{"title":"Communicating Solidarity? Public Responses to UK Government Communication of COVID-19","authors":"Giles Moss, Nely Konstantinova","doi":"10.1080/00344893.2023.2263465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores public responses to UK government communication of COVID-19, focusing on public solidarity as a crucial part of an effective pandemic response. Drawing on focus group research with members of the public, we identify three limitations in the way solidarity was communicated by government. What solidarity meant and entailed was not always (1) clear and understandable, (2) adequately justified to all, or (3) demonstrated by the actions of political leaders themselves. In conclusion, we consider the implications of our analysis for how the communication of solidarity could have been improved. Beyond any specific communicative shortcomings, communicating solidarity was always bound to be difficult. What solidarity meant and entailed in the context of the pandemic was never normatively self-evident, especially given the different values and interests at stake. Given this, we suggest that a more deliberative-democratic approach to solidarity would have been both normatively desirable and more likely to be effective in sustaining solidarity. But the need for this approach reveals an underlying systemic weakness in the political-communication environment: the lack of adequate opportunities for those called upon to show solidarity to reflect on, contest, and shape its meaning.","PeriodicalId":35158,"journal":{"name":"Representation","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Representation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2023.2263465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article explores public responses to UK government communication of COVID-19, focusing on public solidarity as a crucial part of an effective pandemic response. Drawing on focus group research with members of the public, we identify three limitations in the way solidarity was communicated by government. What solidarity meant and entailed was not always (1) clear and understandable, (2) adequately justified to all, or (3) demonstrated by the actions of political leaders themselves. In conclusion, we consider the implications of our analysis for how the communication of solidarity could have been improved. Beyond any specific communicative shortcomings, communicating solidarity was always bound to be difficult. What solidarity meant and entailed in the context of the pandemic was never normatively self-evident, especially given the different values and interests at stake. Given this, we suggest that a more deliberative-democratic approach to solidarity would have been both normatively desirable and more likely to be effective in sustaining solidarity. But the need for this approach reveals an underlying systemic weakness in the political-communication environment: the lack of adequate opportunities for those called upon to show solidarity to reflect on, contest, and shape its meaning.
RepresentationSocial Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍:
This change in scope follows two paths. Firstly, it seeks contributors who are interested in exploring the interface between democratic practice and theory. In particular, this focus seeks contributions that apply theoretical insights to actual examples of current practice. Secondly, while not neglecting the current focus of the journal, we would like to expand its international coverage so that the journal will offer our readers insights in the state of democracy worldwide.