Richard R. Lau
Persuasion is an active, intentional attempt to change nonverifiable evaluations, feeling, values, norms, and related behaviors. Historically, there have been two major programs of attitude change research in social psychology, one a learning theory approach associated with Carl Hovland, the second a cognitive consistency approach associated with Gestalt psychology and the research of Fritz Heider and the many students of Kurt Lewin. More recently, dual process theories of attitude change point to two different paths by which persuasion can occur, one a central route based on a relatively deep, systematic, conscious processing of the arguments in a persuasive message; the second a peripheral route based on more shallow, heuristic, and sometimes almost automatic processing of a persuasive message. Attitudes are frequently an important—but rarely the only—determinant of behavior; and behavior, sometimes, can be an important determinant of attitudes.
This chapter reviews the evolution of Martha Crenshaw’s interests in and approaches to researching terrorism, a trajectory that begins in the 1960s and extends to the present. The story is necessarily partial and incomplete as well as personal. Her first research project concentrated on the use of terrorism by the FLN during the Algerian War, and her current research deals with patterns of cooperation and competition among militant groups and with the relationship between jihadist-oriented transnational terrorism and civil war. Along the way she has analyzed the causes of terrorism as well as its endings, individual motivations for terrorism, group strategies, organizational dynamics, political contexts for terrorism, state responses, and the consequences of counterterrorist policies. Terrorism remains a challenging topic for research as well as a persistent policy problem for decision-makers. We still struggle to explain both the “why” and the “how” of terrorism.
Critical approaches to the study of terrorism do not inquire into the causation of political violence. Rather, the umbrella term “critical” encompasses a large variety of methodologies which reject the positivist philosophy of science. This chapter explores the meaning of “critique” as an epistemological alternative to positivist models of knowledge. It shows how “critical” approaches do not ask “what causes terrorist violence,” but rather how societies have come to a point where they identify “terrorism” as a distinct form of violence, separate from “war” and “crime.” What makes terrorism “sensible”? How do we “know” terrorism as a concept or form? Drawing from long philosophical traditions, critical approaches explore how power, culture, and linguistics have constituted the concept of “terrorism”—creating a reality which is not “obvious” or common-sense, but contingent and arbitrary. The chapter then outlines the critical method of “discourse analysis” and its use in constructivist analyses of the War on Terror.
Terrorism is often understood to be a cultural phenomenon involving different and competing ideological perceptions of social and political realities. Hence the terrorists themselves, those who fight terrorism, and the mass media all tend to invoke cultural variables to make a sense of violent terrorist actions. In this context one often encounters references to “the clash of civilizations” or “religious wars.” Nevertheless social scientists have largely discredited such simplistic accounts and have made clear that culture plays a much more complex role in terrorism. In this chapter I critically review the three leading cultural and anthropological perspectives on terrorism: the neo-Durkhemian perspectives, interactionism, and the anti-foundationalist approaches. I argue that culturalist perspectives contribute substantially towards understanding of terrorism but they also show some explanatory weaknesses. To remedy these pitfalls I provide an outline for the alternative, longue durée, historical-sociological model of terrorism analysis.
Cultural Persistence or Experiential Adaptation?: A Review of Studies Using Immigrants to Examine the Roots of Trust
Peter Thisted Dinesen and Kim Mannemar Sønderskov
Studying social trust of immigrants and descendants of immigrants provides leverage for testing whether trust is a persistent cultural trait or, rather, a trait formed and updated by contemporary experiences. The analytical thrust comes from the fact that immigrants were born in (or, in the case of descendants, have ties with) one country, but now resides in another. If trust is a cultural trait, immigrants’ trust should continue to reflect trust in their ancestral country; whereas their trust should be aligned with trust of natives in their present country if it is shaped by experiential conditioning. In this chapter we first review studies using immigrants to study the roots of trust. Second, we critically discuss these previous studies and pinpoint a number of theoretical, methodological, and substantive shortcomings as well as avenues for addressing these in future research. Finally, we provide new empirical evidence on the roots of trust using a new dataset of immigrants from Sweden.
Calls to legally define “terrorism” arose in the context of the extradition of political offenders from the 1930s onwards, with many unsuccessful efforts since then to define, criminalize, and depoliticize a common global concept of “terrorism.” It was only after the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 that many states began enacting national “terrorism” offences, spurred on by new obligations imposed by the United Nations Security Council. National laws remain nonetheless very diverse. At the international level, an elementary legal consensus has emerged that terrorism is criminal violence intended to intimidate a population or coerce a government or an international organization; some national laws add an ulterior intention to pursue a political, religious, or ideological cause. There remain intense disagreements amongst states, however, on whether there should be exceptions for certain “just” causes and, as a result, the conceptual impasse continues, even if it has narrowed.
Deliberative democracy arose in opposition to a reigning aggregative conception of democracy in political science, solely about voting. Not long ago, political scientists arduously believed, based on logical speculations, that democratic voting is arbitrary and meaningless and that democratic voting is irrational as well. Rather than challenge these mistaken views about voting, democratic theorists instead singled out and celebrated deliberation. We review how those views about voting failed and report democratic theory’s reconciliation with voting.. Deliberative theory often says that variation in quality of deliberation can shape voting for better or worse; we add the idea that choice of voting rule can shape the value of deliberation for better or worse, illustrated with three examples. Finally, we compare the ideal values of voting and discussion, which overlap but are not identical.
Donatella della Porta and Nicole Doerr
The chapter addresses the relations between social movements and deliberative democracy, pointing at opportunities but also at tensions in theorization and practices of democracy. While social movements are important for deliberative democracy, and vice versa, activists and deliberative democrats alike have addressed a number of tensions between deliberative democracy and protest. The global diffusion of deliberative norms, practices, and experiences of democracy in social movements is discussed in the light of the growing literature on deliberative democracy. In particular, faced with challenges to the legitimacy and efficacy of representative democracy, social movements’ democratic innovations, such as the Forum and the Camp, represent important experiments in cooperation in settings of deep diversity and inequality. In addition, the reflections on social movements’ conceptions and practices help in specifying some conceptualization of deliberative politics.
Political activism focused on sexual diversity was first publicly visible at the turn into the twentieth century, mostly in Germany but extending to other large cities in Europe. A second activist wave emerged in the late 1940s, this time in the United States as well as Europe. Movement formation was still based on subcultures more likely in socioeconomic contexts such as those, where men and women were able to live separately from the families and communities in which they were reared. A third wave exploded more dramatically at the very end of the 1960s, this time in a broader range of countries (including Latin America). From that time into the 1980s, activist groups included radical challenges to existing institutional systems, alongside demands for legal rights. As social movement organizing spread, it was shaped by regional contexts but also marked by important cross-country similarities, in part a result of commonalities in the oppressiveness that sexual minorities experienced. In all settings, there have been differences over goals and strategy, as well as concerns about the underrepresentation of women and ethnoracial minorities in movement leadership and priorities. Internal conflict was a recurrent result, though homophobic mobilization by religious conservatives usually forged a degree of unity on the need to resist, blurring boundaries between radicalism and reform. In the process, activists were laying the groundwork for political gains in later decades, even in the face of the AIDS epidemic and a religious right itself more linked than ever in transnational networks.
This chapter explores relationships between democratic action research and environmental political theory. In the absence of action research pedagogies, neo-liberalism will increasingly undermine the spaces and possibilities in institutions of higher education that have been integral to the development of environmental political theory. Action research pedagogy offers collaborative pathways for students, faculty, and community members to begin to address the profound ecological, political, and educational challenges of the contemporary world. The chapter contends that the transformative quotidian work involved in action research pedagogies is likely an indispensable condition for engendering civic agency, a sense of active hope, and theoretical reflection in students who are otherwise often resistant to it. With reference to the action research movement at Northern Arizona University, it illuminates ways in which action research can lead to institutional change in higher education that may catalyze environmental thought and action in dark times.
Barbara van Koppen
This chapter “lifts the roof of the household” across the irrigation and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) sub-sectors in agrarian low- and middle-income settings. Focusing on age-old intersections between gender, class, and agrarian technology, the chapter explores how colonial conquest was served by the ideology of the male breadwinner‒ female housewife as a divide-and-rule process to vest control over people, land, and water. After independence, the same ideology enabled top-down services in both sub-sectors and also marginalized women. This is contrasted with implications of global policy commitments to gender-equal households for the water sector. In particular, evidence of the multiple-use water services (MUS) approach is examined. This inclusive, people-driven water services approach meets both women’s and men’s multiple domestic and productive needs. Overcoming the same administrative silos in human rights frameworks, a gender-equal human right to water for livelihoods is proposed.
Megan M. Farrell, Michael G. Findley, and Joseph Young
With the rise of quantitative approaches to studying terrorism, which has largely occurred in the post-9/11 period, scholarship on the cross-national study of terrorism has begun to incorporate high-resolution geographic information. A rise in both method and application of geographic tools has led to new research approaches, which are still not fully exploited. Indeed, substantial scope for opening new research frontiers now exists. We describe the use of geographic tools—both their strengths and weaknesses—and some ideas about the future of their use in the study of political violence and terrorism.
Global Norms, State Regulations, and Local Activism: Marriage Equality and Same-Sex Partnership, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity Rights in Japan and Hong Kong
Diana Khor, Denise Tse-Shang Tang, and Saori Kamano
This chapter discusses the intersection of sexual minority rights, global polity, and political economy through case studies of marriage equality in Japan and Hong Kong. Past research on the complex relationship between local activism and global norms in Japan and Hong Kong is limited. Through a detailed analysis of interconnecting discursive practices among governments, local nongovernmental organizations on LGBT rights, United Nations covenants on discrimination against sexual orientation, and perceived global standards of marriage equality, the authors explore the lone pursuit of same-sex partnership benefits and rights as a potential illusion of progress, hence forestalling fundamental changes in wider society. As Hong Kong and Tokyo strive to be world cities in the Asian region with the forthcoming Tokyo Olympics in 2020 and Gay Games in Hong Kong in 2022, the chapter further examines the challenges for global norms to be invoked and reworked in domestic contexts.
Christopher Karpowitz and Tali Mendelberg
How does research from political and social psychology inform expectations for deliberation? In this chapter, we review two aspects of such research: the structure of individual belief systems and the role of group-based forces. Considerable evidence has shown that low levels of political knowledge, ideological inconsistency, and a vulnerability to framing effects are common elements of citizen belief systems. These represent both a challenge and an opportunity for deliberative forums. Evidence shows that deliberation can, under the right circumstances, interrupt typical cognitive patterns and produce more thoughtful and informed political judgments. But the extent to which deliberation has such salutary effects also depends on group-level dynamics and norms. We review three important types of group effects: group polarization, the effects of preference diversity on group interactions, and how unequal social identities can shape deliberative exchanges. The social and psychological forces present in deliberating groups require considerable additional study.
Populism and cosmopolitanism are commonly regarded as antitheses, reducing populism to communalism and cosmopolitanism to elitism. This chapter develops a more nuanced view by turning to the early histories of both phenomena. In Diogenes the Cynic, cosmopolitanism’s ancient inventor, it finds evidence less for elitism than for resistance to politics as such. In the populares, populists of the Roman Republic, it finds the origins of a long history of inclusive popular politics. Drawing on a recent debate between Ernesto Laclau and Jacques Rancière, the chapter argues that populism and cosmopolitanism are essentially ambivalent. Insofar as populism can be inclusive or exclusive and cosmopolitanism elitist or popular, the two can overlap, and each can usefully be regarded as a check on the other.
Populism and fascism are identified by their foundational ideologies. In the case of “thin” populist ideology the core matrices are: (1) the plain people, (2) self-serving elites, and (3) rule by popular will. In the case of fascism they are the creation of: (1) the holistic nation, (2) a “new man,” and (3) a third way authoritarian state. These are then used to assess contested later manifestations, including Peronism, Donald Trump, and the French Front National. A problem in categorization is that whilst populism and fascism differ notably ideologically, in practice the latter has borrowed aspects of populist discourse and style, and populism can degenerate into leader-oriented authoritarian and exclusionary politics.
Benjamin de Cleen
This chapter disentangles the concepts of populism and nationalism to shed light on how populism and nationalism have been combined in populist politics. Drawing on Essex-style discourse theory, it defines nationalism as a discourse structured around “the nation,” envisaged as a limited and sovereign community that exists through time and is tied to a certain space, and that is constructed through an in/out (member/non-member) opposition. Populism, by contrast, is structured around a down/up antagonism between “the people” as a large powerless group and “the elite” as a small and illegitimately powerful group, with populists claiming to represent “the people.” The chapter uses this theoretical distinction to analyse the intricate empirical connections between populism and nationalism. It pays particular attention to the articulation of exclusionary nationalism and populism in populist radical right politics, populist ways of formulating demands for national sovereignty, and the possibilities and limitations of a transnational populism.
Paulina Ochoa Espejo
The idea of “the people” motivates populist politics, but scholars are often skeptical that it can justify the populists’ claims. Who then are “the people” that both populists and democrats invoke? This chapter describes the logical paradoxes that arise when defining a democratic people and a long-standing debate on the nature and function of the demos in a democracy. These show that scholars’ definitions and judgments of populism depend on whether they conceive of the people as a historical fact (as populists do) or as a hypothetical ideal for guiding legislation (the liberals’ view). The chapter proposes instead an account of the democratic “people as process.” This account explains why populists betray the democratic ideals they claim to endorse.
Janice Gross Stein and Lior Sheffer
Prospect theory has been adopted unevenly across different domains of political decision-making. Research drawing on prospect theory has contributed to important advances in the understanding of processes of elite decision-making in foreign policy and domestic politics. Political scientists have also contributed several important extensions of and qualifications to prospect theory that augment the original theoretical framework and are applicable in other disciplines. The next wave of research needs to be far more careful in specifying the scope conditions that have been the focus of research in behavioral economics. Scholars will also have to pay closer attention to the distribution of probability estimates across options; whether political decision makers are choosing among risky/certain bimodal distributions, high-probability distributions, high/low distributions, or low-probability distributions matters to the predicted impact of framing effects. Finally, studies will need to pay greater attention to the information political decision makers are given and to the impact of group dynamics in political settings. Identifying the scope conditions of prospect theory in the context of political and policymaking processes over time can make a significant contribution to the explanation of both domestic and foreign policy decisions, fill a gap between individual-level choice and institutionally based outcomes, and provide a stronger behavioral foundation for understanding the dynamics of multiactor policy choice.
John G. Horgan
As an academic discipline, psychology would appear to be well-suited to the study of terrorist behavior. Terrorism, after all, involves statistically and socially abnormal behavior that is routinely associated with acts of extreme violence. Psychological analysis extends not only to those who engage in acts of terrorism, but to those affected by terrorism both near and far. It seems odd then that psychology has not embraced the study of terrorism in the same way that other disciplines have. This chapter explores the history and development of psychological research on terrorism and reflects on its progress to date before offering modest suggestions for future areas of enquiry. Though psychological research on terrorist behavior, the author argues, remains underdeveloped, the chapter concludes with a sense of optimism about the exciting potential that may be derived from a more fully developed psychology of terrorism.