Intimate Politics: publicity, privacy and the personal lives of politicians in media-saturated democracies
Intimate Politics: publicity, privacy and the personal lives of politicians in media-saturated democracies
复制标题
亲密政治：媒体饱和的民主国家政客的公开、隐私和个人生活
DOI：
10.1080/1461670x.2012.754240
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Stephen Cushion
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stephen Cushion
直到最近，将探索流行文化、新闻业和个性化政治之间的关系的学术研究定性为相对较新的概念或许是恰当的。但是，由于我们已经进入了21世纪，研究流行文化对主流政治的渗透的书籍长度的努力现在可以追溯到几十年前(例如，1997年的《街道》)，并且越来越多地出现在大学图书馆的书架上和模块阅读清单上(Corner and Pels 2003；Van Zoonen 2005)。因此，詹姆斯·斯坦耶尔的《亲密政治学》出版之际，这一领域的学术参与已成为政治传播和新闻学研究的熟悉部分。乍一看，亲密政治可能不会在人群中脱颖而出。但仔细一看，斯坦耶尔以经验为导向的方法和对个性化政治沟通的深思熟虑的解释，在我看来，既可以归结为“新的”阵营，也可以归入独特的阵营。尽管对政治和个人化的分析有时会显得有些印象主义，一种主观的学术判断，即公民如何可能或可能不参与那些通常被认为是政治的“小报”、“软性”或“琐碎”方面的问题，但斯坦耶的重点特别是解释*正如书的副标题所揭示的*“媒体饱和的民主政体中的公众、隐私和政客的个人生活”。此外，斯坦耶尔从一开始就对学者们理解“个性化”的有限方式提出异议，因为他认为，“大多数关于个性化的研究都没有涉及关于政客私生活的信息流和意象”(第8页)。在这样做的过程中，精心引入了恐吓的概念，并将其定义为反映政客生活的三个领域：
Until recently it was perhaps appropriate to characterize scholarship exploring the relationship between popular culture, journalism and personalized politics as relatively new. But since we are well into the twenty-first century, book-length endeavours examining the incursion of popular culture into mainstream politics now stretch back decades (for example, Street 1997) and can increasingly be found on university library shelves and module reading lists (Corner and Pels 2003; Van Zoonen 2005). James Stanyer’s Intimate Politics is therefore published at a time when scholarly engagement in this area has become a familiar part of political communication and journalism studies. At first glance, then, Intimate Politics might not stand out from the crowd. But on closer inspection, Stanyer’s empirically driven approach and thoughtful interpretation of personalized political communication can, in my view, be placed in both the ‘‘new’’ and distinctive camp. Whereas analyses of politics and personalization can sometimes appear somewhat impressionistic, a subjective scholarly judgement about how citizens might*or might not*be disengaged by what are routinely dismissed as ‘‘tabloid’’, ‘‘soft’’ or ‘‘trivial’’ aspects of politics, Stanyer’s focus is specifically on interpreting*as the subtitle of the book reveals*the ‘‘Publicity, Privacy and the Personal Lives of Politicians in Mediasaturated Democracies’’. Moreover, from the outset Stanyer takes issue with the limited way ‘‘personalization’’ has been understood by scholars, since*he argues*the ‘‘majority of studies conducted on personalization do not deal with the flows of information and imagery about politicians’ private lives’’ (p. 8). In doing so, the concept of intimization is carefully introduced and defined as reflecting three domains of politicians’ lives: