Shaking up and making up China: how the party-state compromises and creates ontological security for its subjects

Krolikowski, Alanna

doi:10.1057/s41268-018-0138-0

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, media present audiences with repeating storylines, socially constructing their worldviews, and bind them into a shared socio-political culture (Carey, 2008). From an ontological standpoint, narratives create cognitive order for both individuals and political collectives as a means to make sense of their environments, often by defining their own identity and interests in contrast to others (Agius, 2017;Combes, 2017;Mitzen, 2006), and can bolster government legitimacy and national cohesion (Hinck et al, 2019(Hinck et al, , 2022Huysmans, 1998;Krolikowski, 2018). As Roselle et al (2014) argue, strategic narratives are soft power in the 21st century.…”

Section: Strategic Narratives Media and Us Electionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Political Unknown to an Unwanted Incumbent: Comparing Media Coverage of the 2020 and 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Within Nondemocratic Media

Hinck

2023

American Behavioral Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a time of declining support for democracy and intensifying rivalry between democracies and autocracies, understanding how nondemocratic nations portray U.S. elections is vital. And yet, despite the enormous attention U.S. presidential elections attract around the world, the manner in which international media makes sense of U.S. campaigns remains unclear, with only a limited number of comparative studies conducted and even fewer looking at non-Western, nondemocratic nations. Furthermore, current comparative frameworks remain biased toward Western conceptualizations of media and their role in democratic countries, with nondemocratic or transitional democracies used to support theoretical models developed elsewhere. Thus, this study offers strategic media narratives as an alternative means to understand transnational similarities and differences in election reporting emerging from four non-Western, nondemocratic nations by comparing their coverage of the 2020 and 2016 U.S. presidential campaigns. Results show substantial shifts in the nature of coverage, albeit with some similarities between campaigns. Trump remained negatively discussed in both elections, but with reporting in 2020 associating his leadership character to his policies. Whereas Clinton was negatively covered in 2016, Biden was neutrally discussed in 2020 with focus on his character and policies drawn in contrast to Trump. Both political parties were negatively covered, with Chinese, Russian, and Iranian narratives associating Republicans and Democrats as pursing confrontational relations with each nation. Most importantly, discussions of U.S. democracy were substantially more frequent and negative in 2020 compared to 2016. Taken together, the study contributes theoretically and empirically to the study of comparative election research by theorizing the role of narratives in international campaign coverage, addressing the gap in research into nondemocratic media reporting of international elections, and provides one of the few cross-time comparisons enabling insight into the drivers of how and why coverage of U.S. elections change.

show abstract

Section: Strategic Narratives Media and Us Electionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Political Unknown to an Unwanted Incumbent: Comparing Media Coverage of the 2020 and 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Within Nondemocratic Media

Hinck

2023

American Behavioral Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others go so far as to argue that states use narratives not only “to pursue certain policies, but are, in fact, biographical narratives themselves” (Berkenskoetter, 2014; Subotić, 2016, p. 614). From an ontological standpoint, such narratives not only transmit information but bind audiences to the interests and identity of the state, making life intelligible for their citizenry while providing support for state legitimacy (Huysmans, 1998; Krolikowski, 2018).…”

Section: Strategic Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 99%

US Hypocrisy and the End of American Exceptionalism? Narratives of the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol From Illiberal National Media

Hinck

2022

American Behavioral Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the United States being the only country in the world that places its former and incoming leader on a stage for millions to see, with the “Peaceful Transition of Power” being the very symbol of American democracy watched around the world, the events on January 6th, 2021, show how such performances of democratic culture are not permanent fixtures. Indeed, whereas US and foreign audiences have become accustomed to watching anti-government protests in illiberal states or underdeveloped democracies, the scenes of thousands of protestors storming the US Capitol has opened the United States itself for critique from the very nations it has admonished in the past. Thus, although the protest paradigm has become the dominant framework for understanding mediated portrayals of anti-government protests, this study argues it provides only partial insight into the January 6th insurrection, eschewing the larger strategic dimensions of non-democratic countries’ media coverage of the event. Rather than focusing on how media framed the event, this study examined 525 news articles from 26 Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Saudi media outlets’ reporting on the event from January 5th to January 19th through the lens of strategic media narratives. Results show that while elements of the protest paradigm are present in all four countries’ reporting—providing clear condemnation of the event and its participants, with blame placed on President Trump for instigating the attack—two additional overarching plotlines emerge: one shifting the scene away from President Trump to America’s broader polarized politics and failed governance and a second concluding the end of US exceptionalism and characterizations of US hypocrisy. Taken together, these two overarching narratives highlight the significance of storytelling as a potent form of geopolitical contestation in today’s global media environment.

show abstract

“…Building from the works of Anthony Giddens and R. D. Laing, OS scholars posit individuals are not merely concerned with their physical security but also with their sense of being. Nation‐states play a vital role in addressing this need, providing a stable environment and a national narrative that individuals are embedded within (Krolikowski, 2018; Skey, 2010; Zarakol, 2017). This leads to an interest in the maintenance of national identity and subjectivity, which can have a tremendous impact on state behavior (Mitzen, 2006; Steele, 2005; Subotic, 2016; Zarakol, 2010).…”

Section: Conceptualizations Of Information Warfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…47–53). In modern society, this is best understood in relation to nations and nation‐states (Krolikowski, 2018; Skey, 2010; Zarakol, 2017). One's community also structures the stories they develop and tell about Self.…”

Section: Conceptualizations Of Information Warfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Targeting Ontological Security: Information Warfare in the Modern Age

Bolton

2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have made great strides looking at the implications that the human need for ontological security has for politics and International Relations. However, less attention has been paid to how actors might target this need. While Steele and Mattern both examine the possible manipulation of subjectivity, this article turns to the concept of information warfare (IW) to broaden the view of how, and to what end, this is pursued. Congruently, by elaborating upon how the digitalization of society has increased the potential to influence and manipulate cognition and emotion, OS strengthens current literature on IW. It argues that by covertly perverting the information landscape, IW can alter how events are connected to national narratives, influencing policy by making certain options appear more/less shameful, or it can unravel the bonds of society by polarizing domestic narrative debates, purposely sowing ontological insecurity. This provides a firmer understanding of the strategic implications interference can have generally and of Russia's interference into the 2016 U.S. election specifically. Therefore, by viewing facets of IW as part of a range of tactics employed to manipulate/ undermine subjectivity, a more nuanced understanding of interstate relations subsequently emerges.

show abstract

Shaking up and making up China: how the party-state compromises and creates ontological security for its subjects

Cited by 13 publications

References 58 publications

From Political Unknown to an Unwanted Incumbent: Comparing Media Coverage of the 2020 and 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Within Nondemocratic Media

From Political Unknown to an Unwanted Incumbent: Comparing Media Coverage of the 2020 and 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Within Nondemocratic Media

US Hypocrisy and the End of American Exceptionalism? Narratives of the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol From Illiberal National Media

Targeting Ontological Security: Information Warfare in the Modern Age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About