Is There Room for Connective Democracy Within the Discussions About a New Constitution on Social Media? The Case of Chile in the Months Leading Up to the 2020 Plebiscite

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Ignacio López-Escarcena, Constanza Ortega-Gunckel, María Elena Gronemeyer
{"title":"Is There Room for Connective Democracy Within the Discussions About a New Constitution on Social Media? The Case of Chile in the Months Leading Up to the 2020 Plebiscite","authors":"Ignacio López-Escarcena, Constanza Ortega-Gunckel, María Elena Gronemeyer","doi":"10.1177/20563051251329069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In October 2019, widespread protests began in Chile after the government announced an increase in transport fare, which gave way to several social demands. A month later, politicians from different sectors reached an understanding that would open the possibility of writing a new Constitution. Two clear sides emerged: those in favor (Approve) and those against (Reject) the new constitutional project, which would be voted on in a plebiscite in October 2020. In this article, we examine the extent to which this period in Chile involved feelings of dislike or even hatred toward those who think differently, a key element of affective polarization, an increasing phenomenon that sparked the emergence of the concept of connective democracy. The study focuses on the reactions on X/Twitter and YouTube to four TV programs ( <jats:italic>Tolerancia cero</jats:italic> , <jats:italic>Pauta libre</jats:italic> , <jats:italic>A esta hora se improvisa</jats:italic> , and <jats:italic>Estado nacional</jats:italic> ) that broadcasted political discussions in the months before the 2020 plebiscite. Our methodology is a qualitative textual analysis, which shows that even though the comments include both negative outparty feelings and negative trait perceptions, as well as positive, informative, and hybrid comments, this does not drift them away from connective democracy. On the contrary, connective democracy still values this type of exchanges, as they allow us to reflect on how the quality and interactions of these connections can be improved.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251329069","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In October 2019, widespread protests began in Chile after the government announced an increase in transport fare, which gave way to several social demands. A month later, politicians from different sectors reached an understanding that would open the possibility of writing a new Constitution. Two clear sides emerged: those in favor (Approve) and those against (Reject) the new constitutional project, which would be voted on in a plebiscite in October 2020. In this article, we examine the extent to which this period in Chile involved feelings of dislike or even hatred toward those who think differently, a key element of affective polarization, an increasing phenomenon that sparked the emergence of the concept of connective democracy. The study focuses on the reactions on X/Twitter and YouTube to four TV programs ( Tolerancia cero , Pauta libre , A esta hora se improvisa , and Estado nacional ) that broadcasted political discussions in the months before the 2020 plebiscite. Our methodology is a qualitative textual analysis, which shows that even though the comments include both negative outparty feelings and negative trait perceptions, as well as positive, informative, and hybrid comments, this does not drift them away from connective democracy. On the contrary, connective democracy still values this type of exchanges, as they allow us to reflect on how the quality and interactions of these connections can be improved.
在社交媒体上关于新宪法的讨论中,有联系民主的空间吗?智利在2020年公民投票前几个月的情况
2019年10月,政府宣布提高交通票价后,智利开始了广泛的抗议活动,这让位于几项社会要求。一个月后,来自不同领域的政界人士达成了一项谅解,为制定新宪法提供了可能。两个明显的阵营出现了:赞成(批准)和反对(拒绝)新宪法项目,将在2020年10月的公民投票中投票。在这篇文章中,我们研究了智利这一时期对持不同观点的人的厌恶甚至仇恨情绪的程度,这是情感两极分化的一个关键因素,这是一种日益增加的现象,引发了联系民主概念的出现。这项研究的重点是X/Twitter和YouTube对四个电视节目(《宽容》、《自由》、《即兴》和《国家》)的反应,这些节目在2020年公投前的几个月播出了政治讨论。我们的方法是定性的文本分析,这表明,即使评论包括消极的局外人感觉和消极的特征感知,以及积极的,信息丰富的和混合的评论,这并没有使他们偏离联系民主。相反,结缔性民主仍然重视这种类型的交流,因为它们使我们能够思考如何改善这些联系的质量和相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信