“What Does PolComm Stand For? Normative Dimensions of Political Communication Research & Theorizing”

 

Letter from the Editor^[1]

 

Curd Knüpfer, University of Southern Denmark

https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-98567-6, PDF

 

As noted in our previous issue, 2024 was hailed as a super election year. It was also marked by rapid transformations in the foundational institutions, communication structures, and technologies that govern political communication flows. We live in tumultuous, disruptive, and destabilizing times. While the burden of these changes is distributed unequally within and across political systems, no part of the world seems untouched by the rapid transformations societies are currently witnessing.

Considering all this flux, it seems timely to ask where our own foundations lie. What are the normative principles on which we rely in our research and theorizing? What needs to change? What needs to remain the same? What norms and principles should we either revive or discard? The current issue of the Political Communication Report invited contributors to engage with these questions, summarized under the title “What Does PolComm Stand For?”

The goal was not to provide exhaustive or definitive answers to these questions but rather to offer various perspectives that could spark further conversations within our field, professional organizations, publications, classrooms, and personal reflections. I hope you will agree that the pieces introduced below are well-equipped to do just that:

 

• Václav Štětka and Sabina Mihelj analyze contemporary illiberal politics and argue that the field’s normative positions are no longer adequate to address democratic disruptions. Drawing on research focused on Central and Eastern European media systems, they introduce a framework centered on the rise of “illiberal public spheres,” highlighting the main characteristics and stages of these power dynamics.

 

• Thomas J Billard channels Sandra Ball-Rokeach in questioning the normative assumptions underlying contemporary theorizing. They argue that the field’s focus on topics such as polarization or civility is implicitly rooted in a narrow set of values, concluding that “the field normalizes hegemonic standards while delegitimizing forms of political communication that challenge systemic oppression.”

 

• Nathan Kalmoe offers a similar critique, reflecting on recent failings of liberal institutions to address the mounting threats posed by illiberal disruptions. He contends that political communication has often treated the consumption of mainstream news as normatively desirable, despite growing evidence that many aspects of it may harm pluralistic democracy and reflects on how news could be “better for democracy.”

 

• Dan Lane and Stewart Coles add to this critique, by emphasizing what is lost when we define “the political” too narrowly. They advocate for a group-centric perspective on Political Communication, accounting for collective viewpoints and decision-making processes.

 

• Marília Gehrke and Olga Pasitselska also highlight the importance of group-based perspectives in studying contemporary information flows and actor dynamics, particularly those spreading disinformation. They propose focusing on three key dynamics: identity propaganda, logics of exclusion, and gendered disinformation.

 

• Manuel Alejandro Guerrero and Giselle Kuri Carrasco provide an even wider lens in offering an overview of what political communication, understood in a too narrow sense and from the perspective of the Global North might be missing. Their piece on “PolComm from a Global South perspective” draws in a variety of perspectives that would note how limiting the contemporary field’s focus and reification of a specific form of liberal democracy can be. 

 

• Cherian George starts from a similar vantage point in critiquing the Western-centric status quo of PolComm. At the same time, he also cautions against how the de-Westernization mantle can be co-opted by autocracies. His essay ultimately rounds this issue off, by proposing a concrete course of action and articulating a new normative mission for our increasingly global field, “grounded in Human Rights principles.”

 

• Beyond these essays, this issue features a report by Taberez Ahmed Neyazi, Saima Saeed, and Suruchi Mazumdar, organizers of the inaugural ICA Political Communication Workshop in Delhi, India. This workshop provided space for more diverse perspectives within the field, marking an important step toward institutionalizing global inclusivity in political communication research.

 

• Lastly, this issue’s focus on the awardee interviews section provides insights into award-winning contributions to our field, highlighting the authors’ work processes and future plans.

 

This will be the last issue of the Political Communication Report under my editorship. It has been an absolute pleasure to steer this format over the past two years and four issues. My initial task was to reactivate the PCR after it had been dormant since 2016. The goal was to create a space for collective reflection on our field. Over these issues, we explored new methods and challenges, the state and process of de-Westernizing the field, new developments in the study of elections, and lastly the current reevaluation of normative positions shaping our field.

Beyond the content, the most rewarding aspect of pulling these issues together were the back-and-forth interactions I got to have with colleagues as part of the editorial function. Practically everyone I reached out to was willing to contribute to this project –the few exceptions citing very good reasons for not being available. More importantly, every single one of our contributors took the task extremely seriously, contributing substantive thoughts rooted in their own research, experiences, or theorizing. This made my life as an editor incredibly easy (as I kept writing in responses) and I am incredibly grateful to everyone who helped in re-activating this deliberative space.

So, what does Political Communication stand for? To some degree, the answer will depend on your own positionality. However, based on my experience as PCR editor, I would say that the PolComm community embodies a willingness to self-reflect, engage respectfully, deliberate thoughtfully, and learn alongside one another – while remaining collegial and kind. Whatever challenges the world may bring, let’s strive to keep these values intact. I hope to see many more issues of the PCR in this same spirit!

 

 

[1] Copyright © 2024 (Curd Knüpfer). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at https://politicalcommunication.org.

 

---