DOCSLIB.ORG

Building Consensus. an Introduction to a Rhetorical Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Building Consensus. an Introduction to a Rhetorical Approach RIFL/BC(2016): 1-3 DOI: 10.4396/2016BC00 __________________________________________________________________________________ Building Consensus. An introduction to a rhetorical approach Salvatore Di Piazza Università degli Studi di Palermo [email protected] Francesca Piazza Università degli Studi di Palermo [email protected] This issue collects a part of the papers presented at the conference titled “Building Consensus. Rhetoric between Democracy and Conflict” held in Palermo in April 2015. The aim was to encourage an interdisciplinary investigation of the role of rhetoric and discursive processes in the realization of democracy and its eventual degenerations. The contemporary debate on this topic seems to be polarized between two different conceptions of democracy: the “deliberative” one and the “agonistic” one. The first one is related to the classical tradition that considers Habermas as its reference point. It emphasizes the role of rational deliberation as a means to produce a legitimate and binding consensus. In contrast, the second one draws its inspiration from C. Schmitt, and considers conflict and disagreement as unavoidable conditions of democratic life. Despite their obvious differences, these two theoretical models have a conception of rhetoric in common that is subjected to, or at least excluded from, the full exercise of argumentative rationality. Nevertheless, an interpretation of rhetoric that includes the logical-argumentative dimension in the rhetorical domain is possible. In this way, the recovery of rhetoric, considered both as a practice and as a theory of persuasive speech, may shed light on the role of discursive processes in building consensus, and thus may allow a revision of the dialectical tension between the pairs of concepts that the debate tends to focus on: normative/descriptive, rational/irrational, agreement/conflict. To better understand the role that rhetoric can play in this debate, it is useful to explain our idea of rhetoric. Indeed, despite several attempts to revaluate this discipline, the word “rhetoric” has had a negative connotation to date. Indeed in many modern languages, when using the word “rhetoric” the speaker feels almost obliged to add the attribute “good”, implying in this way that the term “rhetoric” alone refers to a fundamentally negative phenomenon. The general attitude towards rhetoric tends to associate it to a complex of discursive strategies oriented towards manipulating the interlocutor. Our idea of rhetoric is completely different from this negative framework. It is rooted in the Aristotelian perspective and therefore by the term rhetoric we mean the theoretical reflection about the persuasive discourse. In the case of this conference there was a specific interest in applying this theoretical reflection to the sphere of the public discourse. 1 RIFL/BC(2016): 1-3 DOI: 10.4396/2016BC00 __________________________________________________________________________________ In particular, our focus was the agonistic dimension of the public debate. Indeed, one of the most relevant aspects in this debate is precisely the role of conflict. The underlying question is: in order to realize a very democracy, is conflict something to avoid by all means or is it something indispensable for democracy itself? Regarding this dilemma, the rhetorical approach seems to be the most useful to consider conflict as an internal and constitutive element of democracy. In this perspective, it is just the dialectic consensus/conflict that feeds public debate. This rhetorical approach appears to be particularly fruitful, inasmuch as it allows an attempt to overcome the conceptual polarizations mentioned before or, at least, to approach them in a smoother way. Indeed, in the Aristotelian perspective, there is no choice to make between rhetoric with a “logical-argumentative core”, and rhetoric with an “emotional-pathemic core”. This dichotomy is actually artificial. The very famous triad of Aristotelian rhetorical proofs (pisteis) – ethos, pathos and logos – is a clear evidence that Aristotle does not need to put back together the emotional and the logical component, because they coexist from the very beginning. Indeed, ethos is the proof based on the character of the speaker, pathos is the one based on the emotion of the audience and logos is the proof based on the speech itself. Although each of these proofs includes to a certain degree both the intellectual and the desiderative components, ethos and pathos mainly involve the latter, while logos mainly refers to the former. In any case, according to Aristotle, the speaker, in order to persuade his audience, must take into account all these proofs together. In fact, this is the only way to enable the audience to make a choice. This is one of the reasons why the rhetorical approach we propose, considered both as a practice and as a theory of persuasive speech, may shed light on the role of discursive processes in building consensus. Another dichotomy this approach can help us to problematize is the one – typical of the contemporary debate – between a normative approach and a