Influencing Citizens’ Perceptions

Next article FreeEditor's NoteInfluencing Citizens’ PerceptionsCyrus Ernesto ZirakzadehCyrus Ernesto Zirakzadeh Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreAs I compose this introduction during the eve of the U.S. presidential election, I cannot help but think about the various ways in which corporations and the mass media shape our political imaginations. At the same time, I reflect on the ways in which we citizens shape our own visions about what we can and cannot do, about what problems need to be addressed, and about the situations we feel are malleable and the situations that we believe, rightly or wrongly, to lie beyond our immediate control. The articles in this issue also explore the topic of political perceptions and their origins. As one would expect from research published in Polity, the scholars attack common assumptions about how imaginations are constructed, and reopen questions that we normally assume to have been adequately answered.***Dustin Tingley's article tackles questions about the origins of citizens’ perceptions in the United States. He considers whether economic interests influence citizens’ willingness to extend rights to immigrants (especially immigrants who are perceived to be burdens to the economic order). Tingley contrasts a materialist hypothesis, about how short-term desires to protect one's disposable income from taxes lead to hostility to immigration, with a seemingly contrary hypothesis, which stresses the cultural sources of anti-immigrant sentiment. Marshaling a broad range of polling data and thinking about the limits of different sources of information, Tingley urges us to be humble about what we think we know because, right now, the information does not decisively support either the exclusively economic or the primarily cultural position. In Tingley's opinion, it is better to be aware of the historical limits of any generalization based on a single poll, and to note the complexity of seemingly straightforward causal hypotheses about the cultural origins of xenophobia, than to make overly broad causal claims about why some U.S. citizens are opposed to immigrants. The material and non-material origins of anti-immigrant sentiments are murkier than most people realize. Moreover, the constantly changing policy agendas of politicians—say, recent debates over border security that have eclipsed older debates about the growing costs of public services—may affect citizens’ sentiments about immigration more than many scholars realize.Whereas Tingley speculates about the social origins of citizens’ perceptions of immigrants, Carlo Bonura is curious about how residents in North America and Europe perceive Islam. His article focuses on how scholars who are deeply committed to liberal principles reinterpret Islamic culture so as to avoid the troubling questions about the limits of liberalism as a political project. What makes Bonura's work especially provocative is his attention to the implicit theorizing that he believes always accompanies both academic and grassroots thinking about politics. He maintains that people, when assessing their own political circumstances, invariably presume an imaginary elsewhere where local political practices do not exist. Occasionally these background “elsewheres” are described in detail and at length; often they are mentioned only in passing. Regardless of the amount of time and space that people devote to their discussions of politics in faraway places, the characteristics of these elsewheres make arguments for particular courses of action more convincing. To illustrate his point, Bonura analyzes three different defenses of liberalism in which the scholars construct images of Islam against which to defend liberal principles and arrangements. Because the references to Islam are secondary, the thoroughness and accuracy of the comparison are invariably compromised, resulting in caricatures of Islam and an avoidance of political dilemmas, paradoxes, and trade-offs of liberal politics. For Bonura, it is crucial that people, when discussing politics, become aware of the extent to which they rely on claims about an elsewhere if they are to understand not only the dangers and possibilities of politics in unfamiliar places, but also the possibilities and limitations of politics at home.Bonura is concerned about unintentional political education by and among citizens—that is, how scholars and non-scholars alike talk about politics, make passing comments about political practices elsewhere, and thereby shape expectations. Jeffrey Church is concerned about the role of the modern liberal state in shaping citizens’ understanding of their moral duties to others. What (if anything) should a state purporting to defend individuality do to make sure that people have the moral outlook necessary to live in a free, non-regimented manner? Church approaches this tricky (and seemingly paradoxical) topic of liberal political education through an analysis of the reasoning of Immanuel Kant. Church argues that Kant clearly desired a liberal political order in which individuals would guide themselves, yet he knew that such an unregulated order depends on the cultivation of certain virtues and predispositions, so that citizens would view other human beings (including residents of societies that previously warred with a citizen's country) as intrinsically valuable. Church lays out the steps in Kant's argument, which includes a number of interesting psychological propositions about love and transference. He also describes some of Kant's substantive recommendations about the government's use of patriotic ceremonies and about its promotion of public decency through restrictions on disorderly gatherings, laws about public prostitution, and the timing of public executions. Church never argues that readers ought to adopt a Kantian vision of the state as cultivator of citizens’ consciousness, but he does contend that knee-jerk opposition to the government's role in educating citizens’ characters is problematic. According to Church, if we truly desire a free society, we must take seriously (as did Kant) the need for some sort of moral education, and must discuss where and when to have our government cultivate and channel citizens’ emotions.***Evelyn Simien, an associate editor for Polity, organized the symposium for this issue. Like Michael Goodhart, who organized the previous Polity symposium,1 Simien has gathered an intellectually diverse group of scholars who creatively blend perennial questions about politics with observations about current practices. The contributors examine Obama's rhetoric, the extent to which he has tried to lead and to follow public opinion (especially with regard to his affordable health-care and economic-stimulus initiatives), and his efforts to de-racialize political discourse yet be sensitive to the need to solve social problems that America's racism has encouraged. Together, the essays show the push and pull between different groups and individuals who hope to shape how others see the world, and the tension between democratic accountability and democratic leadership.Simien's symposium reminds us that, regardless of the outcome of this election, every political leader tries, with various degrees of success, to influence how citizens see their options and possibilities. Sometimes leaders can prompt a new understanding of how the world works and what visions of justice a society can achieve; sometimes citizens’ perceptions arise from other sources and resemble waves limiting the options of leaders. Crashing and rippling, the continuities and discontinuities in our perceptions shape our political futures. Notes 1. For an overview of that issue, see Michael Goodhart, “Polity Symposium: Deepening Democracy,” Polity 44 (October 2012): 475–84. Next article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Polity Volume 45, Number 1January 2013Influencing Citizens’ Perceptions The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2012.33 Views: 47Total views on this site Copyright © 2013, Northeastern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article

Economics · Immigration · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Polity · Positive economics · Public relations · Sociology · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Law · Psychology · Social and Cultural Dynamics · Social Psychology

• An Introduction

  Open Access•Michael Goodhart•Polity•2012

  Add to list