| Popis: |
The process of demarcating civility from incivility—regardless of the “true” tone of the language—is what sociologist Ruth Braunstein calls a civility contest. As she writes, civility contests are “practical efforts to draw symbolic boundaries between civil and uncivil individuals, groups, or behaviors” (2018, 608). In other words, it might not matter whether protestors, political elites, or average citizens are actually using uncivil language; if they are described as such by their opponents, it can affect our opinions of them and of broader democratic values and approaches to participation. In this survey experiment, we focus on the interaction between the civil or uncivil label and the protest issue. What underlying concepts, biases, and opinions do Americans bring to bear when thinking about different issues in American politics? Do they view protests on highly polarized issues like abortion or racial justice differently from those arranged to fight inflation or other, less partisan issues? |
