In recent
years, the issue of character assassination (CA) gained prominence mainly due
to public interest to issues concerning incivility and the frequent use of
aggressive communication by political actors following the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. Character assassination refers to the use of personal
attack or another form of symbolic offense designed to reduce the credibility
of the target or undermine his/her reputation in the evaluation of some third party
audience. Essentially, character assassination is a communication process and
an act of persuasion in which the attacker attempts to influence public opinion
who plays the role of the judge or the evaluator of the target’s quality of
character. The view of character assassination as an outcome is primarily
concerned with the effectiveness of character attacks and the assessment of
persuasive effects of negative engagement. The academic community has been
working on this notion since years, preceding the boom of CA use by media and
public figures, but this research never reached a broader public and in
particular was never translated into a social theory debate.
The
traditional sociopsychological approach to CA stems from experimental
persuasion studies and attitude theories (Festinger, 1957; Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975; Hovland, Janis and Kelley, 1953; Sherif and Hovland, 1961) that aim to
explain how personality traits determine communication behavior, how
individuals plan message strategies, and how receivers process and react to
message information. However, the purpose of this special issue is to broaden
our understanding of CA as a sociocultural phenomenon and discuss it from other
social theory perspectives. The concept of “character assassination” refers to
both the process (e.g., a political smear campaign), and the outcome (e.g., the
effects of this campaign). CA is a social process in which communication of
participants is defined by the issues coming from social interaction, such as
competition, cooperation, or conflict. In is equally obvious that social
conduct is determined to a large extent by the relations between individuals
and the groups to which they belongs as well as the socially shared
regularities of intergroup conduct. Thus, CA becomes integrated into structure
and later routinised and reproduced by social becoming systemic norms.
Suggested
Topics:
- Face, impression management and stigma (Goffman);
- CA as duality of structure (Giddens)
- Ideology (Althusser)
- Power and governmentality (Foucault)
- Intercultural differences of CA practices Hofstede
- Hegemony, resistance and subversion (Gramsci)
- Propaganda (Ellul)
- Field struggles and symbolic capital (Bourdieu)
- CA as symbolic and structural violence
Abstract.
Up to 250 words; should briefly specify
- the purpose of the submission,
- the approach/design/methodology used,
- the main contribution of the submission.
Please submit to the Special Issue Guest Editor, Sergei A. Samoilenko (ssamoyle@gmu.edu). If you have any other ideas for papers in the
area of character assassination and social theory which do not fit any of the
above topics, then you may wish to email the Guest Editor to discuss your ideas
further.
Guest
Editor: Sergei A. Samoilenko, George Mason University, U.S.
Proposal
Submission Deadline: April 12th , 2019
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario