Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies
  4. Volume 14, Issue 2
  5. Article
Communication and Dissent: Competing Voices in a Post-Truth World
  • ISSN: 1757-1898
  • E-ISSN: 1757-1901

Abstract

This article faces the wide argument of communication, dissent and competing voices in today’s post-truth world, with an interdisciplinary analysis which blends different approaches coming from the fields of media sociology, political sociology and social philosophy, focusing on the theme of ‘public’, individuals and democracy. The work does that with the lecture of five different phenomena as trail sign – the ‘5 Ps’ quoted in the title, that is: post-truth, populism, polarization, political communication and post-modern era – which, both singularly considered and looking at their mutual interplays, could allow us to answer the main question of this research: it still makes sense to talk about ‘public’ and, if not, in which way it affects people’s relationships, society and democracy?

© 2022 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/cjcs_00074_7
2022-10-01
2024-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altheide, D. L., and Snow, P. P.. ( 1979), Media Logic, Beverly Hills, CA:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, B.. ( 1983), Imagined Communities, London:: Verso;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, C. W.. ( 2020;), ‘ The state(s) of things. ’, Comunicazione politica, 21:1, pp. 47–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauman, Z.. ( 2000), Liquid Modernity, Cambridge:: Polity Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bennett, W. L., and Iyengar, S.. ( 2008;), ‘ A new era of minimal effects?. ’, Journal of Communication, 58:4, pp. 707–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentivegna, S., and Boccia Artieri, G.. ( 2021), Voci della democrazia (‘Voices of democracy’), Bologna:: il Mulino;.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Blumler, J. G.. ( 2016;), ‘ The fourth age of political communication. ’, Politiques de Communication, 6, pp. 19–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumler, J. G., and Kavanagh, D.. ( 1999;), ‘ The third age of political communication. ’, Political Communication, 16:3, pp. 209–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Boccia Artieri, G.. ( 2012), Stati di connessione (‘States of connection’), Milano:: Franco Angeli;.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Castells, M.. ( 1996), The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford:: Blackwell;.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cepernich, C.. ( 2017), Le campagne elettorali al tempo della networked politics (Electoral campaigns in the era of networked politics), Roma-Bari:: Laterza;.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chadwick, A.. ( 2013), The Hybrid Media System, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ehrenberg, A.. ( 1998), La fatigue d’être soi (The fatigue of being oneself), Paris:: Odile Jacob;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Flanagan, C. A.. ( 2013), Teenage Citizens, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fromm, E.. ( 1941), Escape from Freedom, New York:: Farrar & Rinehart;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Han, B.-C.. ( 2013), Im Schwarm (In the Swarm), Berlin:: Matthes & Seitz;.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Han, B.-C.. ( 2019), Vom Verschwinden der Rituale (The Disappearance of Rituals), Berlin:: Ullstein;.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Herbst, S.. ( 2010), Rude Democracy, Philadelphia, PA:: Temple University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hobsbawm, E. J.. ( 1994), Ages of Extremes, London:: Penguin;.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Inglehart, R. F.. ( 2018), Cultural Evolution, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Iyengar, S.,, Sood, G., and Lelkes, Y.. ( 2012;), ‘ Affect, not ideology. ’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 76:3, pp. 405–31.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kaltwasser, C. R.,; Taggart, P.,, Espejo, P. O., and Ostiguy, P.. ( 2017), The Oxford Handbook of Populism, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Klein, E.. ( 2020), Why We’re Polarized, New York:: Simon & Schuster;.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Klein, N.. ( 2007), The Shock Doctrine, New York:: Picador;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Lasch, C.. ( 1979), The Culture of Narcissism, New York:: Norton & Co;.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lasch, C.. ( 1995), The Revolt of the Elites, New York:: Norton & Co;.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lippmann, W.. ( 1922), Public Opinion, New York:: Harcourt, Brace & Co;.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lowen, A.. ( 1983), Narcissism, New York:: Simon & Schuster;.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Luskin, R.. ( 1990;), ‘ Explaining political sophistication. ’, Political Behavior, 12:4, pp. 331–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Manin, B.. ( 2010), Principi del governo rappresentativo (The Principles of Representative Government), Bologna:: il Mulino;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Marger, M.. ( 1987), Elites and Masses, Belmont, CA:: Wadsworth;.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mazzoleni, G.. (ed.) ( 2021), Introduzione alla comunicazione politica (Fundamentals of political communication), Bologna:: il Mulino;.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mazzoleni, G., and Schulz, W.. ( 1999;), ‘ “Mediatization” of politics. ’, Political Communication, 16:3, pp. 247–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Mills, C. W.. ( 1956), The Power Elite, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Musella, F., and Webb, P.. ( 2015;), ‘ The revolution of personal leaders. ’, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 45:3, pp. 223–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Nietzsche, F.. ( [1888] 1969), Götzen-Dämmerung (Twilight of the Idols), Berlin and New York:: de Gruyter;.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Ortega y Gasset, J.. ( 1930), La rebelión de las masas (The Revolt of the Masses), Madrid:: Revista de Occidente;.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Palano, D.. ( 2019;), ‘ La democrazia alla fine del “pubblico”’ (‘Democracy and the demise of “the Public”’. ), Governare la paura: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 35, pp. 35–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Pasquino, G.. ( 2009), Nuovo corso di scienza politica (New lessons of political science), Bologna:: il Mulino;.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Price, V.. ( 1992), Public Opinion, Newbury Park, CA:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Prior, M.. ( 2007), Post-Broadcast Democracy, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Sartori, G.. ( 1990), Elementi di teoria politica (Fundamentals of political theory), Bologna:: il Mulino;.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Stone, D.. ( 2002), Policy Paradox, New York:: Norton & Co;.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sunstein, C. R.. ( 2007), Republic.com 2.0, Princeton:: Princeton University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sunstein, C. R.. ( 2017), #Republic, Princeton:: Princeton University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson, M.. ( 2017), Enough Said, New York:: Penguin;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. van Dijck, J.,, Poell, T., and Waal, M. C. de. ( 2018), The Platform Society, Oxford:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Wardle, C., and Derakhshan, H.. ( 2017;), ‘ Information disorder. ’, Council of Europe Report, 27, pp. 1–107.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, J. Q.. ( 1980), The Politics of Regulation, New York:: Basic Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wojcieszak, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Polarization, political. ’, in G. Mazzoleni. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, vol. III, London:: Wiley-Blackwell;.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Žižek, S.. ( 1997), Plague of Fantasies, New York:: Verso;.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/cjcs_00074_7
Loading
  • Article Type: Other
Keyword(s): polarization; political communication; populism; post-modernity; post-truth; public

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error