IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/wzbtci/spiv2007303.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Neue Autoritäten? Ein kommunikationstheoretischer Blick auf die Deutungsmacht inter- und transnationaler Akteure in der Darfurkrise
[New Authorities? A Communication-Theoretical View of the Symbolic Power of International and Transnational Actors in the Dafur Crisis]

Author

Listed:
  • Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias

Abstract

In Anlehnung an das Webersche Konzept legitimer Herrschaft lässt sich die Fähigkeit effektiv zu regieren, nicht nur im Sinne von Zwang und/oder Anreizen verstehen, sondern gerade auch durch die verbreitete Anerkennung von Akteuren als legitime „Autoritäten“. Wie viele Beobachter überzeugend argumentiert haben, spielen Nichtregierungsorganisationen und internationale Bürokratien eine entscheidende – und vielleicht auch zunehmend wichtigere – Rolle in der internationalen Politik, gerade weil sie als normative und epistemische Autoritäten anerkannt werden. Das Entstehen einer denationalisierten „multicentric world“ (James Rosenau) wird entsprechend oft behauptet, obwohl die empirische Beweislage bestenfalls unvollständig ist. Im Rekurs auf Arbeiten von Pierre Bourdieu und Jürgen Habermas wird argumentiert, dass die Art und Weise, wie die Akteure in politischen Debatten kommunikativ auf andere als „Autoritäten“ verweisen, eine Antwort auf die Frage liefert, inwieweit sich ein solcher Prozess politischer Denationalisierung tatsächlich abzeichnet. Das Papier illustriert den Mehrwert entsprechender Forschung zu „Autoritätskommunikation“ anhand einer Textanalyse von Debatten über die humanitäre Krise im Sudan/ Darfur. Texte aus sechs öffentlichen Foren werden vergleichend untersucht: zwei Parlamenten (US-Repräsentantenhaus, britisches Unterhaus), zwei „neuen Medien“ (CNN.com, BBC.uk) und zwei „klassischen“ Zeitungen (Guardian, New York Times). Angesichts unzuverlässiger Informationen hinsichtlich des Ausmaßes menschlichen Leids, dessen lokaler Kontexte und Ursachen, so wird argumentiert, ist die Völkergemeinschaft dringend auf glaubwürdige Informationen und Interpretationen angewiesen – Informationen darüber, was diese Ereignisse für sie selbst hinsichtlich ihrer eigenen Kapazitäten und Pflichten bedeuten. Internationale und nichtstaatliche Akteure werden so zu integralen Bestandteilen verschiedener politischer Arenen, zu epistemischen Autoritäten („Experten“), die den Mangel an ausreichendem Faktenwissen der Journalisten, Politiker und der Öffentlichkeit kompensieren. Darüber hinaus verleiht der Ruf humanitärer Organisationen als moralischem „Weltgewissen“ entsprechenden Appellen den Impetus einer autoritativen Definition von Verantwortung. Indem man die Art und Weise betrachtet, wie auf internationale Institutionen und Nichtregierungsorganisationen verwiesen wird, so die These, lässt sich deren Akkumulation an „symbolischer Macht“ untersuchen.

Suggested Citation

  • Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2007. "Neue Autoritäten? Ein kommunikationstheoretischer Blick auf die Deutungsmacht inter- und transnationaler Akteure in der Darfurkrise [New Authorities? A Communication-Theoretical View of the Symboli," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2007-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbtci:spiv2007303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/49739/1/583785883.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521584487, November.
    2. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    3. Grant, Ruth W. & Keohane, Robert O., 2005. "Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 29-43, February.
    4. Hurd, Ian, 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 379-408, April.
    5. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521585934, November.
    6. Koremenos, Barbara & Lipson, Charles & Snidal, Duncan, 2001. "The Rational Design of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 761-799, October.
    7. Zürn, Michael & Binder, Martin & Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias & Radtke, Katrin, 2006. "Politische Ordnungsbildung wider Willen: Ein Forschungsprogramm zu transnationalen Konflikten und Institutionen," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2006-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Terrence L. Chapman, 2007. "International Security Institutions, Domestic Politics, and Institutional Legitimacy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(1), pages 134-166, February.
    2. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.
    3. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2013. "Why do they want the UN to decide? A two-step model of public support for UN authority," TranState Working Papers 171, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    4. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    5. David Altman, 2002. "Prospects for E-Government in Latin America: Satisfaction With Democracy, Social Accountability, and Direct Democracy," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 5-20, December.
    6. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    7. Donald Wittman, 2008. "Targeted political advertising and strategic behavior by uninformed voters," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
    8. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    9. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    10. Matthijs Rooduijn & Brian Burgoon & Erika J van Elsas & Herman G van de Werfhorst, 2017. "Radical distinction: Support for radical left and radical right parties in Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 536-559, December.
    11. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution," IEW - Working Papers 167, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    12. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    13. Frey, Bruno S., 2004. "Direct Democracy for a Living Constitution," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 04/5, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    14. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    15. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2000. "Wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der direkten Demokratie," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(2), pages 161-180, May.
    16. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 387-411, June.
    17. Charles J Pattie & Ron J Johnston, 2002. "Political Talk and Voting: Does it Matter to Whom One Talks?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(6), pages 1113-1135, June.
    18. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    19. Baum, Matt, 2000. "A Paradox of Public Opinion: Why a Less Interested Public is More Attentive to War," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt7200v97q, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.
    20. William Minozzi & Jonathan Woon, 2013. "Lying aversion, lobbying, and context in a strategic communication experiment," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(3), pages 309-337, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbtci:spiv2007303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ggwzbde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.