
Mechanism 1: social media as part of discursive opportunities
Social media extend discursive opportunities: provide more visibility for arguments that legitimize (violent) action.
Especially because the public debate is not so “centralized” anymore: In the past, people “watched more or less the same TV shows and read more or less the same newspapers”.
Now, we have more echo chambers with only like-minded people.
Algorithms of social media reinforce this segregation: filter bubbles
Mechanism 2: trans-local group dynamics
Refers to micro-level interactions within polarized groups.
Social media have:
Increased the possibility to have such interactions with like-minded people trans-locally, rather than only local and face-to face.
Such interactions in echo chambers consist of: giving each other positive feedback and emotional responses that motivate action.
