Ercomer, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2019 Jul;58(3):495-514. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12300. Epub 2018 Nov 26.
In many Western democratic societies, the far-right has considerable popular support and is often perceived as the winner of political debates. This raises the important question of how other politicians try to manage the far-right. We use parliamentary debates to examine how politicians define the identity of Member of Parliament (MP) in response to Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. The analysis shows that politicians made relevant the shared responsibility of MPs to solve societal problems, by using inclusive language, asking for concrete proposals, and emphasizing engagement in debate. These identity-related features question the parliamentary role performance of the far-right. In response, Wilders stressed the MP's responsibility of representing the ordinary people. The politicians used three strategies to challenge this defence: Questioning that the far-right actually fulfils their self-ascribed representative role; challenging the notion that only the far-right would represent the people; moving into a more populist position. Implications for social psychological research on marginal group members are discussed.
在许多西方民主社会中，极右翼政党拥有相当大的民众支持，并且经常被视为政治辩论的赢家。这就提出了一个重要的问题，即其他政治家如何试图应对极右翼。我们利用议会辩论来研究政治家们是如何根据荷兰极右翼自由党领导人 Geert Wilders 来定义议员身份的。分析表明，政治家们通过使用包容性语言、要求具体建议以及强调参与辩论，使议员们共同承担解决社会问题的责任。这些与身份相关的特征对极右翼的议会角色表现提出了质疑。作为回应，Wilders 强调了议员代表普通民众的责任。政治家们使用了三种策略来挑战这一辩护：质疑极右翼实际上是否履行了他们自我赋予的代表性角色；质疑只有极右翼才能代表人民的观点；采取更民粹主义的立场。本文还讨论了这一研究对边缘群体成员的社会心理学研究的启示。
