Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
(Un)Civil Democracy
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and Author
Name.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Sara Bentivegna · Rossella Rega
(Un)Civil Democracy
Political Incivility as a Communication Strategy
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Acknowledgements
This volume condenses the outcomes of three years of dedicated research
on the topic of incivility. Throughout this journey, we have engaged in
insightful discussions with numerous colleagues at conferences, seminars,
and various other occasions. We extend our heartfelt thanks to all of them
for their valuable contributions. We are also grateful to the referees who
provided feedback and suggestions, significantly enhancing the structure
and content of this volume. Special recognition is due to Luigino Ceccarini, a friend as much as a colleague, who has always supported our quest
to understand the phenomenon of incivility despite the challenges we
encountered.
Lastly, our appreciation goes to Paolo Mancini, with whom we
exchanged ideas and discussed the findings of our research during various
meetings with students organised by the University of Perugia.
v
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Introduction
The Use of Incivility for Good and for Bad
The awareness that political incivility is increasingly widespread and
harmful to our democracies has been a feature of many reflections on
recent political events. Scholars, observers, and citizens share the sense
that we are witnessing a progressive barbarisation of politics. When asked
for their opinion, citizens express no doubt that political incivility is a
serious problem that needs addressing. With this premise in mind, the
objective of this book is to examine political incivility as it manifests in
contemporary democracies.
Let’s be clear from the outset: we are not dealing with a new
phenomenon. Numerous and diverse expressions of political incivility
have been recorded and reported in the past. Our book’s central thesis
revolves around a fundamental shift: incivility has evolved into a strategic
asset that diverse public actors now harness to accomplish distinct objectives. These actors are not limited to political representatives. They also
include journalists, citizens, social movements, and protest groups. These
individuals collectively contribute to the construction of the “political
spectacle”. In short, incivility has become a resource to be leveraged,
depending on circumstances, to take advantage of opportunities. These
opportunities may be political (to prioritise an issue or introduce a new
actor into the political landscape), media-related (to gain increased visibility or audience share), or relational (to enhance visibility and centrality
vii
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
viii
INTRODUCTION
within an integrated communication ecosystem that now encompasses
both legacy and social media).
This implies that we deny, or at least downplay, the relevance of
incivility, which is often understood merely as an outburst of anger or
a momentary loss of control in discursive interaction. Of course, such
occurrences can and do happen. However, they are distinct from cases
where political actors systematically use incivility to build a persona as
candidates opposed to the political establishment. These actors engage
in open and perpetual conflict with the media, accusing them of being
“fake” because they interpret events in ways they do not like. To simplify,
we could say that a nervous outburst is a limited episode that does not
define the profile of the actor responsible for it. On the contrary, the
second case reflects a deliberate communication strategy that employs
crude language, stereotypes, and demonisation of political opponents or
other adversaries to reach specific segments of the electorate and position
the actor’s political offering.
The current high profile of incivility is due precisely to certain actors
adopting specific communication strategies aimed at achieving particular
objectives. If the value of incivility has undoubtedly increased in recent
years, it is due to the numerous transformations that have affected both
the political and media systems. At this point, we should clarify that, in
our opinion, the spread of political incivility has undoubtedly benefited
from the success of digital media, but this is by no means the whole story.
It is common to attribute incivility to the advent of social media, but
such an interpretation overlooks the profound transformations that have
affected society as a whole. Before exploring these transformations, it is
important to define what political incivility is.
The most recent reflections on political incivility all start from the
recognition that, like many others relating to contemporary political life,
it is a slippery concept. Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that
incivility is fundamentally characterised by a disregard for the established
social and cultural norms dictating personal interactions, as well as those
dictating the operation of democratic systems. In essence, it encompasses the transgression of both the norms concerning civil interpersonal
conduct and those governing societal affairs, where the exchange and
contention of varying viewpoints are expected to occur in recognition
of/respect for democratic principles.
Viewed as a strategic resource, political incivility has been significantly
encouraged by well-known phenomena such as polarisation and populism.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
ix
These are expressed through a media ecosystem in continuous transformation due to the platformisation and hybridisation of communication.
In various ways, these phenomena contribute to the production and diffusion of “moments of incivility”, creating conditions for the emergence of
in-group versus out-group divisions, distancing from the elites, and identification with the people through the use of raw and direct language.
These developments occur in an environment where attempts to gain
visibility rely on provocation, evoking emotions in users, the logic of
algorithms, and interconnections between media platforms, resulting in
a continuous feedback loop.
The idea that we live in an increasingly polarised society is difficult
to dispute, as evidenced by the vehemence and bitterness that characterise public discussions of political disagreements. It is almost impossible
to remain unaware of the depth of feeling surrounding issues such as
Brexit, Europe, pandemic containment measures, vaccines, the conflict in
Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, and more, all of which are highly
publicised and used by actors to create real divisions among groups.
The heterogeneity of the themes around which divisions are created and
articulated demonstrates that ideological polarisation has given way to
affective polarisation, expressed primarily in terms of out-group animosity
or negative feelings towards the other (out-group animus ). These negative
feelings are often expressed through incivility, including insults, exclusion
of others, ridicule, and stereotyping of individuals and groups.
In-group versus out-group conflict is evident in all types of political
communication, whether it involves political leaders, citizens engaged
in social media discussions, or radio and television talk show hosts and
their guests. Common to all these scenarios is the presence of mutual
distrust, where the possibility of dialogue with the other is excluded. In
the dynamics of polarisation, maintenance of a social identity is the overriding concern, strengthening citizens’ affiliations with the groups they
identify with and their rejection of those who think differently. This binary
conflict, characterised by adherence to one’s own group and the exclusion
of others, takes on tribal characteristics, providing fertile ground for the
emergence and proliferation of incivility. It also shapes citizens’ information consumption habits, leading them to seek confirmation of their own
beliefs while avoiding information that challenges them.
Populism, in turn, amplifies the value of incivility in contemporary societies. Political leaders perpetually seek direct contact with voters, aiming
to portray themselves as authentic representatives of popular sentiments,
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
x
INTRODUCTION
elevating their profile, and positioning themselves as champions of the
people against the elite. In their quest to distance themselves from the
elite and interpret citizens’ feelings of anger and frustration, political
leaders resort to colloquial and easily understandable forms of expression, often using direct and vulgar language. In this context, bad manners
become key to effective discourse, accepted by both political actors and
media operators, who are traditionally drawn to violations of civility
norms. The widespread use of these rhetorical techniques leads to the
“normalisation of incivility”, spread by both political leaders and citizens.
Not only does an aggressive and discriminatory linguistic code become
prevalent, but polarising traits that emphasise “us and them” mentalities further complicate the reconciliation of conflicting interests. In short,
populism as a communicative style involves the adoption of informal
language designed to mirror that of the public, while resorting to aggression and insults designed to delegitimise the role and public image of
presumed enemies.
Finally, political incivility has been encouraged by changes affecting
the infrastructure of social communication. These changes have led to
the creation of a hybrid media ecosystem where disintermediation and
reliance on algorithms have impacted all aspects of social life and politics,
integrating with the practices of legacy media. Platforms that structure
information flows through algorithms have established a framework for
a new public sphere where participation and efforts to gain visibility
rely on politically incorrect language and aggressive, uncivil rhetoric,
which is socially rewarded. Simultaneously, the importance of engagement and virality in social media communication rewards provocative
content, leading to wider and faster dissemination and increasing the
visibility of those who employ incivility. Consequently, platforms accentuate and amplify these actors’ voices, while traditional sources serve as
amplifiers, contributing to the spread of incivility. The constant need
to occupy space in the attention market by generating engagement and
increasing audience shares leads both social media platforms and traditional media to produce, promote, and propagate episodes, expressions,
and manifestations of political incivility.
