Political Polarisation on Social Media: Competing Understandings of Democracy in Turkey

References

• Anderson, D. M. & Cornfield, M. (2003) The Civic Web: Online Politics and Democratic Values, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
   Google Scholar
• Atikcan, E. Ö. & Öge, K. (2012) ‘Referendum campaigns in polarised societies: the case of Turkey’, Turkish Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 449–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydın-Düzgit, S. & Balta, E. (2018) ‘When elites polarise over polarisation: theoretical implications from the case of the AKP in Turkey’, South European Society & Politics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 71–92.
   Google Scholar
• Baldassarri, D. & Gelman, A. (2008) ‘Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 408–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breiger, R. L. (1974). ‘The duality of persons and groups’, Social Forces, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 181–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulut, E. & Yörük, E. (2017) ‘Mediatized populisms| digital populism: trolls and political polarization of Twitter in Turkey’, International Journal of Communication, vol. 11, no. 25, pp. 4093–4117.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett, C. M. & Kogan, V. (2017) ‘The politics of potholes: service quality and retrospective voting in local elections’, The Journal of Politics, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 302–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caren, N. & Türkoğlu, D. (2014) ‘Political controversy has helped fuel Twitter’s growth in Turkey’, The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage Blog, available online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/28/political-controversy-has-helped-fuel-twitters-growth-in-turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Çarkoğlu, A., Baruh, L. & Yıldırım, K. (2014) ‘Press-party parallelism and polarization of news media during an election campaign: the case of the 2011 Turkish elections’, The International Journal of Press/politics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 295–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castaldo, A. (2018) ‘Populism and competitive authoritarianism in Turkey’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 467–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DellaPosta, D. (2020) ‘Pluralistic collapse: the “oil spill” model of mass opinion polarization’, American Sociological Review, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 507–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demiralp, S. & Balta, E. (2021) ‘Defeating populists: the case of 2019 Istanbul elections’, South European Society & Politics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E. W. & Robinson, J. P. (2001) ‘Social implications of the internet’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27, pp. 307–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. (2001) ‘The implications of framing effects for citizen competence’, Political Behavior, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 225–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esen, B. & Gumuscu, Ş. (2019) ‘Killing competitive authoritarianism softly: the 2019 local elections in Turkey’, South European Society & Politics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 317–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esen, B. & Gumuscu, Ş. (2020) ‘Why did Turkish democracy collapse? A political economy account of AKP’s authoritarianism’, Party Politics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1075–1091.
   Google Scholar
• Esen, B. & Yardimci-Geyikçi, Ş. (2019) ‘The Turkish presidential elections of 24 June 2018’, Mediterranean Politics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhse, J., Stuhler, O., Riebling, J. & Martin, J. L. (2020) ‘Relating social and symbolic relations in quantitative text analysis. A study of parliamentary discourse in the Weimar Republic’, Poetics, vol. 78, pp. 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gora, A. & de Wilde, P. (2022) ‘The essence of democratic backsliding in the European Union: deliberation and rule of law’, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 342–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannan, J. (2018) ‘Trolling ourselves to death? Social media and post-truth politics’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 214–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Invernizzi-Accetti, C. & Wolkenstein, F. (2017) ‘The crisis of party democracy, cognitive mobilisation, and the case for making parties more deliberative’, The American Political Science Review, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 97–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S. & Westwood, S. (2015) ‘Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization’, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 690–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagers, J. & Walgrave, S. (2007) ‘Populism as political communication style’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 319–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, R. R. & Haggard, S. (2019) ‘Democratic decline in the United States: what can we learn from middle-income backsliding?’ Perspectives on Politics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 417–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Hsu, S. H. & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2013) ‘Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits’, Journal of Communication, vol. 63, no.3, pp. 498–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kocak, K. & Kıbrıs, Ö. (2022) ‘Social media and press freedom’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 140–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konda. (2019) ‘23 Haziran 2019 Sandık Analizi ve Seçmen Profilleri’ [23 June ‘23 Haziran 2019 Sandık Analizi ve Seçmen Profilleri’, available online at: https://konda.com.tr/uploads/23haziran2019-istanbul-sandik-analizi-858ff4e2358c57b0afaf8e3df1ada06b8c108a0acb270850107160b07e33eb0e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, M. V., Hjorth, F., Dinesen, P. T. & Sønderskov, K. M. (2019) ‘When do citizens respond politically to the local economy? Evidence from registry data on local housing markets’, The American Political Science Review, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 499–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linz, J. J. & Stepan, A. C. (1996). ‘Toward consolidated democracies’, Journal of Democracy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 14–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCoy, J., Rahman, T. & Somer, M. (2018) ‘Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities’, The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 16–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohr, J. W. & Bogdanov, P. (2013) ‘Introduction - topic models: what they are and why they matter’, Poetics, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 545–569.
