Cite cleanup for "Nature of Belief Systems…"
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 12:33, 27 April 2024 |
| Line 56: | Line 56: |
| === ''The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'' (1964) === | === ''The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics'' (1964) === |
| In ''The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics''<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Converse |first=Philip E. |date=Jan 2006 |title=The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964) |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08913810608443650 |journal=Critical Review |language=en |volume=18 |issue=1-3 |pages=1–74 |doi=10.1080/08913810608443650 |issn=0891-3811}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Converse |first=Philip E. |author-link=Philip Converse |title=Ideology and discontent |publisher=Free Press of Glencoe |year=1964 |editor-last=Apter |editor-first=David E. |chapter=The nature of belief systems in mass publics |oclc=193632}}</ref>, Converse challenged the notion that ordinary citizens share the sophisticated ideological structure in political thinking seen among political elites. He argues first that belief systems are ultimately about "constraint"—if one's view changes on an issue central to the belief system, that change shifts attitudes throughout the network of other views when constraint is high. In contrast, other views do not change in a low-constraint belief system when another attitude changes. Converse says belief systems are constructed by political elites, who decide the issue views that go together, and he says political information is key for determining whether members of the mass public are capable of following these connections in their own thinking. | In ''The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics''<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Converse |first=Philip E. |date=Jan 2006 |title=The nature of belief systems in mass publics (1964) |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08913810608443650 |journal=Critical Review |language=en |volume=18 |issue=1-3 |pages=1–74 |doi=10.1080/08913810608443650 |issn=0891-3811}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Converse |first=Philip E. |author-link=Philip Converse |title=Ideology and discontent |publisher=Free Press of Glencoe |year=1964 |editor-last=Apter |editor-first=David E. |pages=206–261 |chapter=The nature of belief systems in mass publics |oclc=193632}}</ref>, Converse challenged the notion that ordinary citizens share the sophisticated ideological structure in political thinking seen among political elites. He argues first that belief systems are ultimately about "constraint"—if one's view changes on an issue central to the belief system, that change shifts attitudes throughout the network of other views when constraint is high. In contrast, other views do not change in a low-constraint belief system when another attitude changes. Converse says belief systems are constructed by political elites, who decide the issue views that go together, and he says political information is key for determining whether members of the mass public are capable of following these connections in their own thinking. |
| Next, Converse empirically analyzes belief systems in the mass public using survey data from 1956, 1958, and 1960 [[American National Election Studies]]. He proceeds in four parts. In the first section, he shows that, when asked to describe their views on the political parties and candidates, very few Americans rely on abstract principles (possibly a liberal-conservative continuum) or other signs of ideological thinking ("ideologues"). In a second category, labeled "near-ideologue", Converse groups people that peripherally mention some abstract principles used to guide their decisions, but they may not have placed much evaluative dependence on the principle or showed evidence of misunderstanding. Using the idea of a yardstick as a model, Converse explains that an ideologue would explicitly reference the yardstick when explaining their reasoning, while a "near-ideologue" may imply the existence of a yardstick, but could use it incorrectly or show obvious misunderstanding. Instead, the largest category of people think about politics and parties in terms of "group benefits" based on which prominent social groups they see as advantaged or disadvantaged by Democrats or Republicans. These social group ties tend to be stronger and more prominent when the groups are considered "visible", such as a church, union, or race, as opposed to an "invisible" social group, like social class. It is important for the masses to be cognizant of their group to see this "group benefits" category appear. Others thought about parties based on the "nature of the times" (issue- or party-driven) or "no issue content." In sum, regular people don't talk about politics in ideological ways. | Next, Converse empirically analyzes belief systems in the mass public using survey data from 1956, 1958, and 1960 [[American National Election Studies]]. He proceeds in four parts. In the first section, he shows that, when asked to describe their views on the political parties and candidates, very few Americans rely on abstract principles (possibly a liberal-conservative continuum) or other signs of ideological thinking ("ideologues"). In a second category, labeled "near-ideologue", Converse groups people that peripherally mention some abstract principles used to guide their decisions, but they may not have placed much evaluative dependence on the principle or showed evidence of misunderstanding. Using the idea of a yardstick as a model, Converse explains that an ideologue would explicitly reference the yardstick when explaining their reasoning, while a "near-ideologue" may imply the existence of a yardstick, but could use it incorrectly or show obvious misunderstanding. Instead, the largest category of people think about politics and parties in terms of "group benefits" based on which prominent social groups they see as advantaged or disadvantaged by Democrats or Republicans. These social group ties tend to be stronger and more prominent when the groups are considered "visible", such as a church, union, or race, as opposed to an "invisible" social group, like social class. It is important for the masses to be cognizant of their group to see this "group benefits" category appear. Others thought about parties based on the "nature of the times" (issue- or party-driven) or "no issue content." In sum, regular people don't talk about politics in ideological ways. |
Okumaya devam et...