{"title":"新冠疫情背景下民族主义者与全球主义者的社会群体区分","authors":"Zhining He, Zhe Chen","doi":"10.1007/s40647-020-00310-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The primary discussion in this article is the classification of the typical reactions of social groups in various nations as nationalist and globalist. Subject to the new coronavirus pandemic, nationalists have adopted extreme national security policies, namely, “the nation’s interests prevails;” globalists have adopted moderate policies by complying with the faith of society in the recommendations of the scientific community. The disparate contrasts in values and actions between the two groups are extensively manifested in domestic disease control, attitude toward the World Health Organization, identification of the disease’s source, vaccine research, international cooperation, and social reaction. This research indicates that nationalists largely consist of conservative country leaders, “social elites,” populists, and individuals in the middle-lower class, many of whom uphold racism and extreme nationalism, and that globalists largely consist of international organizations and regional leaders, medical practitioners, intellectuals and philanthropic entrepreneurs, the middle-upper class population. This social group distinction is clarified in accordance with converse ethical value perspectives, ideologies, social group-economic interests, and even national competition positions. Regarding cultural and institutional basics, nationalists uphold neoliberalism, social Darwinism, the law of jungle, and individualism, whereas globalists advocate for social democracy and collectivistic ethnic codes. The two parties have been competing for the high moral ground during and the pandemic, thereby profoundly affecting the relationships of nations worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":43537,"journal":{"name":"Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences","volume":"176 1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Social Group Distinction of Nationalists and Globalists amid COVID-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Zhining He, Zhe Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40647-020-00310-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The primary discussion in this article is the classification of the typical reactions of social groups in various nations as nationalist and globalist. Subject to the new coronavirus pandemic, nationalists have adopted extreme national security policies, namely, “the nation’s interests prevails;” globalists have adopted moderate policies by complying with the faith of society in the recommendations of the scientific community. The disparate contrasts in values and actions between the two groups are extensively manifested in domestic disease control, attitude toward the World Health Organization, identification of the disease’s source, vaccine research, international cooperation, and social reaction. This research indicates that nationalists largely consist of conservative country leaders, “social elites,” populists, and individuals in the middle-lower class, many of whom uphold racism and extreme nationalism, and that globalists largely consist of international organizations and regional leaders, medical practitioners, intellectuals and philanthropic entrepreneurs, the middle-upper class population. This social group distinction is clarified in accordance with converse ethical value perspectives, ideologies, social group-economic interests, and even national competition positions. Regarding cultural and institutional basics, nationalists uphold neoliberalism, social Darwinism, the law of jungle, and individualism, whereas globalists advocate for social democracy and collectivistic ethnic codes. The two parties have been competing for the high moral ground during and the pandemic, thereby profoundly affecting the relationships of nations worldwide.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43537,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"176 1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1092\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-020-00310-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-020-00310-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Social Group Distinction of Nationalists and Globalists amid COVID-19 Pandemic
The primary discussion in this article is the classification of the typical reactions of social groups in various nations as nationalist and globalist. Subject to the new coronavirus pandemic, nationalists have adopted extreme national security policies, namely, “the nation’s interests prevails;” globalists have adopted moderate policies by complying with the faith of society in the recommendations of the scientific community. The disparate contrasts in values and actions between the two groups are extensively manifested in domestic disease control, attitude toward the World Health Organization, identification of the disease’s source, vaccine research, international cooperation, and social reaction. This research indicates that nationalists largely consist of conservative country leaders, “social elites,” populists, and individuals in the middle-lower class, many of whom uphold racism and extreme nationalism, and that globalists largely consist of international organizations and regional leaders, medical practitioners, intellectuals and philanthropic entrepreneurs, the middle-upper class population. This social group distinction is clarified in accordance with converse ethical value perspectives, ideologies, social group-economic interests, and even national competition positions. Regarding cultural and institutional basics, nationalists uphold neoliberalism, social Darwinism, the law of jungle, and individualism, whereas globalists advocate for social democracy and collectivistic ethnic codes. The two parties have been competing for the high moral ground during and the pandemic, thereby profoundly affecting the relationships of nations worldwide.
期刊介绍:
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences (FJHSS) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes research papers across all academic disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. The Journal aims to promote multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies, bridge diverse communities of the humanities and social sciences in the world, provide a platform of academic exchange for scholars and readers from all countries and all regions, promote intellectual development in China’s humanities and social sciences, and encourage original, theoretical, and empirical research into new areas, new issues, and new subject matters. Coverage in FJHSS emphasizes the combination of a “local” focus (e.g., a country- or region-specific perspective) with a “global” concern, and engages in the international scholarly dialogue by offering comparative or global analyses and discussions from multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. The journal features special topics, special issues, and original articles of general interest in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences. The journal also invites leading scholars as guest editors to organize special issues or special topics devoted to certain important themes, subject matters, and research agendas in the humanities and social sciences.