In summary, this context creates ideal conditions for the growth of
incivility and enables political actors to exploit it in various novel ways.
On careful examination, incivility is seen to be useful in at least three
respects. Its “expressive” force allows those who use it to gain immediate recognition and visibility. It facilitates “aggregation”, leading actors
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
xi
to identify with acts of incivility, adopt them, and unite with others. It
enables “mobilisation”, potentially leading to significant forms of political commitment. Those who use incivility for communication do so for
a range of purposes, combining these three elements in various ways to
achieve different ends.
The following chapters present an in-depth analysis of how various
actors employ incivility. The first chapter offers a comprehensive examination of the objectives that drive political actors to resort to incivility,
including the construction of a personal brand, the affirmation of political
identity, the mobilisation of supporters, and, of course, the conquest of
visibility in media coverage. Politicians’ outrageous statements or other
instances of incivility gain algorithmic power (generating followers, reactions, comments, retweets, and likes) that allows them to dominate media
coverage and influence the political agenda. At critical moments, especially
when the risk of losing an election is high, political actors can exploit
incivility to their advantage due to the resulting visibility. Unfortunately,
the use of incivility with the aim of gaining visibility, whether for the
leader, the party, or a specific issue, no longer seems restricted to election
campaigns or specific political actors.
Different is the case of the use of incivility for the building of a personal
brand aimed at enabling the immediate recognition of the political actor
as one who refuses to conform to the conventions of established political processes. It is not surprising that the recourse to incivility is so
widespread in an era when rejection of the so-called technocratic elite,
expressions of empathy with voters, manifestations of authenticity, anger,
and other emotions have become effective means of generating appeal.
Indeed, if populism is viewed as a performative style, the creation of an
uncivil brand appears to be a useful way of conveying the rejection of
traditional political actors whom voters are tired of and dissatisfied with.
Furthermore, resorting to incivility simultaneously allows political
actors to emphasise certain defining characteristics for themselves and,
consequently, for the subjects they aim to represent electorally. In this
context, incivility is used to establish identity ownership, meaning a group
identity (related to partisan, ethnic, gender, religious or other affiliations)
reflected in the individual identity of the political actor. In short, through
incivility, political actors seek to embody, interpret, and sometimes legitimise (as in the case of manifestations of racism) identity traits specific
to the groups whose political and electoral support they have or seek to
acquire.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
xii
INTRODUCTION
Finally, incivility serves as a potent tool for political actors to mobilise
their supporters. These actors call upon their followers to take sides in
favour of the in-group and against the out-group, thereby contributing to
the classic phenomenon of polarisation. Whether supporters are mobilised
in support of or against a particular position is a secondary concern. What
truly matters is the strategic deployment of incivility to engage supporters,
both through social media and street demonstrations.
In the second chapter, our focus shifts to how incivility is employed
strategically to craft the “spectacle of politics”. This endeavour has
become increasingly intricate due to the rapid proliferation of information
sources and the subsequent intensification of competition for attention.
In this context, incivility functions as a valuable tool for capturing specific
audience segments. This includes individuals driven by confirmation bias
who engage with partisan media, actively seeking content that aligns with
their preexisting beliefs.
The resulting polarised communication mirrors the division seen in
contemporary public discourse. It is fuelled by the same dynamics of
in-group versus out-group interactions, manifested through insults, delegitimisation, stereotyping, and the exclusion of those with differing
viewpoints. These practices are conspicuous in both traditional media
and digital platforms, with the common purpose of presenting biased
interpretations designed to reinforce a sense of belonging or exclusion.
However, incivility is not limited to constructing biased interpretations. It also serves those, such as talk show hosts striving to boost
their audiences or enhance their visibility on social media platforms that
reward emotionally engaging content. What these cases share is a recurring narrative structure centred on radicalisation, simplification, and the
stark contrast between opposing positions. Staged conflicts, spanning
from verbal attacks to physical confrontations in face-to-face encounters, revolve around emotionally charged and deeply divisive themes. The
construction of a narrative depicting politics as contentious and uncivil
aims to capture and retain larger portions of the audience. As individuals accustomed to the logic of social media platforms engage with these
shows by commenting on TV programme clips on their personal social
media accounts, they further contribute to the ongoing spectacle.
The third chapter explores how citizens use incivility in a context
marked by political polarisation and the accelerated proliferation of
emotional storytelling facilitated by digital platforms. People often
perceive incivility as a “low-cost” communication tool that is easy to use
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
xiii
and potentially accessible to everyone. While they may not always employ
incivility strategically or with full awareness of its potential consequences,
citizens play a crucial role in constructing the “spectacle” of incivility,
which operates on three main levels. Firstly, at the individual level,
adopting aggressive language and disseminating conspiratorial content or
views that reflect disdain for democratic institutions are means through
which citizens can increase their visibility and public notoriety. Secondly,
incivility can foster a sense of community among like-minded individuals and generate animosity towards opposing groups. Among enthusiasts
of vehement styles of political discourse characterised by negativity,
binary mindset, and intolerance, incivility serves as a powerful tool for
bringing people together, encouraging interaction, promoting emulative
behaviour, and fostering complicity. The third level involves citizens using
incivility as a form of genuine political engagement. In these cases, opponents are no longer merely objects of derision or the basis for collective
pastimes within the in-group. Instead, they become actual adversaries to
be challenged and defeated. Often, mobilisation against them takes place
in response to appeals from political leaders, highlighting the fact that the
deliberate use of incivility by charismatic politicians can mobilise people
against perceived enemies and fuel highly corrosive forms of conflict.
Ultimately, incivility can become a weapon in the hands of marginalised
groups or individuals who lack other means of making their voices heard.
The fourth chapter explores how breaking established rules and violating
norms of civility can serve a dual purpose. On the one hand, it can
bring a specific issue to public attention. On the other, it can underscore that these rules are biased, unfair, and not universally shared. For
instance, groups in power often use the norms of civility to stifle protest
and delegitimise those who attempt to oppose them. Consider instances
of incivility in public discussions about racial discrimination in both the
United States and Europe. Incivility, conveying a recognisable symbolic
and rebellious message due to its expressive value, can become a test of
political agency for citizens, demonstrating empowerment and serving as
a corrective to a lack of rights.
Examining incivility as a tool of struggle and its ripple effects on
authorities and society reveals two interrelated mechanisms. On the one
hand, incivility appears promising for those expressing dissenting or
marginalised views within formal institutional settings, seeking to assert
their rights and promote greater political and social inclusion. On the
other, accusations of incivility can be an effective tactic for established
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
xiv
INTRODUCTION
groups seeking to maintain existing power asymmetries and stigmatise
those attempting to rebel.
The fifth chapter considers the consequences and risks associated with
the proliferation of uncivil practices in the political sphere. While these
practices may be strategic for the actors employing them, the same cannot
be said for democracy as a whole. Although establishing causal relationships between variables is a complex task, especially when it comes to
the impact of incivility on democracy, the last chapter attempts to highlight what appear to be some of incivility’s consequences. To begin with,
a public discourse dominated by incivility can contribute to a spiral of
cynicism and political disaffection. This manifests as citizens progressively distance themselves from politics and democratic engagement.
Additionally, exposure to political discourses that delegitimise others and
violate democratic principles may foster the growth of anti-deliberative
and polarised attitudes among citizens. This, in turn, amplifies aversion
towards those with differing opinions. Moreover, the disregard for others,
in combination with the rules governing social life implicit in uncivil acts,
can erode democratic traditions based on dialogue among proponents of
competing viewpoints. A lack of respect for others and the delegitimisation of actors and institutions, such as party leaders and legislatures, risk
destabilising democracy. This places the issue of incivility among the most
urgent matters currently requiring attention.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
About the Authors
Sara Bentivegna (Ph.D.) is Full Professor of Political Communication at
University of Rome “Sapienza”. Her current research projects are about
political incivility and public debate in a time of disrupted public spheres.
Rossella Rega (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor of Journalism and New
Media and Media Industry and Strategic Communication at the University of Siena. Her main research interests focus on political communication, incivility, journalism and the public sphere.
xvii
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
CHAPTER 1
Politicians and the Attractions of Incivility
Abstract This chapter examines the use of incivility by political actors
in relation to three primary objectives: building a personal brand,
constructing a political identity, and mobilising supporters. First and foremost, it highlights how the use of incivility allows for the immediate
recognition of the political actor employing it and, simultaneously, leads
to a distinct separation from the traditional political context. Through
the frequent deployment of bad manners, emotionalism, and aggression,
political leaders redefine their image, distancing themselves from the socalled technocratic elite while also fostering a reconnection with their
communities. In the hybrid media system, these mechanisms also enable
politicians to increase their media exposure and influence over the media
agenda. Second, by facilitating an emotional connection with voters, the
use of incivility allows politicians to define a group identity and reinforce
a sense of belonging—whether it be social, cultural, or ethnic—for which
they become the spokesperson. Finally, we will explore how incivility can
function as a lever to mobilise supporters and facilitate various forms of
political engagement, both within online platforms and in physical public
spaces.
Keywords Incivility as a brand · Identity politics · Affective
polarisation · Negative partisanship
1
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
2
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
Incivility as an Intentional Choice
In late May 1856, within the corridors of the United States Senate, a
representative of the Democratic Party, Preston Brooks, assaulted Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a walking stick. This brutal attack,
resulting in severe physical harm to Senator Sumner, was triggered by
a speech he had given in the Senate a few days earlier, advocating for
the abolition of slavery in the United States. This incident, prominently
featured on the cover of Susan Herbst’s eloquently titled book, “Rude
Democracy” (2010), is worth highlighting for its identification of an
extreme display of incivility in a distant historical context, often perceived
as vastly different from the politics of contemporary times. It also serves
as a compelling illustration of the contentious nature of the issues that
frequently give rise to or accompany forms of incivility—in this case, the
issue of slavery in the United States.
In addition to this episode, regarded as a milestone in the discussion
on political incivility in democratic regimes, one should not overlook the
incident involving Nikita Khrushchev at the UN General Assembly in
October 1960. In this case, it was not a physical attack on the representative of another country but rather a demonstration of vehement
disagreement with the preceding speech by Khrushchev, who removed his
shoe and slammed it on the table. While this action may seem insignificant compared to more recent incidents of incivility, it was perceived as
an unprecedented and extraordinary event at the time, given the political
figure involved (the then General Secretary of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union) and the location (the glass palace hosting the UN).
Once again, this incident has become legendary and has been replicated,
with some adaptations, in subsequent years by other actors in different
contexts, as we will explore in the following pages.
In addition to providing a historical perspective on incivility in politics, these incidents serve as an effective illustration of how incivility can
manifest as isolated, emotion-driven acts motivated by anger and aggression. These incidents are clear examples of incivility conceived as a “state”
(Herbst, 2010, p. 10), subject to change depending on mood and circumstances, rather than a fixed “trait” established once and for all. Precisely
because it is a state, incivility can be activated based on circumstances,
functioning as a genuine strategic resource that political actors frequently
employ with the intention of achieving specific objectives.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
3
This is exactly what Sarah Palin did when, as the Governor of Alaska,
she found herself nominated for the Vice Presidency of the United States
on the Republican ticket with John McCain in 2008. Preceded by the
nickname “Sarah barracuda” given to her in the state she governed, her
entry into national politics should be remembered for her stated intention to offer a different kind of politics. She sought to present herself as
“an authentic representation of ‘real’ America against the ‘lamestream’
media and pretentious, big-city elites, who favor big government and
other evils” (Ouellette, 2012, p. 186). Palin constructed this representation through the use of aggressive and emotional rhetoric, leveraging
it to attack opponents, mobilise supporters, and garner media coverage.
Notably, this characterisation of Palin in terms of incivility, cultivated
and strategically exercised over time, stood in stark contrast to McCain’s
portrayal as a figure of civility, thereby establishing the well-known “good
cop/bad cop” dynamic. While John McCain adopted a restrained and
measured style to reassure moderate voters and temper heated sentiments, Sarah Palin played the incivility card to actively engage voters and
generate emotional support for the Republican ticket (Herbst, 2010). Her
campaign even used slogans like “John McCain. Not Hussein” in reference to the democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Sarah Palin’s strategic
use of incivility should not be dismissed as a unique case driven solely by
the need for attention and visibility for a relatively unknown candidate.
Instead, it serves as a precursor to the support observed on both sides of
the Atlantic for political actors, parties, and movements that have made
incivility their trademark.
Beyond the well-known case of Donald Trump, often referred to as
“the Insulter in Chief” (Gastil, 2019), numerous political leaders have
strategically embraced incivility. One of the cases most reminiscent of the
former U.S. President is Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil from 2019 to
2022, renowned for his vehement and aggressive rhetoric, targeting leftwing political opponents, journalists, and the media. His potent campaign
aimed to delegitimise these groups and cast doubt on the 2022 presidential election results, which ultimately led to his removal from office.
This campaign laid the groundwork for an atmosphere of hostility that
engulfed the nation shortly after the inauguration of the winner, Lula
da Silva. Bolsonaro’s supporters even stormed the government headquarters in Brasilia on January 8, 2023, in protest of the election outcome.
The scenes and images closely resembled the assault on Capitol Hill two
years prior, on January 6, 2021, when a large crowd of Trump supporters
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
4
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
descended on the Capitol buildings, chanting slogans like “We will never
give up” and “Stop the steal”. While the event was a useful reminder of
the implication’s incivility can have for democratic stability, it is important to highlight Bolsonaro’s skill in crafting an image of himself as an
authentic, original, and spontaneous leader, especially through shrewd use
of social media (Venturelli et al., 2023). By openly criticising “political
correctness”, his populist rhetoric expanded his support among millions
of Brazilians weary of institutional decorum and the use of rational
argument in negotiations between opposing forces and groups (political parties, LGBTQIA+, indigenous minorities, etc.). Adoption of the
so-called bad manners (Moffitt & Tormey, 2014) characteristic of the
communicative style of neo-populist formations was in Bolsonaro’s case
taken to a level of virulence and misogyny rarely found in the words of
his populist counterparts. Noteworthy examples include his comments
regarding congresswoman Maria do Rosario, who didn’t deserved to be
raped because she was “too ugly”, or those referring to Workers’ Party
activists, labelled as “scoundrels”: “Let’s machine-gun the petralhada”
(Venturelli et al., 2023, p. 75).
