The politics and governance of blame
The politics and governance of blame
From coping with Covid-19 through to the politics of presidential elections, from the emergence of populist pressures through to the management of rising inequality, and from the repair of historical injustices through to the outbreak of new international conflicts – to mention just a few relevant topics – the analysis of modern politics and governance is increasingly framed through a focus on one simple question: ‘Who’s to blame?’
Answering this question is, however, rarely straightforward. Temporal dimensions, bureaucratic complexity, multi-levelled relationships and the existence of often deep emotional dynamics in fast-moving environments
can serve to complicate the attribution of responsibility. The existence of a powerful and arguably increasingly aggressive ‘negativity bias’ within modern societies also frames the allocation of blame with a certain tone and texture that explains its links to notions of ‘naming’, ‘shaming’ and increasingly ‘gaming’. This, in turn, flows through into broader and often socio-cultural questions about scapegoating, sacrificial lambs and ‘saying sorry’, and less of a focus on questions concerning the politics of praise, positivity and credit-claiming.
Engaging with blame-based questions and achieving a rounded understanding of the politics and governance of blame has in the past been hampered by the existence of a rather scattered and fragmented knowledge base. Islands of theorising and distinct seams of scholarship have rarely been connected, while a focus on nation states and democratic systems has tended to obscure the allocation of blame in authoritarian regimes or across international boundaries.
Through a focus on ‘gaps’, ‘traps’, ‘challenges’ and ‘opportunities’ this major collection reaches across traditional disciplinary, historical and institutional boundaries – and challenges a number of ‘self-evident truths’ and foundational assumptions - in order to offer a full, original and integrated account of the politics and governance of blame.
Blame, accountability, scapegoating, governance, Covid-19
Flinders, Matthew
d4982871-f267-4c51-a12b-1e0340ed4465
Hinterleitner, Markus
464a242f-5182-4e97-9de1-429f841c3466
Rhodes, R.A.W.
cdbfb699-ba1a-4ff0-ba2c-060626f72948
Weaver, R. Kent
867a4ce8-c777-4307-b12a-0106377a52c2
Dmitiova, Gergana
cd971b29-24b3-4c1b-882f-29cfcc826b8b
9 July 2024
Flinders, Matthew
d4982871-f267-4c51-a12b-1e0340ed4465
Hinterleitner, Markus
464a242f-5182-4e97-9de1-429f841c3466
Rhodes, R.A.W.
cdbfb699-ba1a-4ff0-ba2c-060626f72948
Weaver, R. Kent
867a4ce8-c777-4307-b12a-0106377a52c2
Dmitiova, Gergana
cd971b29-24b3-4c1b-882f-29cfcc826b8b
Flinders, Matthew, Hinterleitner, Markus, Rhodes, R.A.W., Weaver, R. Kent and Dmitiova, Gergana
(eds.)
(2024)
The politics and governance of blame
,
Oxford.
Oxford University Press, 800pp.
Abstract
From coping with Covid-19 through to the politics of presidential elections, from the emergence of populist pressures through to the management of rising inequality, and from the repair of historical injustices through to the outbreak of new international conflicts – to mention just a few relevant topics – the analysis of modern politics and governance is increasingly framed through a focus on one simple question: ‘Who’s to blame?’
Answering this question is, however, rarely straightforward. Temporal dimensions, bureaucratic complexity, multi-levelled relationships and the existence of often deep emotional dynamics in fast-moving environments
can serve to complicate the attribution of responsibility. The existence of a powerful and arguably increasingly aggressive ‘negativity bias’ within modern societies also frames the allocation of blame with a certain tone and texture that explains its links to notions of ‘naming’, ‘shaming’ and increasingly ‘gaming’. This, in turn, flows through into broader and often socio-cultural questions about scapegoating, sacrificial lambs and ‘saying sorry’, and less of a focus on questions concerning the politics of praise, positivity and credit-claiming.
Engaging with blame-based questions and achieving a rounded understanding of the politics and governance of blame has in the past been hampered by the existence of a rather scattered and fragmented knowledge base. Islands of theorising and distinct seams of scholarship have rarely been connected, while a focus on nation states and democratic systems has tended to obscure the allocation of blame in authoritarian regimes or across international boundaries.
Through a focus on ‘gaps’, ‘traps’, ‘challenges’ and ‘opportunities’ this major collection reaches across traditional disciplinary, historical and institutional boundaries – and challenges a number of ‘self-evident truths’ and foundational assumptions - in order to offer a full, original and integrated account of the politics and governance of blame.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 2023
Published date: 9 July 2024
Keywords:
Blame, accountability, scapegoating, governance, Covid-19
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 482521
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/482521
PURE UUID: 231ebaca-345f-4aa3-a157-36c96825b435
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 10 Oct 2023 16:42
Last modified: 13 Sep 2024 01:45
Export record
Contributors
Editor:
Matthew Flinders
Editor:
Markus Hinterleitner
Editor:
R. Kent Weaver
Editor:
Gergana Dmitiova
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics