Political Psychology and Polarisation: A Conceptual Approach

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 2, 179 - 191, 28.12.2023

Ekmel Geçer

https://doi.org/10.60077/medkul.1340852

Öz

This study, mostly in a theoretical way and through a descriptive textual analysis, aims to give insights into the digital divide within the context of political and media psychology. The article creates new concepts and theories, and relates them to the conflicts on online platforms and tries to present the socio-cultural background that reinforces online polarisation based on new media and communication theories. The article discusses cultural psychology as the main motive for digital polarisation and touches upon online behaviour patterns that are considered as the driving force of rigid politicisation. Starting from this point of view, this conceptual study attempts to answer how the digital divide plays a role as a root cause or intervening factor in conflict and resolution issues and state-society relations. This work then aims to shed valuable light on the dynamics of peace and political psychology in reducing digital polarization and how terms related to socio-cultural psychology like contact theory may increase intimacy and reduce prejudices towards the other which are most likely caused by the echo chambers created on the online platforms. Therefore, this theoretical research, uncovering the potential of peace psychology and drawing upon the relevant existing literature, has important implications for reducing political polarization, the digital divide in other words, on online media platforms which will also help overcome conflicts and discriminations in daily political lives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Digital Divide, Polarisation, Political and Peace Psychology.

Proje Numarası

Yok

Siyaset Psikolojisi ve Kutuplaşma: Kavramsal Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu çalışma, daha çok teorik bir yaklaşımla ve betimleyici bir metin analiziyle, siyaset ve medya psikolojisi bağlamında dijital bölünmeye dair fikir vermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Makale, yeni kavram ve kuramlar oluşturarak bunları çevrimiçi platformlardaki çatışmalarla ilişkilendirmekte ve yeni medya ve iletişim kuramlarına dayanarak çevrimiçi kutuplaşmayı güçlendiren sosyo-kültürel arka planı vermeye çalışmaktadır. Dijital kutuplaşmanın başlıca nedenleri olarak kültürel psikolojiyi ele alan makale, buna bağlı olarak katı siyasallaşmanın itici gücü olduğu düşünülen çevrimiçi davranış biçimlerine de değinmektedir. Bu noktadan hareketle, elinizdeki kavramsal çalışma, dijital bölünmenin çatışma ve çözüm konularında ve devlet-toplum ilişkilerinde köklü bir neden veya müdahale faktörü olarak nasıl bir rol oynadığını yanıtlamaya çalışacaktır. Makale dijital kutuplaşmanın azaltılmasında; barış psikolojisinin ve politik psikolojinin dinamiklerine ve temas teorisi gibi sosyo-kültürel psikolojiyle ilgili terimlere değinerek çevrimiçi platformlarda oluşturulan yankı odalarının neden olduğu kutuplaşmanın nasıl azaltılabileceğine ve politik yakınlığın nasıl artırabileceğine cevap vermeyi amaçlamaktadır. Son olarak makale, barış psikolojisinin potansiyelinden faydalanarak, günlük siyasi hayattaki çatışma ve ayrımcılıkların üstesinden gelinmesine yardımcı olunması ve online platformlardaki siyasi kutuplaşmanın, diğer bir deyişle dijital bölünmenin azaltılması için önerilerde bulunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dijital Bölünme, Kutuplaşma, Siyaset ve Barış Psikolojisi.