However, another individual has pushed the boundaries to similar
extremes—Javier Milei, an ultra-liberal and far-right politician, who has
exerted significant influence on the political landscape in Argentina since
his debut on television in 2016. Milei, a climate-crisis denier who advocates for widespread gun use and opposes abortion, feminism, and sex
education in schools, strategically harnessed incivility to craft a compelling
public image. He began his journey with a symbolic chainsaw, pledging
to reduce public spending, trim the number of ministries, and generally
lower the costs associated with what he refers to as the “caste of politicians who steal and are leading the country towards the abyss”. Milei has
meticulously constructed his identity, both linguistically and otherwise,
in deliberate contrast to the established political order. His communication style adopted a simplified, gut-level language that resonated instantly
with voters. One of his more memorable phrases involved advocating
that certain politicians needed to be “kicked in the ass”. Essentially,
Milei, tapping into social discontent and the electorate’s frustrations, skilfully used bad manners to channel the anger and frustration of countless
Argentinians affected by the ongoing economic crisis that had persisted
since 2001.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
5
Europe is not short of examples either. In France, the 2022 Presidential
elections witnessed the divisive and aggressive campaign of the farright ultra-conservative Eric Zemmour, often referred to as the “French
Trump”. Zemmour, who had been convicted in 2019 for incitement to
religious hatred and racial discrimination, intensified political polarisation
with his rhetoric. More recently, Poland experienced what The Economist
described as a campaign that “set the record for bitterness”1 and
animosity among candidates during the September–October 2023 elections. A sharpening of the tone in political discourse is common during
election campaigns. However, in Spain—think of Pablo Casado (Partido
Popular) or Santiago Abascal (Vox)—in the UK—especially under the
leadership of Boris Johnson but not only him—and in Germany—where it
is sufficient to recall the combative tones of the representatives of Alternative für Deutschland (“AfD”), the far-right party—expressions of incivility
are regularly found even outside such contexts.
While we could continue to present additional instances of incivility
employed by political actors, both past and present, our primary objective extends beyond this. We aim to identify the underlying objectives
of incivility and its use as a strategic tool for achieving specific goals.
Before delving into the functions of incivility, it’s crucial to remember
that the decision to employ it is based on an assessment of its potential
impact on public discourse. It’s evident that when a political actor resorts
to incivility, it generates substantial media coverage, positioning both the
actor and the associated theme—such as immigration, security, or genderrelated issues—at the forefront of public attention. As we will explore in
greater detail in the subsequent chapter, this phenomenon is a reflection
of media dynamics and the mobilisation strategies, both in support and
opposition, that can be adopted on the Internet by supporters, organised
groups, or vocal ordinary users. These actions contribute to the emergence of the swarm effect, which often characterises online discussions.
This centrality in the debate, despite the episodic and time-limited nature
of incivility, not only grants visibility to the subject but also casts other
subjects or themes into the shadows.
Returning to the functions of incivility, political actors strategically
employ it to:
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
6
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
a. Cultivate a personal brand that ensures immediate recognition and
sets them apart from the traditional political landscape to the extent
that their mere mention evokes the Zeitgeist they aspire to represent
(Mazzarella, 2019).
b. Trigger a process of identification among the electorate by incorporating elements of identity politics (identity politics ) into their
communication practices (Kreiss et al., 2020; Wodak, 2021), thus
distinguishing themselves from other groups (Achen & Bartels,
2016).
c. Galvanise supporters by creating an in-group/out-group dynamic
(Herbst, 2010).
It is worth noting that these functions are not mutually exclusive
and can often overlap, sometimes forming part of broader strategies
with different objectives. As we will explore in greater depth below, the
functions may evolve over time based on the results achieved and the
characteristics of the involved actors. Our central argument is that these
three functions collectively account for the widespread adoption of incivility as a strategic tool by numerous actors in the contemporary political
landscape.
Brand(ish)ing Incivility
In an era when a multitude of actors can participate in public discourse,
albeit sporadically and sometimes unintentionally, the quest for visibility is
a common goal among many political figures. Whether or not achieving
such visibility necessitates resorting to uncivil styles of communication
appears to be of little concern to those engaged in self-promotion efforts.
Rather, as mentioned previously, incivility represents a strategic resource
that can be employed in various circumstances.
It is from this perspective that we should interpret the following incidents involving two political representatives who, up to the point at
which they resorted to incivility, had not garnered much attention from
other political or media figures. The first incident occurred in September
2009 during a joint session of Congress. President Obama’s speech
was disrupted by Joe Wilson,2 a Republican representative from South
2 After launching his accusation against President Obama, Joe Wilson apologised,
claiming he had let his emotions get the better of him. It was subsequently suggested
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
7
Carolina, who shouted, “You lie!”. This marked the first instance of a
U.S. President being interrupted during a congressional address, and this
forceful breach of parliamentary decorum was viewed as an “infamous
act”. The second incident involved Nathan Miller, a Republican and (at
the time) Deputy District Director of the State Board of Equalisation for
Riverside County, California. Miller, who had not previously been known
for holding radical views or making headlines in the press, gained attention in early August 2016 during one of the most acrimonious election
campaigns since the Civil War, as noted by historian Douglas Brinkley.3
Running for re-election in November, Miller posted an image of a masked
and bloodied executioner with the text “I’m ready for Hillary” on the
official Twitter account of the Riverside County Republican Party (0803-2016). Despite Miller expressing regret for his ill-advised action and
resigning amid the ensuing controversies,4 the unprecedented violence
of that gesture immediately captured the attention of news outlets,
briefly elevating Miller to national notoriety. While the theatricality and
virulence of the Californian Republican’s action vaguely resemble other
memorable instances of incivility, such as Khrushchev’s almost fifty years
earlier, its media impact and symbolic significance cannot be compared to
them. In Miller’s case, his action contributed to only a fleeting episode
of self-promotion, confined to a brief moment in time and limited to
insiders.
The aforementioned episodes were exceptional events that increased
their perpetrators’ visibility for a limited time, contingent upon the
amount of media attention they received. Something similar, mutatis
mutandis, to the coveted yet fleeting “15 minutes of fame” that many
aspire to. In contrast, the attempt to build a personal brand is distinct.
Far from being exhausted in a single event, it involves activating and
that the apology was unnecessary, as he had vocalised what millions of Americans were
thinking. Remarkably, there was even a substantial flow of financial support from his
backers (Gitlin, 2013).
3 See: https://www.kpcc.org/show/airtalk/2016-08-09/history-of-violent-rhetoric-inpresidential-campaigns.
4 Miller’s expression of regret was published by DesertSun: “I regret putting people
at the County Party in a position where they have had to deal with the consequences of my actions. (…) As well as others. It cost me my job, has created
a considerable hardship for my family and had emboldened my political opponents”. See https://eu.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/05/gopoperative-asked-resign-over-hangman-tweet/88318614/.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
8
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
deploying a specific framework for interpreting activities attributed to
the actor. In such cases, we are dealing with a genuine strategy, often
successfully employed by individual political actors and political forces
alike, with the intention of establishing stable and immediately recognisable public profiles through the display of forms of incivility. Furthermore,
associating an actor with a specific framework aligns with media coverage
built on well-established and familiar elements, simplifying the task of
narrating and interpreting events related to them. From this perspective,
the incivility brand linked to an actor streamlines journalistic efforts in
reconstructing related events and simultaneously facilitates interpretation
for those engaging with the informational product.
But why do political actors adopt brands based on incivility? Before
addressing this question, it is important to reiterate that both incivility and
civility are strategic resources available to political actors seeking to carve
out spheres of visibility and connect with their electorates. If we frame the
issue in these terms, we can view civility as equivalent to a tool or a political weapon—a tool intentionally used, for better or worse. In contrast,
someone may employ incivility (Herbst, 2010). One classic example of
the use of civility to construct a personal brand is that of Barack Obama,
who frequently emphasised during election campaigns and his presidential terms that to maintain a healthy democracy, a foundation of civility in
our public discourse is essential. This need arises from the fact that it is
not feasible to demonise opponents by labelling them as Nazis or socialists, for instance, and then expect to “sit at the same table” and engage
in a “serious and rational debate” about what needs to be done. In his
words, “such vilification and exaggerated rhetoric close the door to the
possibility of compromise”.5
Turning to the use of incivility, one must consider the specific
context in which political actors operate. In today’s political landscape,
constructing an uncivil brand has become a reflection of the prevailing
Zeitgeist , defining the contemporary era as one marked by an allencompassing confrontation between technocratic elites and the people
(Moffitt, 2016). Confrontation of this nature is often characterised by
the use of language and behaviours considered inappropriate within the
political context. In such instances, the adoption of an incivility brand
5 Barack Obama made these remarks during the course of a graduation-day speech at
the University of Michigan on 20 May 2010.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
9
or rhetoric plays a significant role by facilitating the immediate identification of those positioned outside the elite, aligning them closely with
the people who share similar rhetorical styles and behaviours (Bratslavsky
et al., 2020; Jamieson & Taussig, 2017; Ott, 2017; Ott & Dickinson,
2019).
In essence, this approach could be described as a low-fidelity communicative strategy, which results from a dual process. On one hand, it
reshapes the leader’s image by frequently emphasising authenticity and
empathy. On the other, it helps to recreate a bond between the leader and
their community. It’s no surprise that this strategy has gained prominence
in the new media landscape. The online environment enables practices
like disintermediation and horizontal and vertical interaction, which are
fundamental communicative pillars underlying the goal of redefining the
politician’s image. This transformation goes beyond mere visibility; it
seeks to construct an image that defies the conformism associated with
traditional politics and establishes genuine opportunities for contact with
voters. The incivility brand effectively serves these purposes by allowing
the communication of authenticity and empathy through the adoption of
everyday, emotive language, often laced with anger. In short, it enables
the creation of a public image that portrays the political actor as distinct
from the technocratic elite. If we consider populism as a specific performative political style (Moffitt, 2016), the construction of a personal
brand rooted in incivility takes on a clear meaning. Elements such as bad
manners, demonisation of opponents, denial of inconvenient truths, and
a lack of respect for democratic institutions collectively place those associated with these behaviours outside the realm of traditional politics. In a
nutshell, the slogan “no politics as usual” finds another means of expression and interpretation through the incivility brand, appealing to both
political actors and the people weary of conventional politics.
Turning to the contemporary political context, numerous examples
could be cited to illustrate the pervasiveness (both geographically and
politically) of this communicative style. Among Italian political forces,
the early phases of Beppe Grillo and the Five Star Movement serve as
an emblematic case of unabashedly employing incivility as an identifying
and distinctive element. Originating as a political entity in stark opposition to the elite, the Movement’s baptism occurred during a public
demonstration in Bologna, aptly titled a “Fuck-you Day”, which was a
direct challenge to the entire political class. After firmly establishing their
otherness, the Five Star Movement continued their ascent to power by
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
10
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
adopting behaviours aimed at delegitimising political institutions. These
actions included theatrically displaying can openers during their inaugural appearance in Parliament, symbolising their intent to figuratively
open the seats of power like cans of tuna. They also compiled blacklists
of journalists they considered hostile to the Movement and embraced
a new language that expressed the anger and discontent of the people.
Undoubtedly, these tactics contributed to the Movement’s detachment
from traditional politics.
Beyond the Italian context, similar instances abound in other European countries characterised by the ascent of right-wing, populist, and
anti-system forces. Take, for instance, the Spanish leader of Vox, Santiago
Abascal, known for his ad hominem attacks on the then-Prime Minister,
Pedro Sanchez. Similarly, the Dutch leader of the Party for Freedom
(“PVV”), Geert Wilders, the leaders of Germany’s “AfD”, and Marine
Le Pen leader of France’s Front National (“FN”), have embraced an
aggressive and discriminatory rhetorical style that defies the norms and
standards of polite political behaviour (Moffitt, 2016). Their objective
of discrediting and delegitimising the “enemies of the people”, primarily
the political elites but also “fake news outlets” (Hameleers & Minihold, 2021), and ethnic, religious, or sexual out-groups, finds in the
brand of incivility an effective and immediately recognisable form of
expression for voters. In this context, the incivility brand serves as an
effective and immediately recognisable means of expression for voters.
Notably, the Spanish far-right leaders have unleashed aggressive attacks
against the left-wing opposition, particularly Pablo Iglesias, resorting to
derogatory terms like “jerk” [mamarracho], “son of a bitch” [Hijo de
puta], “slob” [guarro], and “son of a terrorist” [hijo de un terrorista]
(del Mar Rivas-Carmona, 2023). Similarly, Wilders employs derogatory
language to criticise the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, labelling him
a “failed idiot” [faalhaas], “greedy” [gierig], and “big hypocrite” [grote
hypocriet] (Hameleers, 2023). The German far-right, “AfD”, sought
and obtained visibility through numerous slanders against Angela Merkel
(“arrest Merkel”), the media (accused of spreading falsehoods through a
“lying press”), and immigrants.6 Its transgressive and provocative rhetoric
6 Former AfD leader, derided the idea that migrants made for a more culturally diverse
society, remarking: “What should we make of the campaign ‘Germany is colourful’? A
compost heap is colourful, too”. See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/
06/afd-leader-frauke-petry-criticised-comparing-migrants-compost-germany.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all ChaptersFor Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
11
has been termed a veritable anti-democratic discourse, characterised by
an unprecedented mix of intolerance and outrage (Lugosi-Schimpf &
Thorlakson, 2021).
Beyond Europe, numerous examples illustrate the success of discursive codes aimed at breaking taboos, ranging from Bolsonaro and Milei
to Australian far-right leader Pauline Hanson. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the most prominent figure in the realm of incivility has
been Donald Trump. The effectiveness of the brand he meticulously
constructed is abundantly clear in the following statement, which highlights his unscrupulous use of falsehoods to such an extent that “one of
the most reliable predictors of truth in the contemporary political landscape is that the president has asserted its opposite” (Ott & Dickinson,
2019, p. VIII). The provocative nature of this assertion and its reference
to the incivility brand, particularly in the context of Trump deliberately
employing falsehoods, is unmistakable and resonates with many.
The body of evidence regarding Trump’s triumph in establishing the
all-encompassing incivility brand is extensive. One could delve into studies
demonstrating his proficiency in transforming political critiques into
personal insults (Winberg, 2017) or his capacity to construct a rhetoric of
political perversion that contributes to the normalisation of political rudeness (Wodak et al., 2021). Furthermore, his ability to shape politics into
a captivating spectacle founded on insult and the demonisation of opponents (Mazzarella, 2019) and his exploitation of reality TV logic rooted in
sensationalism, self-promotion, and authenticity (Ott & Dickinson, 2019)
have all been documented. However, this is not the appropriate venue
for a comprehensive analysis of the Trump brand. Instead, our focus is
on underscoring how incivility can serve as a pivotal component in the
branding of a political figure. It facilitates personal visibility while simultaneously constructing a communicative style that distinctly sets itself apart
from traditional politics. This phenomenon is noteworthy, considering the
poor state of health many contemporary democracies.
Performance of Identity Politics
In addition to contributing to the construction of a personal brand,
incivility plays a vital role in defining certain aspects of a political
actor’s identity, which, in turn, shapes the groups from which they seek
political-electoral support. Recognising the significance of identity in the
relationship between citizens/voters and political actors, as well as in
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
12
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
voting decisions, is a common thread among scholars of democracy and
political communication.
Within the realm of democracy scholarship, Christopher Achen and
Larry Bartels’ “Democracy for Realists” (2016) provides valuable insights.
The two authors begin with a comprehensive critique of the “folk theory”
of democracy, which posits a direct connection between well-informed
citizens and their voting decisions based on candidates and policies. This
perspective aligns with the deliberative concept of democracy and the
ideal of the well-informed citizen (Schudson, 1999). However, empirical research reveals that citizens often possess limited information, and
their willingness to critically assess policy proposals is frequently lacking
(Achen & Bartels, 2016; Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996).
So, how do voters make decisions in such a scenario? Achen and Bartels
(2016) propose an alternative approach known as the “group theory of
democracy”. This theory places social identity at the core of democratic
processes, asserting that voters, even the most informed ones, normally
make choices not based on policy preferences or ideology but based on
who they are—namely, their social identity. These social identities, in turn,
shape their way of thinking, what to think, and where to place themselves
in the party system. According to this perspective, citizens understand
which social groups different parties represent and develop their political identities based on their proximity to or distance from these groups.
Lilian Mason (2018) concurs with this viewpoint, asserting that the two
major parties in the United States now represent distinct groups. This
has spawned a process of “social sorting”, where citizens express their
electoral preferences based on their social identities. Research on social
sorting over the past four decades has revealed that “Democrats are now
firmly aligned with identities such as liberal, secular, urban, low-income,
Hispanic, and Black. Republicans are now solidly conservative, middle
class or wealthy, rural, churchgoing, and white” (ibid., p. 26).
The recognition of a connection between electoral preference and
social and political identity by voters entails political actors taking actions
aimed at reinforcing the identities they represent. Continuing along this
line of thought but shifting to the communicative side, some scholars
argue that “much political communication can be seen as the performance
of identity ownership” (Kreiss et al., 2020, p. 3). This phenomenon
closely resembles the concept of issue ownership (Petrocik, 1996), which
involves the association of specific themes with political actors based on
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
13
their ability to address issues effectively (e.g., welfare or security). Furthermore, it has been highlighted that political actors “construct and perform
prototypical group identities around partisan affiliations, racial and ethnic
identities, genders, religious affiliations, and personal values and tastes”
(Kreiss et al., 2020, p. 2). Incivility is sometimes employed in the development of such prototypes, as can be observed in many recent international
political events. Examples from recent international political events allow
for a closer look at this phenomenon.
Once again, Donald Trump provides a clear example of how incivility can be used strategically to assert and reaffirm identity ownership.
One notable incident occurred in July 2019 when Trump used multiple
tweets to attack four Democratic Congresswomen whom he accused of
opposing the construction of the Mexican border wall. In these tweets,
he spread false information about their nationalities, claimed that the
congresswomen were not American citizens, and suggested they should
“go back” to their countries of origin, which he described as “completely failed and crime-infested places”, and cease dictating American
government actions. This episode encompasses various aspects of incivility prevalent in contemporary American politics, including the use of
falsehoods to support one’s positions, racial discrimination, stereotyping
of other countries, and exclusion of others from political debate.
While the effects of this communicative performance on the public
will be explored later, it’s important to focus on Trump’s intent at this
stage. His intent can be interpreted as a decision “to be offensive in
order to construct a particular kind of identity, one that would appeal
to some sectors of the public” (Wodak et al., 2021, p. 374). Specifically,
Trump aimed to appeal to segments of the public expressing so-called
white rage (Ott & Dickinson, 2019), individuals who identify as white,
working-class, religious, and believe that America has been in decline for
years. These groups harbour frustration towards ongoing societal changes,
apprehension about the future, and nostalgia for a past characterised by
employment opportunities, strong family bonds, and a societal hierarchy
where minorities and foreigners had well-defined roles outside and below
the established social order (Wodak, 2021). In targeting the four Democratic Congresswomen, Trump merely followed through on his 2016
Republican Party Convention declaration: “There are forgotten men and
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
14
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
women in our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.
I will be your voice”.7
Moving beyond the American context, similar attention to the issue
of identity can be observed in the rhetoric of many leaders of farright political movements. For instance, consider Giorgia Meloni and
her speech titled “Italian Pride”,8 Eric Zemmour, the founder of the
ethno-nationalist party La Reconquête, or Viktor Orbán, who frequently
emphasises national pride through images posted on Instagram along with
slogans like “Greater Hungary” or “The homeland above all” (Szebeni &
Salojärvi, 2022). In these instances, the construction of patriotic sentiment goes hand in hand with a staunch defence of borders, culture,
national products (from food to sports), race (e.g., “Italians first”), and
religion (e.g., “Christian identity”). The exaltation of national identity (“us”) is often accompanied by attacks against those who do not
conform to this framework. Foreigners, immigrants, and Muslims often
become the primary targets of various forms of discriminatory incivility
(Bentivegna et al., 2022). What is common among these leaders is the
use of derogatory stereotypes against these targets, often labelling them as
drug dealers, thieves, or criminals. Expressions like “ethnic replacement”
or “great replacement” are also employed. Consequently, these figures
not only highlight the traits and values of groups defending the interests
of the “natives” against foreigners but also provide a voice and representation to concerns shared by substantial segments of the population.
According to the identity ownership approach, these segments often feel
marginalised and forgotten by progressive and pluralistic political culture.
Many more examples could be recalled to support the notion that
political actors frequently use incivility to perform identity ownership. It is
important to note that political incivility is just one of the many elements
contributing to the construction of such group identities. Nevertheless, it
is increasingly prevalent in shaping prototypes of group identity, substantiating the idea that politics often requires incivility to define its own
7 Donald Trump’s speech to the 2016 Republican Convention is available at https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=va9ilyjMyik.
8 The speech—given by Giorgia Meloni in the Piazza del Popolo in Rome on 19
October 2019—ended with a call to defend Italian national identity: “We will defend
our identity. My name is Giorgia. I am a woman. I am Italian. I am a mother. I am a
Christian. You’ll never take these away from me”; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=LPgkWze3bIk.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
15
characteristics and mobilise citizens. This mobilisation, one could argue,
is frequently oriented “against” others, aligning with the traditional ingroup vs. out-group logic that characterises the well-known phenomenon
of polarisation.
Incivility and Negative Partisanship
Associating incivility with the mobilisation of supporters might initially
appear unconventional, but upon closer examination, the connection
between these two phenomena becomes clearer, shedding light on the
state of contemporary democracies. Linking the mobilising power of incivility to the well-studied phenomenon of polarisation, which has long
been a focal point for scholars examining political transformations, reveals
important aspects of our argument. However, before delving into the
details, it’s crucial to briefly consider the phenomenon of polarisation.
Firstly, it’s essential to acknowledge that despite extensive analysis and
frequent discussion in both academic and journalistic fields, polarisation is
a complex and multifaceted concept with varying definitions and interpretations. One crucial distinction within the polarisation discourse pertains
to polarisation among elites and citizens. On the elite front, polarisation
is often described as a hardening of political positions, with Democrats
shifting towards liberal positions and Republicans towards conservative
ones (Mason, 2013). This has significant consequences for the selection
of representatives in Congress, the homogenisation of ideologies, and the
diminishing presence of moderate voices. On the citizens’ front, polarisation manifests as a similar hardening of positions, but it can lead to
different outcomes, including emotional responses. For instance, during
the 2020 presidential campaign, nine out of ten voters expressed fear that
the victory of a candidate from the other party could cause “irreparable”
damage to the United States (Dimock & Wike, 2020). To understand
such widespread fear about the victory of a different party, it’s essential
to recognise the affective dimension of polarisation (Iyengar et al., 2012),
characterised by mutual aversion among members of different groups or
political parties.
In this manifestation of polarisation, the ideological component often
takes a back seat to the point at which, as argued by Liliana Mason in
the U.S. context, we encounter “uncivil agreement”, where Americans
tend to agree on many issues but simultaneously hold prejudices and
harbour anger towards each other (Mason, 2013). Polarisation in this
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
16
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
sense has the significant advantage that it does not assume ideological
polarisation, typical of a bygone era when identification was with a party,
but instead assumes the attribution, based on the classic in-group vs.
out-group logic, of negative traits to individuals identifying with another
group. This profound sense of otherness and distance can even lead to
explicit expressions of displeasure at the prospect of one’s son or daughter
marrying someone from another political party (Iyengar et al., 2012). In
short, the divide is no longer primarily ideological but rather related to
group identity and perceived differences from other groups.
From this perspective, the role of incivility in constructing communicative rhetoric expressed in emotional and negative terms, used to
highlight proximity and distance between individuals, becomes increasingly apparent. Equally evident is the danger of rendering serious and
rational debate, as well as reaching agreement through political negotiation (essential pillars of the functioning of Western democracies), nearly
impossible. It’s crucial to note that this is not an argument for equating
polarisation with incivility; they are distinct phenomena (Mutz, 2007,
2015) involving both elite conflicts and those among citizens, sometimes
through a process of mimicry (Gervais, 2017). However, it cannot be
denied that the two phenomena often coexist, leading to a substantial
body of literature investigating the widespread use of incivility in strongly
polarised contexts and its electoral consequences (Geer, 2006; Gervais,
2021; Skytte, 2021). Moreover, in an era marked by the infusion of
emotion into public discourse (Davies, 2018), the resort to language that
implies authenticity and proximity between the speaker and the listener
and the embrace of coarseness in thought and behaviour tend to generate
support for one’s own group while fostering the isolation and rejection
of other groups. Consequently, there is increasing talk of mobilisation
against, rather than for, and the rise of negative partisanship (Caruana
et al., 2015), characterised by forms of disdain, rejection, and anti-fandom
directed at individuals, as exemplified by Brexit, Trump’s campaigns, and
numerous populist parties or movements founded on the rejection of the
other (Sandvoss, 2019). In the case of Brexit, those in favour of “Leave”
mobilised citizens against the “establishment” and the status quo, with
former Prime Minister David Cameron becoming a prime target for forms
of incivility and ad hominem attacks throughout the campaign (Usherwood & Wright, 2017). It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Boris
Johnson’s rhetoric, following the tumultuous consequences of the Brexit
referendum, became increasingly divisive and dangerous. It was marked
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
17
by terms like “cowards and traitors” directed at rivals, insinuations against
institutions (“Parliament against the people”), and corrosive invective
against parliamentarians attempting to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Johnson
even stated that these parliamentarians “should be lined up against a wall
and shot for treason” (Brabin & Dromey, 2019).
Furthermore, resorting to verbal attacks, stereotyping the opposition, attempting to exclude groups considered adversaries, and calls
for violent forms of protest tend to trigger corresponding forms of
involvement and engagement, especially in the context of social media.
This means that supporters actively participate in the implementation
of the communication strategy. We will examine these dynamics in
more detail when discussing the use of incivility by citizens. However,
numerous empirical studies have already provided valuable insights into
this phenomenon, showing increased engagement with communications from leaders expressed in uncivil terms across various contexts
(Bordignon, 2020; Rega & Marchetti, 2021; Skytte, 2021).
In summary, the use of incivility by political actors serves a dual
purpose: it reinforces, accentuates, and highlights polarised positions
on the one hand, and it offers supporters the opportunity to express
their sense of identity on the other. In doing so, it indirectly challenges
the notion that the divisive and sometimes uncivil confrontational styles
exhibited by political leaders are not appreciated by [American] citizens
who, for the most part, are more educated than their leaders (Fiorina &
Abrams, 2008). This suggestion has been contradicted on several occasions, from the events of January 6, 2021, which marked the culmination
of Trump’s communication strategy aimed at contesting the election
result and preventing the proclamation of the new President, to more
recent cases such as Bolsonaro, who inspired the revolt of his supporters
and the assault on the Brazilian federal government headquarters. Aside
from these exceptional cases, there is no doubt that the mobilisation of
supporters through the use of incivility can activate forms of dark participation, which can remain confined to the online realm or spill over into
the streets of cities, as witnessed in Washington and Brasilia.
It would be unwise to dismiss the cited examples as isolated incidents
confined to specific contexts and historical moments. Unfortunately, the
use of incivility by political actors triggers dynamics of mobilisation among
their supporters that multiply and exacerbate political divisions. Particularly on the web, where incivility can easily proliferate and spread, and
political campaigns can transform into veritable hate speech campaigns.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
18
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
It is highly unlikely that political actors are unaware of these risks or
the potential effects of such campaigns on a country’s political climate.
Instead, it is more probable that the need to reaffirm one’s positions to
reiterate one’s group identity and mobilise one’s supporters lies at the
core of building a communication strategy based on incivility.
Bibliography
Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do
Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press.
Bentivegna, S., Rega, R., & Artieri, G. B. (2022). Evaluations and Perceptions
of Political Incivility. APSA Preprints. https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-202238mvc
Bordignon, F. (2020). Leader Polarisation: Conflict and Change in the Italian
Political System. South European Society and Politics, 25(3–4), 285–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2020.1821464
Brabin, T., & Dromey, J. (2019, September 21). We MPs Know That Boris
Johnson’s Rhetoric Is Dangerous and Divisive. The Guardian. https://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/21/boris-johnsons-rhetoirc-isdangerous-and-divisive
Bratslavsky, L., Carpenter, N., & Zompetti, J. (2020). Twitter, Incivility, and
Presidential Communication: A Theoretical Incursion into Spectacle and
Power. Cultural Studies, 34(4), 593–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/095
02386.2019.1656760
Caruana, N. J., McGregor, R. M., & Stephenson, L. B. (2015). The Power
of the Dark Side: Negative Partisanship and Political Behaviour in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique,
48(4), 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914000882
Davies, W. (2018). Nervous States: Democracy and the Decline of Reason. W. W.
