Freedom and culture in Western society

Blokland, Hans

doi:10.4324/9781315812489

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, the 'Vegan Agenda' is used as a symbol that represents a threat to tradition and enjoyment of RPM. The idea of the 'Vegan Agenda' is embedded in neoliberal ideology, which emphasises the importance of individual choice and free will (78) . It also links closely with the aforementioned Carnism ideology, which reinforces the 'natural' and 'normal' place of meat in society (21) .…”

Section: Polarisation and Identity: Vegans V Meat Loversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

Sievert

Lawrence

Parker

et al. 2021

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Diets high in red and processed meat (RPM) contribute substantially to environmental degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, and the global burden of chronic disease. High-profile reports have called for significant global RPM reduction, especially in high-income settings. Despite this, policy attention and political priority for the issue is low. Design: The study used a theoretically guided framing analysis to identify frames used by various interest groups in relation to reducing RPM in online news media articles published in the months around the release of four high-profile reports by authoritative organisations that included a focus on the impacts of high RPM production and/or consumption. Setting: Four major RPM producing and consuming countries – USA, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Participants: None Results: 150 news media articles were included. Articles reported the views of academics, policymakers, industry representatives, and the article authors themselves. RPM reduction was remarkably polarising. Industry frequently framed RPM reduction as part of a ‘Vegan Agenda’ or as advocated by an elite minority. Reducing RPM was also depicted as an infringement on personal choice and traditional values. Many interest groups attempted to discredit the reports by citing a lack of consensus on the evidence, or that only certain forms of farming and processing were harmful. Academics and nutrition experts were more likely to be cited in articles that were aligned with the findings of the reports. Conclusions: The polarisation of RPM reduction has led to a binary conflict between pro- and anti-meat reduction actors. This division may diminish the extent to which political leaders will prioritise this in policy agendas. Using nuanced and context-dependent messaging could ensure the narratives around meat are less conflicting and more effective in addressing health and environmental harms associated with RPM.

show abstract

Section: Polarisation and Identity: Vegans V Meat Loversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

Sievert

Lawrence

Parker

et al. 2021

Public Health Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the concern about personal freedom might be even stronger in Western societies, which has a tradition of emphasizing the protection of personal freedom. 44 It is interesting to point out that Hong Kong has cultural heritages from both the East and the West. A majority (90.6%) of the Hong Kong residents are Chinese; most of their parents or grandparents immigrated from mainland China during the 1950s and 1960s.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing or Interactive Effect Between Perceived Response Efficacy of Governmental Social Distancing Behaviors and Personal Freedom on Social Distancing Behaviors in the Chinese Adult General Population in Hong Kong

Lau

2020

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Uptake of social distancing behaviors may be determined by a combination of individual perceptions and social values. The study investigated (1) the associations between individual perception of perceived response efficacy and social distancing behaviors, (2) the association between social value of perceived freedom infringement and social distancing behaviors, and (3) whether perceived freedom infringement would moderate the association between perceived response efficacy and social distancing behaviors. Methods: A cross-sectional telephone survey interviewed 300 adults in the Hong Kong adult general population during April 21-28, 2020. The instruments of social distancing behaviors, perceived response efficacy, and perceived freedom infringement assessed the frequencies of practicing seven types of social distancing behaviors in the past week, perceived response efficacy of four types of governmental social distancing measures/instructions, and a 5-point Likert scale item on perceived infringement on personal freedom regarding a governmental social distancing measure of banning gatherings of >4 people in public areas. Linear regression adjusted for background factors was performed; the interaction term of perceived response efficacy × perceived freedom infringement was tested. Results: About 40.4%-83.0% of the respondents practiced various types of social distancing behaviors; 57.3%-75.0% perceived response efficacies of related governmental measures; about 20% showed perceived freedom infringement. Perceived response efficacy, but not perceived freedom infringement, was independently and positively associated with social distancing behaviors. Perceived freedom infringement significantly moderated the association between perceived response efficacy and social distancing behaviors; such a positive association was significant at higher (those scored "extremely agree"), but not lower (those scored "extremely disagree"), levels of perceived freedom infringement. Conclusion: Perceived response efficacy is a potential determinant of social distancing. However, the strength of such an association may be modified by opposing social values about personal freedom. Future studies are warranted to verify above findings and explore other potential determinants.

show abstract

“…As 'fathers', they assume the right to know what is in the interests of others (Van de Veer, 1986), not always assuming this representational role in its most benevolent manifestations, such as care of a dependent other; sometimes the articulation of the others' interests can be a form of domination that knows no care other than to ensure subordination (Haugaard, 2020). As such, the leader-follower relationship is one generative of dependency rather than emancipation (Blokland, 1997). Accordingly, we concur with Laub (2005) who suggested that paternalistic leaders treat followers as if they were their children, creating a relationship of dependency, while servant leaders treat employees like partners, promoting their development as leaders themselves.…”

Section: Paternalistic Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

ServusorPater?How Paradoxical Intent Can Qualify Leadership: Inductions from the Kingdom of Bhutan

Sousa

Cunha

Simpson

et al. 2022

Journal of Change Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freedom and culture in Western society

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

Who has a beef with reducing red and processed meat consumption? A media framing analysis

Competing or Interactive Effect Between Perceived Response Efficacy of Governmental Social Distancing Behaviors and Personal Freedom on Social Distancing Behaviors in the Chinese Adult General Population in Hong Kong

ServusorPater?How Paradoxical Intent Can Qualify Leadership: Inductions from the Kingdom of Bhutan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About