Showing papers by "Craig Calhoun published in 2022"
TL;DR: De Leon, Mudge, and Fong as discussed by the authors pointed out that hyper-partisanship is reinforced by vanity, narcissism, and careerism, leading to hyper-partisan polarization.
Abstract: One dimension of democracy’s current crisis is hyper-partisan polarization. It is not just that citizens disagree sharply about current conditions, who or what is responsible, and paths forward. They also exaggerate their disagreements, turn to ad hominem abuse, and are led by political or social media provocateurs to attack their opponents as enemies. They forsake constructive discussion of issues and policies for the pursuit of winning at all costs. Hyper-partisanship is reinforced by vanity, narcissism, and careerism. Academic discussions and debates among ostensible political allies sometimes degenerate into the same sort of acrimony—usually not quite so severe. In this symposium, however, I am fortunate to be challenged constructively by thoughtful critics; they raise the quality of analysis and discussion. This is, of course, what should happen in democratic public life but too seldom does. Challenging arguments and solidarity are important not just at the largest scales of public life but inside both movements and intellectual fields. Productive debates reflect different experiences and evidence, contrasting interpretations and analyses, different ideas of what is at stake. They are not just performances of diversity but attempts to discern what is true and wise—to understand what is going on and what might be done. So, I welcome the shared concern for democracy—and basic conditions of social justice that go beyond democracy—that leads the three critics brought together here to suggest (very gently) that Degenerations of Democracy might be overoptimistic or insufficiently critical. I share the worry, though I will also defend some of the choices that Cedric de Leon, Stephanie Mudge, and Benjamin Fong find questionable.