Norton.
del Mar Rivas-Carmona, M. (2023). Coarseness in Spanish Political Discourse:
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Santiago Abascal and Pablo Casado’s Aggressive Language. In O. Feldman (Ed.), Debasing Political Rhetoric: Dissing
Opponents, Journalists, and Minorities in Populist Leadership Communication (pp. 37–54). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-990894-3_3
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics
and Why It Matters. Yale University Press.
Dimock, M., & Wike, R. (2020, November 13). America Is Exceptional in the
Nature of Its Political Divide. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewres
earch.org/short-reads/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-ofits-political-divide/
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
19
Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2008). Political Polarization in the American
Public. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 563–588. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836
Gastil, J. (2019). Seeking a Mutuality of Tolerance: A Practical Defense of Civility
in a Time of Political Warfare. In R. G. Boatright, T. J. Shaffer, S. Sobieraj, &
D. G. Young (Eds.), A Crisis of Civility? Political Discourse and Its Discontents
(pp. 161–175). Routledge.
Geer, J. G. (2006). In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential
Campaigns. University of Chicago Press.
Gervais, B. T. (2017). More Than Mimicry? The Role of Anger in Uncivil
Reactions to Elite Political Incivility. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 29(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw010
Gervais, B. T. (2021). The Electoral Implications of Uncivil and Intolerant
Rhetoric in American Politics. Research & Politics, 8(2), 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1177/20531680211050778
Gitlin, T. (2013). The Uncivil and the Incendiary. In D. M. Shea & M. P. Fiorina
(Eds.), Can We Talk? The Rise of Rude, Nasty, Stubborn Politics (pp. 53–66).
Pearson.
Hameleers, M. (2023). Debasing Language Expressed by Two Radical RightWing Populist Leaders in the Netherlands: Geert Wilders and Thierry Baudet.
In O. Feldman (Ed.), Debasing Political Rhetoric: Dissing Opponents, Journalists, and Minorities in Populist Leadership Communication (pp. 55–71).
Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0894-3_4
Hameleers, M., & Minihold, S. (2021). Constructing Discourses on
(Un)truthfulness: Attributions of Reality, Misinformation, and Disinformation by Politicians in a Comparative Social Media Setting. Communication
Research, 49(8), 1176–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220982762
Herbst, S. (2010). Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics.
Temple University Press.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
Jamieson, K. H., & Taussig, D. (2017). Disruption, Demonization, Deliverance, and Norm Destruction: The Rhetorical Signature of Donald J. Trump.
Political Science Quarterly, 132(4), 619–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.
12699
Kreiss, D., Lawrence, R. G., & McGregor, S. C. (2020). Political Identity
Ownership: Symbolic Contests to Represent Members of the Public. Social
Media + Society, 6(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120926495
Lugosi-Schimpf, N., & Thorlakson, L. (2021). Words That Hurt Democracy:
The Sticks and Stones of Anti-democratic Discourse in Hungary and Germany.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
20
S. BENTIVEGNA AND R. REGA
In A. S. Walter (Ed.), Political Incivility in the Parliamentary, Electoral and
Media Arena (pp. 35–55). Routledge.
Mason, L. (2013). The Rise of Uncivil Agreement: Issue Versus Behavioral
Polarization in the American Electorate. American Behavioral Scientist, 57 (1),
140–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212463363
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity.
University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/
chicago/U/bo27527354.html
Mazzarella, W. (2019). Brand(ish)ing the Name. Or, Why Is Trump so Enjoyable? In W. Mazzarella, E. L. Santner, & A. Schuster (Eds.), Sovereignty. Three
Inquiries in Politics and Enjoyment (pp. 113–160). University of Chicago
Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226668550-003
Moffitt, B. (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and
Representation. Stanford University Press.
Moffitt, B., & Tormey, S. (2014). Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation
and Political Style. Political Studies, 62(2), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-9248.12032
Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4),
621–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540707044X
Mutz, D. C. (2015). In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media.
Princeton University Press.
Ouellette, L. (2012). Branding the Right: The Affective Economy of Sarah Palin.
Cinema Journal, 51(4), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2012.0076
Ott, B. L. (2017). The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics
of Debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686
Ott, B. L., & Dickinson, G. (2019). The Twitter Presidency: Donald J. Trump
and the Politics of White Rage.
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980
Case Study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.
Rega, R., & Marchetti, R. (2021). The Strategic Use of Incivility in Contemporary Politics. The Case of the 2018 Italian General Election on Facebook.
The Communication Review, 24(2), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/107
14421.2021.1938464
Sandvoss, C. (2019). The Politics of Against: Political Participation, AntiFandom, and Populism. In M. A. Click (Ed.), The Anti-Fandom: Dislike and
Hate in the Digital Age (pp. 125–146). New York University Press. https://
doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479866625.003.0009
Schudson, M. (1999). The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life.
Harvard University Press.
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
1
POLITICIANS AND THE ATTRACTIONS OF INCIVILITY
21
Skytte, R. (2021). Dimensions of Elite Partisan Polarization: Disentangling the
Effects of Incivility and Issue Polarization. British Journal of Political Science,
51(4), 1457–1475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000760
Szebeni, Z., & Salojärvi, V. (2022). “Authentically” Maintaining Populism in
Hungary—Visual Analysis of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Instagram. Mass
Communication and Society, 25(6), 812–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/152
05436.2022.2111265
Usherwood, S., & Wright, K. A. (2017). Sticks and stones: Comparing Twitter
Campaigning Strategies in the European Union Referendum. The British
Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(2), 371–388. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1369148117700659
Venturelli, G., Tamaki, E. R., & Ferreira, M. G. M. (2023). The Sharp-Tongued
Loudmouth: Incivility and Debasement in Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro’s
YouTube Livestreams. In O. Feldman (Ed.), Debasing Political Rhetoric:
Dissing Opponents, Journalists, and Minorities in Populist Leadership Communication (pp. 73–86). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-98199-0894-3_5
Winberg, O. (2017). Insult Politics: Donald Trump, Right-Wing Populism, and
Incendiary Language. European Journal of American Studies, 12(2), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.12132
Wodak, R. (2021). The Politics of Fear: The Shameless Normalization of Far-Right
Discourse. Sage.
Wodak, R., Culpeper, J., & Semino, E. (2021). Shameless Normalisation
of Impoliteness: Berlusconi’s and Trump’s Press Conferences. Discourse &
Society, 32(3), 369–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520977217
Get all Chapter’s Instant download by email at etutorsource@gmail.com
We Don’t reply in this website, you need to contact by email for all chapters
Instant download. Just send email and get all chapters download.
Get all Chapters For Ebooks Instant Download by email at
etutorsource@gmail.com
You can also order by WhatsApp
https://api.whatsapp.com/send/?phone=%2B447507735190&text&type=ph
one_number&app_absent=0
Send email or WhatsApp with complete Book title, Edition Number and
Author Name.