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.