請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/80657完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 林麗雲(Lih-yun Lin) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Chi-yu Lai | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 賴其郁 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-24T03:11:59Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2021-11-03 | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-11-24T03:11:59Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2021-11-03 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2021-10-23 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文書目 「年輕人、高學歷族」韓粉比例低網友諷：因為拒讀台大（2019年3月28日）。自由時報電子報。取自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2742110 Nathan F. Batto（2020年1月13日）。韓國瑜的民粹。紐約時報中文網。取自https://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/20200113/taiwan-election-tsai-han-populism/zh-hant/ 人氣大走鐘？韓國瑜拜廟空拍照曝光眾人一看全驚呆了（2019年9月3日）。今日新聞NOWnews。取自https://tw.news.yahoo.com/人氣大走鐘-韓國瑜拜廟空拍照曝光-眾人-看全驚呆了-032033740.html 王振寰、錢永祥（1995）。〈邁向新國家？民粹威權主義的形成與民主問題〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，20，17-55。 古非（2020年6月8日）。解析韓國瑜「黃粱一夢」政治奇幻漂流的三大戰犯。UMedia。取自https://udn.com/umedia/story/12755/4620990 台大小孩愛罵韓國瑜！韓粉家長取暖文讓網驚喊：好像吸毒（2019年4月13日）。自由時報電子報。取自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2758112 岳明熹（2011）。《反迷閱聽人的論述攻防:批踢踢吐槽板之「反韓」論述分析》。世新大學口語傳播學研究所碩士論文。 林彥臣（2019年3月14日）。戰學歷！王浩宇分析韓粉「學歷低」 柯粉「高學歷」明顯區隔。ETtoday。取自www.ettoday.net/news/20190315/1400458.htm 林彥臣（2019年5月28日）。老人才挺韓國瑜？ 羅智強：韓國瑜年輕族群「全面崩盤」。ETtoday。取自www.ettoday.net/news/20190529/1455065.htm 林庭瑤（2020年1月2日）。林庭瑤專欄：韓國瑜為什麼敢惡批媒體？。風傳媒。取自https://www.storm.mg/article/2131472 林淑芬（2003）。〈政治行動的可能性條件〉。《政治與社會哲學評論》，4，29-72。 林淑芬（2006）。〈拉克勞（Ernesto Laclau）霸權理論中的敵對與異質性〉，《政治科學論叢》，30，97-130。 林瑋嬪（2016）。〈導言網路‧人類學：網路，社群與想像〉。《考古人類學刊》，85，1-15。 牧禾（2020年6月3日）。民主與極權的競賽 不能停歇腳步。芋傳媒。取自https://taronews.tw/2020/06/03/661674/ 邱天助（2002）。《布爾迪厄文化再製理論》，台北：桂冠。 洪博學（2020年5月30日）。【台灣看天下】罷免老韓教訓中共。民報。取自https://www.peoplenews.tw/news/13c7214d-8344-4d9a-8579-f5e0944fc7ee 唐士哲（2004）。〈民族志學應用於網路研究的契機，問題，與挑戰〉。《資訊社會研究》，6，59-90。 真有百萬韓粉？黃創夏曝這些活動人數…酸：凱道空間太神奇（2020年1月10日）。三立新聞網。取自www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=669533 康培莊（2014）。〈民粹主義侵蝕台灣政治？〉，《全球政治評論》，51，7，1-8。 張佑宗（2009）。〈搜尋臺灣民粹式民主的群眾基礎〉，《臺灣社會研究季刊》，75，85-113。 張銘祐（2020年6月9日）。讀者投書｜韓粉是國民黨脫不了的魔戒。放言Fount Media。取自https://www.fountmedia.io/article/60290 張瑩瑞、佐斌（2006）。〈社會認同理論及其發展〉，《心理科學進展》，14，3，475-480。 張鐵志（2019年04月17日）。張鐵志：韓國瑜與柯文哲－台式民粹主義的兩種類型。上報。取自https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=61397 陳弘美（2020年9月7日）。成為在野的共主 網對韓國瑜高喊：推翻萬惡民進黨。中時新聞網。取自https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20200907001440-260407?chdtv 陳志萍（2008）。〈精進網路研究方法-網路民族誌〉。《圖書資訊學研究》，2（2），1-15。 陳杉榮（2020年6月19日）。新聞線上》韓粉和他們的孩子。自由評論網。取自https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1380814 陳湘芸（2020年6月13日）。凱道挺韓遊行空拍曝光網友驚呆：說好130萬韓粉呢？。新頭殼。取自https://newtalk.tw/news/view/2020-06-13/421158 賀麥曉（1996）。〈布狄厄的文學社會學思想讀書〉，《讀書》，11，20。 馮光遠（2020年6月15日）。自由共和國》馮光遠／人家紅衛兵鬧了十年 韓粉要加油！。取自https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1379810 黃天（2019年6月17日）。韓國瑜的幕後推手——名為新聞台的偶像經紀公司(上)。方格子。取自https://vocus.cc/danielhan/5d13c7f8fd89780001a6e6ec 黃昱珽（2014）。〈臺灣民粹主義轉變的探討：選舉民粹主義的形成〉，《弘光人文社會學報》，32，5，52 -73。 楊惠婷（2004）。〈台灣政治民主化民粹批判論述之歷史形構〉。國立臺灣大學新聞研究所碩士論文。 鄒鎮宇（2019年6月1日）。凱道造勢破40萬人？韓粉10分鐘就多5萬 他「推算數據」狠打臉。ETtoday。取自https://www.ettoday.net/news/20190601/1458136.htm 鄭知道了／談韓對市政了解！黃捷只給2分…自曝遭韓粉攻擊（2019年5月7日）。三立新聞網取自https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=537931。 謝宜倫（2018年11月15日）。談論韓流！ 呂副總統：人生的Loser都靠向他。TVBS。取自https://news.tvbs.com.tw/politics/1030090 鍾永昌（2003）。〈構成性域外與共同體之研究：以「難民」為例〉。國立政治大學新聞研究所碩士論文。 韓國瑜台中造勢號稱30萬人！ 四叉貓無懼威脅狠打臉（2019年12月29日）。自由時報電子報。取自https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/3024290 簡恆宇（2019年7月28日）。「沒有素人像韓國瑜一樣從媒體得到那麼多好處」 半島電視台：民粹、誇大言論與川普如出一轍。風傳媒。取自https://www.storm.mg/article/1530941 英文書目 Althusser, L. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). The anthropology of the state: A reader, 9(1), 86-98. Artz, B. L. (1997). Social power and the inflation of discourse: The failure of popular hegemony in Nicaragua. Latin American Perspectives, 24(1), 92-113. Aslanidis, P. (2018). Measuring populist discourse with semantic text analysis: an application on grassroots populist mobilization. Quality Quantity, 52(3), 1241-1263. Atkinson, J. (2016). The Political Role of Television in New Zealand. In Politics and the media (pp. 273-291). Auckland: Auckland University Press. Best, B. (2000). Necessarily contingent, equally different, and relatively universal: The antinomies of Ernesto Laclau's social logic of hegemony. Rethinking Marxism, 12(3), 38-57. Biglieri, P., Perelló, G. (2011). The names of the real in Laclau’s theory: Antagonism, dislocation, and heterogeneity. Filozofski vestnik, 32(2), 47-64. Birks, J. (2011). The politics of protest in newspaper campaigns: Dissent, populism and the rhetoric of authenticity. British Politics, 6(2), 128-154. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-28. Bos, L., Van der Brug, W., De Vreese, C. (2011). How the media shape perceptions of right-wing populist leaders. Political Communication, 28(2), 182-206. Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political studies, 47(1), 2-16. Carpentier, N., De Cleen, B. (2007). Bringing discourse theory into media studies: The applicability of discourse theoretical analysis (DTA) for the study of media practises and discourses. Journal of language and politics, 6(2), 265-293. Castells, M. (1997). An introduction to the information age. City, 2(7), 6-16. Cezayirlioglu, A. B. (2017). Rethinking Populism:‘the People’as a Popular Identity Subject in Bernie Sanders’ Discursive Articulation. Uppsala Universitet. Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative inquiry, 23(1), 34-45. Claviez, T. (2019). Where are Jacques and Ernesto when you need them? Rancière and Laclau on populism, experts and contingency. Philosophy social criticism, 45(9-10), 1132-1143. Dabirimehr, A., Fatmi, M. T. (2014). Laclau and Mouffe's theory of discourse. Journal of Novel Applied Sciences, 3(11), 1283-1287. De Cleen, B., Stavrakakis, Y. (2017). Distinctions and articulations: A discourse theoretical framework for the study of populism and nationalism. Javnost-The Public, 24(4), 301-319. Dyrberg, T. B. (2006). Radical and plural democracy: in defence of right/left and public reason. In L. T. Lars Tønder (Ed.), Radical democracy. Politics between abundance and lack (pp. 167-184). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ellis, S. (2019). Odds Look Long for Taiwan’s China-Friendly Presidential Contender. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-31/odds-lengthen-for-taiwan-s-china-friendly-presidential-contender?srnd=premium-asia Enli, G., Rosenberg, L. T. (2018). Trust in the age of social media: Populist politicians seem more authentic. Social Media+ Society, 4(1), 1-11. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305118764430 Gąsior-Niemiec, A., Glasze, G., Pütz, R. (2009). A glimpse over the rising walls: The reflection of post-communist transformation in the Polish discourse of gated communities. East European Politics and Societies, 23(2), 244-265. Hameleers, M., Bos, L., de Vreese, C. H. (2017). The appeal of media populism: The media preferences of citizens with populist attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 20(4), 481-504. Hawkins, K. A. (2009). Is Chávez populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 42(8), 1040-1067. Hawkins, K. A., Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). What the (ideational) study of populism can teach us, and what it can't. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 526-542. Hawkins, K. A., Silva, B. C. (2016). A head-to-head comparison of human-based and automated text analysis for measuring populism in 27 countries. Paper presented at the Explaining Populism: Team Populism January Conference, Provo-UT. Herschinger, E. (2010). Constructing global enemies: hegemony and identity in international discourses on terrorism and drug prohibition. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Higgins, M. (2017). Mediated populism, culture and media form. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), 1-5. Higgins M. (2019) The Donald: Media, Celebrity, Authenticity, and Accountability. In: Happer C., Hoskins A., Merrin W. (eds) Trump’s Media War. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94069-4_9 Homolar, A., Scholz, R. (2019). The power of Trump-speak: populist crisis narratives and ontological security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 344-364. Horner, W. (2017). Why Syriza Won: Laclau, Populism and Hegemony. Retrieved from https://oxfordleftreview.com/will-horner-why-syriza-won-laclau-populism-and-hegemony/ Jansen, S. C. (1987). The electronic bribe. Theory and Society, 16(4), 621-628. Jørgensen, M. W., Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London, England: Sage. Jutel, O. (2013). American populism and the new political economy of the media field. The Political Economy of Communication, 1(1), 26-42. Kim, Y. (2009). Digital populism in South Korea? Internet culture and the trouble with direct participation. On Korea: Academic Papers Series, 3(8), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/APS-YoungmiKim.pdf King, B. (2018). Trump, celebrity and the merchant imaginary. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0177-6 Krips, H. (2006). Interpellation, Populism, and Perversion: Althusser, Laclau and Lacan. Filozofski vestnik, 27(2), 81–101. Retrieved from https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/filozofski-vestnik/article/view/3158 Kozinets, R. V. (2012). Marketing netnography: Prom/ot (ulgat) ing a new research method. Methodological Innovations Online, 7(1), 37-45. Kozinets, R. V. (2015). Netnography. The international encyclopedia of digital communication and society, 3, 1-8. Kozinets, R. (2017). Netnography: Radical participative understanding for a networked communications society. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology, 374. Laclau, E. (2014). Populism: What’s in a Name? (D. Howarth Ed. 1st ed.). London: Routledge. Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London ; New York: Verso. Laclau, E., Zizek, S. (2003). Why do empty signifiers matter to politicians. In S. Žižek (Ed.), Jacques Lacan: Critical Evaluations in Cultural Theory (pp. 3-305). London: Routledge. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago; London: University of Chicago press.Laponce, J. (1975). Spatial Archetypes and Political Perceptions. The American Political Science Review, 69(1), 11-20. Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. In Ethnography through thick and thin (pp. 83). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McCargo, D. (2016). Duterte's mediated populism. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, 38(2), 185-190. Montgomery, M. (2017). Post-truth politics?: Authenticity, populism and the electoral discourses of Donald Trump. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 619-639. Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe (Vol. 22). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Mudde, C., Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Müller, M. (2009). Rethinking Identification With the Hegemonic Discourse of a “Strong Russia” Through Laclau and Mouffe. Identities and Politics During the Putin Presidency: The Foundations of Russia's Stability, 92, 327. Ostiguy, Pierre. 2009. “The High and the Low in Politics: A Two- Dimensional Political Space for Comparative Analysis and Electoral Studies.” Kellogg Institute Working Paper #360. https://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/360.pdf Phelan, S. (2011). The media as the neoliberalized sediment: Articulating Laclau’s discourse theory with Bourdieu’s field theory. In Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 128-153). New York, NY: Springer. Rasiński, L. (2017). Three concepts of discourse: Foucault, Laclau, Habermas. Kultura-Społeczeństwo-Edukacja(2), 33-50. Richardson, J. (2014). Roma in the News: an examination of media and political discourse and what needs to change. People, Place Policy Online, 8(1), 51-64. Rooduijn, M., Van der Brug, W., De Lange, S. L., Parlevliet, J. (2017). Persuasive populism? Estimating the effect of populist messages on political cynicism. Politics and Governance, 5(4), 136-145. Schou, J. (2016). Ernesto Laclau and critical media studies: Marxism, capitalism, and critique. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 14(1), 292–311-292–311. Schulz, A. (2019). Where populist citizens get the news: An investigation of news audience polarization along populist attitudes in 11 countries. Communication Monographs, 86(1), 88-111. Simons, J. (2011). Mediated construction of the people: Laclau’s political theory and media politics. In Discourse theory and critical media politics (pp. 201-221). New York, NY: Springer. Spruyt, B., Keppens, G., Van Droogenbroeck, F. (2016). Who supports populism and what attracts people to it? Political Research Quarterly, 69(2), 335-346. Thomassen, L. (2019). Representing the People: Laclau as a Theorist of Representation. New Political Science, 41(2), 329-344. Valdivielso, J. (2017). The outraged people. Laclau, Mouffe and the Podemos hypothesis. Constellations, 24(3), 296-309. Walton, S., Boon, B. (2014). Engaging with a Laclau Mouffe informed discourse analysis: a proposed framework. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 351-370. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-10-2012-1106 Weber, B. (2016). Laclau and Žižek on democracy and populist reason. International Journal of Žižek Studies, 5(1), 1-16. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/80657 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本文注意到韓流的崛起引發媒體爭相報導，有論者點出其民粹傾向，然而不少對支持者的評析卻有失公允。以此為問題意識，此研究旨在理解社群媒體的民粹現象。然而，檢視過往文獻，作者發現既有研究缺乏經驗資料，並且多從政治人物語藝表現、個人風格切入，鮮少意識到自媒體要素，並考慮傳統閱聽人變成創用者的典範轉移。本研究從社團田野觀察配合滾雪球抽樣，對六位韓國瑜支持者進行深度訪談，接著將訪談資料以Laclau和Mouffe的論述理論進行分析探討，驗證民粹現象係以動態的論述構連建立敵我關係，並藉此統一內部的異質訴求，成為抵抗外侮的想像共同體。然而，從結構力量分析之，本研究結合場域理論，將韓粉類型化作「軍公教組」與「常民組」，認為線下場域形塑的互動關係多元與否，會形成不同的生存心態，並影響主體在線上應對敵對陣營的態度。因此得出結論：在民粹當道的Web2.0時代，現實生活中在學校、工作場合培養異質人際關係，對於線上塑造開放且包容的公共領域討論十分重要。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2022-11-24T03:11:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2010202109574700.pdf: 2267139 bytes, checksum: 26df30380ed321689c263b0e76995a81 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i 中文摘要 ii Abstract iii 表目錄 vi 第一章、問題意識 1 第一節、研究動機 1 第二節、民粹主義相關研究的不足 5 第二章、文獻評述 13 第一節、論述理論概念 13 第二節、論述理論的應用與不足 21 第三節、小結 24 第三章、研究方法 26 第一節、具體研究問題與研究對象 26 第二節、網路民族誌：社團田野觀察、臉書私人互動以及線上訪談 28 第四章、研究結果 32 第一節、主體如何藉空符徵指認敵對性 32 第二節、韓粉線下場域的生存心態和敵對性 44 第三節、韓粉線上場域的生存心態和敵對性 59 第五章、結論 74 第一節、主要發現 74 第二節、討論 78 第三節、限制與建議 81 參考文獻 83 中文書目 83 英文書目 87 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 論述理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 媒介化民粹 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 生存心態 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 敵對性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 場域理論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | field theory | en |
| dc.subject | discourse theory | en |
| dc.subject | habitat | en |
| dc.subject | antagonism | en |
| dc.subject | mediated populism | en |
| dc.title | 成為「韓粉」：以論述理論探究主體線上／線下場域的民粹邏輯 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Becoming Fans for Han: Analyzing the logics formed in online and offline fields with discourse theory | en |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 109-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 劉慧雯(Hsin-Tsai Liu),林思平(Chih-Yang Tseng) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 媒介化民粹,論述理論,場域理論,敵對性,生存心態, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | mediated populism,discourse theory,field theory,antagonism,habitat, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 93 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202103915 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2021-10-23 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 新聞研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 新聞研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2010202109574700.pdf 授權僅限NTU校內IP使用（校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務） | 2.21 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。