Destekleyen Kurum

Yok

Proje Numarası

Yok

Teşekkür

Yok

Kaynakça

• Anderson, J., & Hoff, J. (2001). Democracy and citizenship in Scandinavia. New York: Palgrave.
• Arguedas, A. R., Robertson, C. T., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burke, J. P. (2006). Contemporary social psychological theories. Stanford: Stanford Social Sciences.
• Cambridge. (2019, 23 10). Nepotizm. Retrieved from dictionary.cambridge.org: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nepotism.
• Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.
• Clark, J., & Slyke, T. (2010). Beyond the echo chamber: Reshaping politics through networked progressive media. New York: The New Press.
• Coleman, E. B., & White, K. (2011). Religious tolerance, education, and the curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Comer, A., & Jacobi, L. (2021). Navigating evangelical political identity in the era of Donald Trump. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(1), 163-184. doi:10.29333/ajqr/10853
• Davis, E. (2017). Post-Truth: Why we have reached peak bullshit and what we can do about it. London: Little Brown.
• Emre, Y. (1992). The city of the heart. Rockport: Element Books.
• Eraydın, A. & Frey, K. (2018). Politics and conflict in governance and planning theory and practice. London: Routledge.
• Farkas, J., & Schou, J. (2019). Post-Truth, fake news and democracy: Mapping the politics of falsehood. New York: Routledge.
• Franz, T. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions understanding and improving team performance. Oxford: Wiley & Son.
• Gallina, N. (2008). Political elites in East-Central Europe: Paving the way for "negative Europeanisation"? Ridgebrook: Budrich UniPress.
• Geschke, D., Lorenz, J., & Holtz, P. (2018). The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 129-149. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12286
• Geybels, H., Mels, S., & Walrave, M. (2009). Faith and media analysis of faith and media: Representation and Communication. Brussels: Peter Lung.
• Haynes, N. M. (2012). Group dynamics basics and pragmatics for practitioners. Maryland: University Press of America.
• Jordan, T. (2008). Hacking: Digital media and technological determinism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Jung, D., & Piccoli, W. (2001). Turkey at the Crossroads: Ottoman legacies and a greater Middle East. London: Zed Books.
• Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevıtch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(1), 509–523.
• Korkut, U. & Ziya, H. E. (2017). Politics and gender identity in Turkey: Centralised Islam for socio-economic control. London: Routledge.
• Kriesi, H., & Hutter, S. (2019). Crises and the transformation of the national political space in Europe in S. Hutter, & H. Kriesi (eds.), European party politics in times of crisis (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lipset, S.M. (1959). Political man: The social bases of politics. Garden City: Doubleday.
• Malan, F., & Smit, B. (2001). Ethics and leadership in business and politics. Lansdowne: Juta & Co.
• Malcolm, D. (2021). Post-truth society? An eliasian sociological analysis of knowledge in the 21st century. British Sociological Association, 55(6), 1063–1079. doi:10.1177/0038038521994
• Marlin, R. (2003). Propaganda and the ethics of persuasion. Ontario: Broadview Press.
• McLuhan, M. (1963). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston: MIT.
• McNamee, S. J., & Miller, Jr. R. (2014). The meritocracy myth. Toronto: Rowman Littlefield.
• Merioboute, Z. (2013). Ârab Spring: The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and their vision of Islamic finance and the state. in G. Carbonnier (eds.) International development policy: Religion and development (pp. 128-143). London: Palgrave.
• Milačić, F. (2022, 04, October). The negative impact of polarization on democracy. Fes Democracy of The Future. Retrieved from https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/wien/18175.pdf.
• Mustapha, L. K., Omar, B., & Atoloye, S. A. (2019). Influence of satirical media content on orientation to politics among Nigerian youth. SEARCH Journal of Media and Communication Research, 11(2), 91-110.
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Nyangweso, M. (2014). Female genital cutting in industrialized countries: Mutilation or cultural tradition. California: Praeger.
• Özen, E., Boz, H., & Grima, S. (2022). The new digital era: Digitalisation, emerging risks and opportunities. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Prado, C. (2018). Introduction: The new subjectivism. in C. Prado (eds.) America's post-truth phenomenon: When feelings and opinions Trump facts and evidence (pp. 1-14). California: Prager.
• Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
• Rumi, J.-d. (1973). Divani Shamsi Tabrizi. San Francisco: Rainbow Bridge.
• Sentürk, B. (2016). Urban poverty in Turkey: Development and modernisation in low-income communities. London: I. B. Tauris.
• Shabo, M. (2008). Techniques of propaganda and persuasion. USA: Prestwick House.
• Simons, H. W., & Jones, J. (2011). Persuasion in society. London: Routledge.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Waldman, S. A., & Caliskan, E. (2017). The new Turkey and its discontents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Winston, B. (2000). Media technology and society: A history from telegraph to the internet. New York: Routledge.
• Yabanci, B., & Taleski, D. (2018). Co-opting religion: how ruling populists in Turkey and Macedonia sacralises the majority. Religion, State & Society, 46(3),283-304. doi:10.1080/09637494.2017.1411088