descriptive one. The first one focuses on what we should do when we argue, while the second one analyses what we actually do when we argue. The followers of the normative approach tend to identify “rational” rules able to guarantee the agreement that, in their perspective, largely means consensus; instead, the followers of the descriptive approach are accused of including in their theories the emotional aspects of the argumentative processes, considered by the normativists as irrational and fallacious arguments. Also in this case the Aristotelian approach seems to be fruitful. Aristotle is in a certain way a normativist, but we would say in a more sophisticated manner: the rules he proposes to follow are flexible because they take into account the real and concrete persuasive practices and, besides, in the Aristotelian perspective, as we have seen before, the emotional appeal is not by itself fallacious or negative. Given this background, when deciding to organize this conference, one of our main aim was to stimulate a discussion on this topic from different points of view. By “different points of view” we mean both different disciplines and different methodological approaches within the same field. A simple look at the index of this volume is enough to see that our expectations were completely met. Indeed, the papers collected here approach the topic of consensus following different perspectives and also analysing several and multiple aspects. Some papers focus on the ancient roots of this debate, in particular in the Greek world; some focus on the role played by disagreement and conflict and their relation with democracy; others are concentrated on the link between linguistic aspects and social roles; some others analyse specific case-studies. Not only the issues, but also 2 RIFL/BC(2016): 1-3 DOI: 10.4396/2016BC00 __________________________________________________________________________________ the disciplinary approaches are diverse: rhetoric, philosophy of language, cognitive science, argumentation theory, sociolinguistics, philosophy of science, discourse analysis, economics. This variety in itself is a clear sign of the vivacity of this debate, and the comparison among different disciplines and approaches is stimulating and fruitful. For all these reasons, we think that this issue of RIFL can represent a starting point for further research on this complex and intriguing topic. 3 RIFL/BC(2016): 4-16 DOI: 10.4396/2016BC20 __________________________________________________________________________________ Il peso del framing narrativo nella costruzione del consenso politico Domenica Bruni Dipartimento di Scienze Cognitive, Università di Messina [email protected] Abstract The mainstream trend in the investigation of how the political consensus is actually built into societies emphasizes the role of the propaganda techniques. The implicit tenet in this perspective is that the public opinion is manipulable by means of the right communication technique. It seems entirely matter of how language and the other symbolic forms are used in the making of political agenda. In my paper, however, I would like to follow another pathway, i.e, to stress the ways in which political ideas, which actually rule the political discourse, are designed exactly with the aim of influencing the public opinion. In particular, in what follows it will be taken into consideration the role of frames, narratives, and scripts, in the sense George Lakoff firstly noticed. Metaphors, on their part, are both the main cognitive devices to shape ideas into the political discourse, and the ordinary way to categorize our emotions and offer them to other people’s interpretation. It will be show how all these cognitive devices are rooted in corresponding brain networks, which involve both pre-frontal and limbic streams. Keywords: Political consensus, frames, narratives, metaphors Received December 2015; accepted April 2016. 0. Introduzione La domanda da cui parte questo saggio è la seguente: i frames – espressi e resi concreti attraverso le narrazioni – possono influenzare la costruzione del consenso politico? L’influenza che le strutture narrative e la comunicazione esercitano sulla politica è un argomento non certo nuovo e sembra continuamente sollevare ogni sorta di problema legato al legame tra potere e discorso. Il tema è posto al centro di numerosi dibattiti in molte discipline, tra
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Die Grenzen Der Satire: Vergleich Zweier Italienischer Talk-Show-Formate
    DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit Die Grenzen der Satire: Vergleich zweier italienischer Talk-Show-Formate Verfasserin Martina Brenner angestrebter akademischer Grad Magistra der Philosophie (Mag. phil.) Wien, 2012 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 317 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Theater-, Film- und Medienwissenschaft Betreuerin: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Hilde Haider-Pregler 2 Erklärung Ich erkläre, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst habe, andere als die angegebenen Quellen nicht verwendet habe und die den benutzten Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Anmerkungen: In dieser Diplomarbeit wurde aus Gründen der Lesbarkeit auf die gendergerechte Form verzichtet. Männliche Schreibweisen umfassen auch die weiblichen. Das geschah völlig wert- und vorurteilsfrei. Die direkten Zitate in italienischer Sprache wurden von der Autorin ins Deutsche übersetzt. 3 4 Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung ....................................................................................... 9 2. Die Satire ........................................................................................ 12 2.1. Etymologie ..................................................................................................... 13 2.2. Indignatio als Antrieb, Satire zu schreiben ............................................. 17 2.3. Satire als gattungsübergreifende Form ................................................... 18 2.4. Der satirische Weltentwurf ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and the Myth of Consensus
    Essays Conservation and the Myth of Consensus M. NILS PETERSON,∗ MARKUS J. PETERSON,† AND TARLA RAI PETERSON‡ ∗Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222, U.S.A., email [email protected] †Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258, U.S.A. ‡Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0491, U.S.A. Abstract: Environmental policy makers are embracing consensus-based approaches to environmental de- cision making in an attempt to enhance public participation in conservation and facilitate the potentially incompatible goals of environmental protection and economic growth. Although such approaches may pro- duce positive results in immediate spatial and temporal contexts and under some forms of governance, their overuse has potentially dangerous implications for conservation within many democratic societies. We suggest that environmental decision making rooted in consensus theory leads to the dilution of socially powerful con- servation metaphors and legitimizes current power relationships rooted in unsustainable social constructions of reality. We also suggest an argumentative model of environmental decision making rooted in ecology will facilitate progressive environmental policy by placing the environmental agenda on firmer epistemological ground and legitimizing challenges to current power hegemonies that dictate unsustainable practices. Key Words: democracy, environmental conflict,
    [Show full text]
  • Matrix Activism: Media, Neoliberalism, and Social Action in Italy
    International Journal of Communication 9(2015), 1072–1089 1932–8036/20150005 Matrix Activism: Media, Neoliberalism, and Social Action in Italy MICHELA ARDIZZONI University of Colorado, Boulder, USA Using the case of the Rome-based media group ZaLab, this article examines the articulations that shape and define the multiple dynamics of connected activism in contemporary societies. The first section engages the existing literature on convergence, commodity activism, and connectivity as theoretical frameworks of my analysis of ZaLab. The second section provides some context on the Italian mainstream and activist mediascapes, both of which shape ZaLab’s media practices. The last section examines a few specific examples of ZaLab’s productions and the activist campaign created to promote them. I conclude with some reflections on the nature of contemporary media practices as part of what I call “matrix activism.” Keywords: activism, Italy, documentary, social change, new media, matrix On August 30, 2008, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi signed a Treaty on Friendship, Partnership, and Cooperation between the two countries that was meant to normalize Italian-Libyan relations and settle the cultural and economic disputes resulting from the Italian colonial experience in Libya.1 Part of the agreement required Italy to pay $5 billion over the course of 25 years as restitution for its military occupation between 1912 and 1947. In exchange, Libya committed to monitoring illegal migratory flows to Italy and taking charge of those migrants who were pushed back by the Italian Coast Guard. Although the “push-back policy” resulting from this treaty decreased the number of illegal migrants who succeeded in crossing the Mediterranean, the fate of (mostly sub-Saharan African) refugees in Libyan prisons was abominable and violated basic human rights (Manrique, Barna, Hakala, Rey, & Claros, 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnicity As a Construct in Leisure Research: a Rejoinder to Gobster
    Joumat of Leisure Research Copyright 2007 2007, Voi 39, No. 3, pp. 554-566 National Recreation and Park Association Ethnicity as a Construct in Leisure Research: A Rejoinder to Gobster Garry Chick The Pennsylvania State University Chieh-lu Li The University of Hong Kong Harry C. Zinn The Pennsylvania State University James D. Absher The USDA Forest Service Alan R. Graefe The Pennsylvania State University Gobster addresses several issues in our paper. These include, first, a suggestion that the measure of cultural values that we used is not appropriate for understanding possible variations in racial and ethnic patterns of' outdoor leisure preferences and behavior. He claims, as well, that we limit our use of ethnicity to alleged cultural differences among groups and, specifically, to cultural values, unlike what most leisure