   Google Scholar
• Mosca, L. & Quaranta, M. (2017) ‘Voting for movement parties in Southern Europe: the role of protest and digital information’, South European Society & Politics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 427–446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Odabaş, M. (2019) ‘Online communities as cultural fields,’ PhD thesis, The University of Arizona.
   Google Scholar
• Özel, I. D. & Yıldırım, K. (2019) ‘Political consequences of welfare regimes: Social assistance and support for presidentialism in Turkey’ South European Society & Politics, vol. 24, no.4, pp. 485–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.) (2012) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Schoon, E. W. (2022) ‘Operationalizing legitimacy’, American Sociological Review, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 478–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schradie, J. (2019) The Revolution That Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V. (2016). ‘Conversation is the soul of democracy: Expression effects, communication mediation, and digital media’, Communication and the Public, vol.1, no.1, pp. 12–18.
   Google Scholar
• Somer, M. (2019) ‘Turkey: the slippery slope from reformist to revolutionary polarization and democratic breakdown’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 681, no. 1, pp. 42–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer, M. & McCoy, J. (2018) ‘Déjà vu? Polarization and endangered democracies in the 21st century’, The American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 3–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R. (2007) Republic. com 2.0., Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Toepfl, F. (2018) ‘From connective to collective action: internet elections as a digital tool to centralize and formalize protest in Russia’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 531–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuğal, C. (2009). Passive revolution: Absorbing the Islamic challenge to capitalism, Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Türkoğlu, D. (2019) ‘Student protests and organised labour: developing a research agenda for mobilisation in late neoliberalism’, Current Sociology, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 997–1017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Türkoğlu, D. & Odabas, M. (2020) ‘Mischievous uncles” as rule breakers: intersectional stereotypes and risk perceptions during the Coronavirus pandemic in Turkey’, Social Media+ Society, vol. 6, no. 3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N. & Warren, M. E. (2008) ‘The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 11, pp. 387–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaccari, C. (2017) ‘Online mobilisation in comparative perspective: digital appeals and political engagement in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom’, Political Communication, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 69–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, P., Strömbäck, J., Aalberg, T., Esser, F., De Vreese, C., Matthes, J., Hopmann, D., Salgado, S., Hubé, N., Stepinska, A., Papathanassopoulos, S., Berganza, R., Legnante, G., Reinemann, C., Sheafer, T. & Stanyer, J. (2017) ‘Political communication in a high-choice media environment: a challenge for democracy?’ Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 3–27.
   Google Scholar
• Vegetti, F. (2019) ‘The political nature of ideological polarization: the case of Hungary’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 681, no. 1, pp. 78–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, K. C. (2004) Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Yarchi, M., Baden, C. & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021) ‘Political polarization on the digital sphere: a cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media’, Political Communication, vol. 38, no. 1–2, pp. 98–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yavas, M. (2018) ‘Framing Struggles: Mapping Field of Opinion in Turkey through Contested Coverage of Gezi Park Resistance’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, USA, 9 August.
   Google Scholar