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

IF 2.3 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Zhining He, Zhe Chen
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文主要讨论的是将各国社会群体的典型反应分类为民族主义和全球主义。在新冠肺炎疫情下,民族主义者采取了“国家利益至上”的极端国家安全政策,全球主义者采取了遵循社会信仰和科学界建议的温和政策。这两个群体在价值观和行动上的差异广泛体现在国内疾病控制、对世界卫生组织的态度、疾病来源的确定、疫苗研究、国际合作和社会反应等方面。这项研究表明,民族主义者主要由保守的国家领导人、“社会精英”、民粹主义者和中下层阶级的个人组成,其中许多人坚持种族主义和极端民族主义,而全球主义者主要由国际组织和地区领导人、医疗从业者、知识分子和慈善企业家、中上层阶级人口组成。这种社会群体的区分是根据相反的伦理价值观、意识形态、社会群体经济利益甚至国家竞争立场来澄清的。在文化和制度基础上,民族主义者主张新自由主义、社会达尔文主义、丛林法则和个人主义,而全球主义者则主张社会民主主义和集体主义的民族规范。在疫情期间,双方一直在争夺道德高地,从而深刻影响了世界各国的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
502
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.
×
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