researchers have done. Second, Gobster questions our concern with the use of common racial and ethnic labels because these are part and parcel of the way in which people look at others. Third, grouping people by racial and ethnic labels has often contrib- uted to social justice. Fourth, ethnic groups in the U.S. are growing and what may have been small differences between groups in the past may be mag- nified in the future due to these demographic shifts. Fifth, research is con- strained by resources that limit sampling designs and, therefore, collapsing smaller ethnic and/or racial groups into larger ones may be required for statistical comparisons of adequate power to be made. Sixth, Gobster ex- presses concern over our use of' cultural consensus analysis, a single method, in claiming that ethnicity may not be a useful concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Rights, Needs, and the Creation of Ethical Community Natalie Susan Gaines Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Rights, needs, and the creation of ethical community Natalie Susan Gaines Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Gaines, Natalie Susan, "Rights, needs, and the creation of ethical community" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2317. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2317 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. RIGHTS, NEEDS, AND THE CREATION OF ETHICAL COMMUNITY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by Natalie Susan Gaines B.A., University of Louisville, 2005 M.A., Louisiana State University, 2008 December 2011 ©Copyright 2011 Natalie Susan Gaines All rights reserved ii To my wonderful parents, Kenneth and Charlotte, without whose unfaltering love and encouragement this dissertation never would have been possible iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should probably begin by thanking the individual who set me on the road to academia, Dr. Gary L. Gregg, II at the University of Louisville. In my early years as an undergraduate, I was unsure of the path I would take after graduation. Dr. Gregg served as a wonderful mentor and opened my eyes to the vocation of teaching and the excitement of political theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 76 | Issue 2 Article 6 1985 Book Reviews Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Book Reviews, 76 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 512 (1985) This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/85/7602-512 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 76. No. 2 Copyright 0 1985 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in US.A. BOOK REVIEWS THE CONSENSUS-CONFLICT DEBATE. By Thomas J. Bernard. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. Pp. 229. $28.00 (cloth), $14.00 (paper). Approximately fifteen years ago, a major debate raged in aca- demic sociology between theorists identified as consensus oriented and those defined as conflict oriented. A central theme of this great debate was whether social order was best described as emerging from a commonly held set of values and beliefs (the consensus posi- tion) or is, instead, due to power and coercion (the conflict posi- tion). Although much was written by both sides, the debate never attained satisfactory closure and the issue slowly faded from socio- logical attention. Now there appears in journals only scattered es- says related to the consensus-conflict debate. In his book, Thomas Bernard has not only resurrected the consensus-conflict debate, he has made it more general by examining the writings of classical moral and legal philosophers as well as sociologists.
    [Show full text]
  • Ronde,Xenofobia,Sindacoassente Amilanoèduralavitadelrom
    PUOI BLOCCARE IL PREMIO DELLA Quotidiano fondato da Antonio Gramsci il 12 febbraio 1924 POLIZZA AUTO PER 2 ANNI. Chiama l’800 07 07 62 SE ENTRI NELLA TRIBÙ LINEAR. o vai su www.linear.it Anno 84 n. 303 - giovedì 8 novembre 2007 - Euro 1,00 www.unita.it «Se Prodi non cade, si è esposto tanto sulla sbagliato...” Berlusconi lo il centrodestra com’è oggi caduta del governo, se poi sa, scoppierebbe la guerra» finisce il 15 novembre. nulla succede, non può Roberto Calderoli, Lega Cancellato. È evidente che cavarsela dicendo: “Mi ero la Stampa 5 novembre INEDITI L’istanza del detenuto a Turi Berlusconi, il cavaliere s’è smarrito Il grido di Gramsci: Evoca spallate che non arrivano mai: anche ieri sulla Finanziaria ha fatto flop «Notte e giorno E su Biagi nega l’evidenza: «Non ho mai detto che non doveva lavorare in tv» in regime di tortura» ■ Tra editti e spallate, Silvio Berlusconi sembra essersi smarrito. Berlusconi ■ Quello che pub- L’ex premier nega l’evidenza sull’allontanamento di Enzo Biagi dal- FINLANDIA blichiamo è un im- la Rai: «Non c’è mai stato un editto bulgaro, né ho mai detto che EDITTO BULGARO portante inedito di questi signori (Biagi, Santoro, Luttazzi, ndr) non dovevano fare tele- Annuncia strage su YouTube Antonio Gramsci: visione. Tutto è stato sconvolto». Gli risponde, proprio dalla Bulga- L’ESTREMO OLTRAGGIO la lettera-istanza ria, il ministro Pierluigi Bersani: «Questo è il posto dell’ostracismo, n.7047 al direttore solo a Berlusconi risulta che non ci fu alcun editto». Il Cavaliere del MARCO TRAVAGLIO del carcere di Turi.
