In the context of rising polarisation and political violence, this workshop focuses on elites’ hostile (uncivil, intolerant, violent) communication styles and their consequences on the functioning of democracies. The workshop aims to provide a better understanding of hostile communication styles beyond the typical contexts (the US) and usual suspects (populist and authoritarian leaders). Normatively, it investigates the conditions for democratic regimes to cope with 'nastier' forms of elites’ behaviour. Empirically, it promotes comparative approaches to studying hostile communication styles, examining transformations over time, across countries and elite types, and in multiple arenas.
Many concerns have been raised about the threats that elites’ uncivil, intolerant, and even violent communication styles pose to democracies (eg the Capitol Attacks on 6 January 2021). These concerns stem from (i) the emphasis on emotions in such communication styles, rather than on reason-based politics (Davies 2018), while others worry about (ii) the effects of this kind of communication styles driven by polarisation and conflict instead of deliberation and cooperation (Haselmayer 2019). In essence, there is a widespread belief that elites’ communication styles have become more ‘emotive-conflictual’. Although these worries often focus on populist leaders, they extend to established political elites as well. Yet, most studies focus on the ‘usual suspects’ (eg populist and authoritarian leaders) with a predominant focus on the US case, while less effort has been made to study other democratic regimes. The workshop aims to better understand this phenomenon in three innovative ways. First, it intends to examine whether elites’ communication styles have evolved over time, focusing on whether there has been a trend toward more hostile communication in recent decades. Second, the workshop seeks to explore the extent to which hostile communication styles are embedded in political culture, assessing how widespread they are across countries or specific to certain regions. Finally, it aims to assess the impact of different platforms on the form and intensity of hostile communication styles (eg are platforms like Twitter/X or Instagram more conducive to uncivil, intolerant, or even violent behaviour?).
1: To what extent are elites’ hostile communication styles detrimental (or not) to democratic regimes?
2: How have elites’ communication styles evolved over time? Is there a trend towards a more hostile discourse?
3: Which political and institutional contexts explain varying forms and intensity of hostile communication styles?
4: How the medium (i.e. written, audio, and visual content) shape the use of hostile communication styles across arenas?
1: Papers examining the normative implications of hostile communication styles on democratic regimes.
2: Papers using a longitudinal perspective, in single or multiple countries.
3: Papers analysing countries/elite groups beyond the “usual suspects” (the US, populist/authoritarian leaders).
4: Papers comparing subgroups of elected politicians (e.g., women, ethnic minorities, etc.).
5: Papers focusing on the audio-visual dimensions of hostile communication styles.
6: Papers focusing on the effects of means of communication upon varying forms and intensity of hostile communication.
7: Papers implementing new methodological approaches (e.g., deep leaning, visual analysis, qualitative embedding).
