“不要在我的后院”:民主党在空间把关中的修辞

IF 1.1 1区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Whitney Gent
{"title":"“不要在我的后院”:民主党在空间把关中的修辞","authors":"Whitney Gent","doi":"10.1080/14791420.2022.2061026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT When officials in a community try to site locally unwanted facilities, they often encounter a rhetorical double bind: neighbors call for action, but also respond by saying, “ … but not here.” These “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) arguments often claim the democratic process and its ideals are being violated. Examining a controversy over housing for homeless people in Boulder, Colorado, I offer an expanded understanding of the forms of NIMBY argument. Additionally, I demonstrate that, while community members may have legitimate claims regarding democratic process, their arguments undermine democratic values by blocking access to material and discursive spaces.","PeriodicalId":46339,"journal":{"name":"Communication and Critical-Cultural Studies","volume":"19 1","pages":"140 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Not in My Back Yard”: Democratic rhetorics in spatial gatekeeping\",\"authors\":\"Whitney Gent\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14791420.2022.2061026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT When officials in a community try to site locally unwanted facilities, they often encounter a rhetorical double bind: neighbors call for action, but also respond by saying, “ … but not here.” These “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) arguments often claim the democratic process and its ideals are being violated. Examining a controversy over housing for homeless people in Boulder, Colorado, I offer an expanded understanding of the forms of NIMBY argument. Additionally, I demonstrate that, while community members may have legitimate claims regarding democratic process, their arguments undermine democratic values by blocking access to material and discursive spaces.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication and Critical-Cultural Studies\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"140 - 157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication and Critical-Cultural Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2022.2061026\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication and Critical-Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2022.2061026","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要当社区官员试图在当地安置不需要的设施时,他们经常会遇到一种修辞上的双重束缚:邻居呼吁采取行动,但也会说:“ … 但不是在这里。”这些“不在我的后院”(NIMBY)的论点经常声称民主进程及其理想受到了侵犯。通过研究科罗拉多州博尔德市一场关于无家可归者住房的争议,我对NIMBY争论的形式有了更深入的理解。此外,我证明,虽然社区成员可能对民主进程有合法的主张,但他们的论点阻碍了人们进入物质和话语空间,从而破坏了民主价值观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Not in My Back Yard”: Democratic rhetorics in spatial gatekeeping
ABSTRACT When officials in a community try to site locally unwanted facilities, they often encounter a rhetorical double bind: neighbors call for action, but also respond by saying, “ … but not here.” These “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) arguments often claim the democratic process and its ideals are being violated. Examining a controversy over housing for homeless people in Boulder, Colorado, I offer an expanded understanding of the forms of NIMBY argument. Additionally, I demonstrate that, while community members may have legitimate claims regarding democratic process, their arguments undermine democratic values by blocking access to material and discursive spaces.
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.50%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies (CC/CS) is a peer-reviewed publication of the National Communication Association. CC/CS publishes original scholarship that situates culture as a site of struggle and communication as an enactment and discipline of power. The journal features critical inquiry that cuts across academic and theoretical boundaries. CC/CS welcomes a variety of methods including textual, discourse, and rhetorical analyses alongside auto/ethnographic, narrative, and poetic inquiry.
×
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