    [Show full text]
  • The Leibnizian Vision in Frank Ankersmit's Philosophy of History
    INTENSION, SUBSTANCE AND CALCULUS – THE LEIBNIZIAN VISION IN FRANK ANKERSMIT’S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY Oulu University Faculty of History Master’s thesis 20.5.2019 Aleksi Oja 1 Due to the abundance of referral to the extensive work of Frank Ankersmit and my general reliance on his published books and selected papers as sources, I ask the reader to use the following list of abbreviations of some of the most featured works: NL – Ankersmit, F. R. 1983: Narrative Logic – a Semantic Analysis of the Historian’s Language. Martinus Nijhoff publishers, The Hague, Netherlands. HT – Ankersmit, F. R. 1994. History and Tropology: The Rise and Fall of Metaphor. University of California Press. London, England. HR – Ankersmit, F. R. 2001: Historical Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. PR – Ankersmit, F. R. 2002: Political Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. SHE – Ankersmit, F. R. 2005: Sublime Historical Experience. Stanford University Press, California, USA. MTR – Ankersmit F. R. 2012: Meaning, Truth and Reference in Historical Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. HSI – Ankersmit, F. R. 2013: History as the Science of the Individual. Journal of the Philosophy of History Vol. 7 (3), 396 – 425. WEM – Ankersmit, F. R. 2017: Where the extremes meet. A presently still an unpublished paper, given as the handout for Frank Ankersmit’s opening speech at the Seminar of philosophy of history in October 2017 in Oulu university. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Reason G.F. Gaus and Chad Van Schoelandt University Of
    Public Reason G.F. Gaus and Chad Van Schoelandt University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Doubts about the possibility of shared public rationality and reasons derive from a variety of sources: social science, the philosophy of science, and the moral pluralism of modern societies. This article begins by examining the lines of inquiry that have led many to question whether all fully-informed and fully-competent inquirers would come to the same conclusions about science and morals. According to some philosophers and social scientists, the very concept of reason has broken apart, leaving different individuals and groups with different conceptions of rationality, and so of reasons for belief and action. The article then considers the different ideals of public reason that have been advanced to overcome worries about the ‘fragmentation of reason.’ 1 The Diversity of Reason 1.1 The Enlightenment Before considering different conceptions of public reason, it is important to grasp what the very idea of public reason presupposes. According to the conception of reasoning that dominated the European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, reason is inherently universal, and so shared and public. On this Enlightenment conception, reason is a shared capacity of all human beings, and norms of good reasoning are universal. Any premise p that is true for one person is necessarily true for all others; if the inferential rule ‘(p·(p→q))→q’ is valid for one person, it is necessarily valid for all. The true and valid results of one person's reasoning are thus necessarily true and valid for all. According to this standard Enlightenment view, the use of common human reason produces consensus on not only scientific beliefs, but also moral and political opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • Consensus Theories. an Oriented Survey Théories Du Consensus
    Mathématiques et sciences humaines Mathematics and social sciences 190 | Eté 2010 Mathématiques discrètes : théories et usages. Numéro en hommage à Bruno Leclerc Consensus theories. An oriented survey Théories du consensus. Une synthèse orientée Olivier Hudry et Bernard Monjardet Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/msh/11774 DOI : 10.4000/msh.11774 ISSN : 1950-6821 Éditeur Centre d’analyse et de mathématique sociales de l’EHESS Édition imprimée Date de publication : 10 mars 2010 Pagination : 139-167 ISSN : 0987-6936 Référence électronique Olivier Hudry et Bernard Monjardet, « Consensus theories. An oriented survey », Mathématiques et sciences humaines [En ligne], 190 | Eté 2010, mis en ligne le 16 octobre 2010, consulté le 23 juillet 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/msh/11774 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/msh.11774 © École des hautes études en sciences sociales Math. Sci. hum / Mathematics and Social Sciences (47e année, n° 190, 2010(2), p. (139-167) CONSENSUS THEORIES. AN ORIENTED SURVEY Olivier HUDRY1, Bernard MONJARDET2 RÉSUMÉ – Théories du consensus. Une synthèse orientée Cet article présente une vue d’ensemble de sept directions de recherche en théorie du consensus : résultats arrowiens, règles d’agrégation définies au moyen de fédérations, règles définies au moyen de distances, solutions de tournoi, domaines restreints, théories abstraites du consensus, questions de complexité et d’algorithmique. Ce panorama est orienté dans la mesure où il présente principalement – mais non exclusivement – les travaux les plus significatifs obtenus – quelquefois avec d’autres chercheurs – par une équipe de chercheurs français qui sont ou ont été membres pléniers ou associés du Centre d’analyse et de mathématique sociale (CAMS).
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict Theory and Police Violence in a Racialized Society Benjamin L
    Policing the Police: Conflict Theory and Police Violence in a Racialized Society Benjamin L Snyder A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Washington 2013 Committee: Ross Matsueda Kyle Crowder Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Department of Sociology ©Copyright 2013 Benjamin L Snyder University of Washington Abstract Policing the Police: Conflict Theory and Police Violence in a Racialized Society Benjamin L Snyder Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Ross Matsueda Department of Sociology This paper tests models of coercive social control that are theoretically grounded in general group conflict theory and specific minority threat hypotheses. These theories assert that higher levels of minority presence and overall economic inequality will predict higher levels of social control even when other environmental factors (including crime rates) are held constant. The use of pooled time series cross-sectional data allows for the first longitudinal analysis of police homicides as a social control outcome, which produces mixed findings on racial and economic threats. As in previous research, purely economic conflict predictions find little support while racial threat hypotheses are at least partially substantiated. As part of this same analysis, police homicides and police force size are compared based on their empirical and theoretical strengths as social control outcome variables. This ultimately raises important challenges to the continued use of the police homicide
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomarbeit
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OTHES DIPLOMARBEIT Titel der Diplomarbeit „Che tempo che fa – una trasmissione italiana di successo“ Verfasserin Alice Kopp angestrebter akademischer Grad Magistra der Philosophie (Mag. phil.) Wien, im August 2008 Studienkennzahlen lt. Studienblatt: A 236 349 Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt: Italienisch Betreuerin: Dr., ao. Univ.-Prof. Johanna Borek Indice Ringraziamenti pag. 5 Introduzione pag. 6 Presentazione di “Che tempo che fa”, della RAI e di Endemol pag. 9 Presentazione di “Che tempo che fa” pag. 9 Lo studio pag. 13 Il cast pag. 15 RAI pag. 18 RAI Tre pag. 20 Endemol pag. 22 Endemol Italia pag. 24 Il lavoro necessario perché “Che tempo che fa” possa andare in onda pag. 25 Che cosa succede il giorno della trasmissione pag. 25 La suddivisione dei compiti fra Endemol e la RAI pag. 27 Il lavoro svolto da Endemol pag. 27 Il lavoro svolto dalla RAI pag. 30 La regia pag. 32 I motivi del successo di “Che tempo che fa” pag. 36 Perché piace il programma? pag. 36 Frequenza della visione di “Che tempo che fa” pag. 37 I motivi grazie ai quali piace “Che tempo che fa” pag. 38 Il conduttore ed ideatore Fabio Fazio pag. 40 La valletta pag. 44 Gli ospiti a “Che tempo che fa” pag. 46 Quali sono i criteri per la scelta degli ospiti e come avviene il contatto? pag. 47 La preparazione delle schede sugli ospiti pag. 48 Gli ospiti della stagione 2006/2007 pag. 49 Quanti ospiti provengono da quali settori? pag.
    [Show full text]