Resumo

How do socio-political vulnerabilities shape transformative experiences in transnational digital democratic innovations? The field of democratic innovation research has expanded significantly, yet no universal formulas guarantee desired outcomes. It remains uncertain how new designs and citizen participation mechanisms, relying on digital communication technologies, can contribute effectively to democratic innovations. Thus, empirical research is essential to expand hypotheses, methods, and evaluations of concrete experiences for future comparative analyses and practical implementations. This thesis analyzes the transformative experiences emerging from the first transnational global citizen assembly implemented digitally: the Global Assembly on climate change. Given its complex design and diverse participants, understanding the challenges and innovations introduced by this assembly can provide valuable insights. Using the Grounded Theory methodology, this research reconstructs and analyzes the experiences of 38 interviewees, including organizers, collaborators, and a focused sample of 14 assembly members. These members represent diverse demographic and social markers but share significant vulnerabilities, especially in terms of access to technology and linguistic resources. Through this approach, we aim to uncover how socio-political vulnerabilities influence the transformative potential of democratic innovations. By systematically analyzing qualitative data from these interviews, we seek to build a theoretical framework that highlights the interplay between democratic participation, socio-political vulnerabilities, and the production of 'democratic goods,' ultimately providing a deeper understanding of the conditions necessary for fostering truly inclusive and impactful democratic processes in the digital age.

Abstract

How do socio-political vulnerabilities shape transformative experiences in transnational digital democratic innovations? The field of democratic innovation research has expanded significantly, yet no universal formulas guarantee desired outcomes. It remains uncertain how new designs and citizen participation mechanisms, relying on digital communication technologies, can contribute effectively to democratic innovations. Thus, empirical research is essential to expand hypotheses, methods, and evaluations of concrete experiences for future comparative analyses and practical implementations. This thesis analyzes the transformative experiences emerging from the first transnational global citizen assembly implemented digitally: the Global Assembly on climate change. Given its complex design and diverse participants, understanding the challenges and innovations introduced by this assembly can provide valuable insights. Using the Grounded Theory methodology, this research reconstructs and analyzes the experiences of 38 interviewees, including organizers, collaborators, and a focused sample of 14 assembly members. These members represent diverse demographic and social markers but share significant vulnerabilities, especially in terms of access to technology and linguistic resources. Through this approach, we aim to uncover how socio-political vulnerabilities influence the transformative potential of democratic innovations. By systematically analyzing qualitative data from these interviews, we seek to build a theoretical framework that highlights the interplay between democratic participation, socio-political vulnerabilities, and the production of 'democratic goods,' ultimately providing a deeper understanding of the conditions necessary for fostering truly inclusive and impactful democratic processes in the digital age.

Resumo

A presente tese tem o objetivo geral de contribuir para a compreensão dos principais fatores sociais, políticos, históricos, comunicacionais e cognitivos que, combinados, culminaram nos comportamentos negacionistas de cidadãos comuns durante a pandemia de Covid-19. Para isso, foi realizado o estudo de caso de dois países que tiveram em comum lideranças negacionistas da gravidade da crise sanitária e estão entre os que apresentaram resultados mais desastrosos em proporções de casos e mortes: Brasil e Estados Unidos. Especificamente, pretendeu-se radiografar os enquadramentos midiáticos da realidade acerca da pandemia e de seus efeitos, medidas válidas de contenção e gestões pelos governos federais; ademais, objetivamos compreender os papéis de lideranças políticas agnotológicas/negacionistas, de autoridades científicas e dos meios de comunicação no fornecimento de pistas e argumentos que orientem a construção e o fortalecimento de atitudes negacionistas e enviesadas entre os indivíduos; por fim, buscou-se verificar, de maneira qualitativa, se e como se manifesta a resistência à mudança de atitudes e opiniões diante de evidências científicas e factuais contrárias às crenças prévias. Os resultados apontam para divergências entre os enquadramentos da realidade pandêmica por diferentes atores (políticos, científicos e midiáticos), com a ocorrência de incongruências, inclusive, no interior de cada campo. O caos informacional resultante dessa combinação leva a compreensões profundamente distintas e, por vezes, negacionistas das experiências vividas ao longo da pandemia. No nível dos indivíduos, observa-se: que o apoio ao governo agnotológico (Brasil) e o partidarismo (Estados Unidos) contribuíram para moldar as percepções de gravidade e o medo da pandemia; escolaridade e a experiência de ter Covid-19 não se demonstraram significativas para reduzir a influência dessas variáveis políticas sobre as crenças e percepções; a tendência dos negacionistas (mas não necessariamente apenas deles) a se manterem em bolhas epistêmicas, nas quais suas atitudes negacionistas tendem a ser reforçadas; o recurso ao raciocínio motivado para racionalizar a persistência do apoio a presidentes que minimizaram a gravidade da pandemia, inclusive por meio do uso de argumentos de descrédito ao fazer científico e às práticas jornalísticas. Diante de realidades mais brutais, como a perda de familiares, o adoecimento severo por Covid e o contato em primeira mão com notificações de casos e mortes, observou-se maior propensão à busca por formas de ressignificar esses acontecimentos, reforçando-se o processo do negacionismo.

Abstract

The general objective of this dissertation is to contribute to the understanding of the main social, political, historical, communicational, and cognitive factors that, combined, culminated in the denialist behaviors of ordinary citizens during the Covid-19 pandemic. To this end, a case study was conducted on two countries that shared leaderships that denied the severity of the health crisis and were among those with the most disastrous outcomes in terms of case and death proportions: Brazil and the United States. Specifically, the aim was to analyze the media framings of reality regarding the pandemic and its effects, valid containment measures, and management by the federal governments. Furthermore, we sought to understand the roles of agnotological/denialist political leaderships, scientific authorities, and the media in providing 'cues' and arguments that guide the construction and strengthening of denialist and biased attitudes among individuals. Finally, the study qualitatively examined whether and how resistance to changing attitudes and opinions manifests in the face of scientific and factual evidence that contradicts previous beliefs. The results point to divergences between the framings of the pandemic reality by different actors (political, scientific, and media), with inconsistencies even occurring within each field. The informational chaos resulting from this combination leads to profoundly different and sometimes denialist understandings of the experiences lived throughout the pandemic. At the individual level, it was observed that support for the agnotological government (Brazil) and partisanship (United States) contributed to shaping perceptions of the pandemic's severity and fear; education level and the experience of having had Covid-19 were not significant in reducing the influence of these political variables on beliefs and perceptions; denialists (though not necessarily only them) tended to remain in epistemic bubbles, where their denialist attitudes were likely to be reinforced; motivated reasoning was used to rationalize continued support for presidents who downplayed the pandemic's severity, including through arguments that discredited scientific work and journalistic practices. In the face of more brutal realities, such as the loss of family members, severe illness from Covid, and firsthand exposure to reports of cases and deaths, there was a greater propensity to seek ways to reframe these events, reinforcing the denialism process.