Conclusions

2021 ◽  
pp. 164-188
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox ◽  
Lev Topor
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
Anti Semitism

This chapter looks at the broader picture. It reviews from a broader perspective what the anti-Semitism and general social science literatures can learn from each other. It also discusses how this study impacts the understanding of (1) the causes of discrimination against Jews, (2) the causes of discrimination against religious minorities, (3) the causes of discrimination in general, and (4) how all of this impacts on the understanding of anti-Semitism. One interesting finding in this chapter is that conspiracy theories of Jewish power predict not only discrimination against Jews, but also discrimination against other religious minorities.

Why Do People Discriminate against Jews?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox ◽  
Lev Topor
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Negative Attitude ◽  
Minority Populations ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Science Literature ◽  
Anti Jewish

This book provides a new and innovative approach to answering the age-old question of why people discriminate against Jews. The authors argue that anti-Semitism and discrimination are distinct concepts. While anti-Semitism is a negative attitude toward Jews, discrimination is a negative real-world action taken against Jews. From this perspective, one can hold anti-Semitic beliefs but not discriminate, while another can discriminate against Jews but be less anti-Semitic in general. In this context, anti-Semitism is seen as a potential cause of discrimination against Jews, but not the only one. This book examines anti-Jewish discrimination using a two-pronged approach. First, it combines and integrates ideas and theories from classic studies of anti-Semitism with social science theories on the causes of discrimination. For example, social science theories developed to explain how governments justify discrimination against Muslims can help explain the processes that lead to discrimination against Jews. Similarly, conspiracy theories, a major topic in the anti-Semitism literature, are relatively unexplored in the social science literature as a potential instigator of discrimination. Second, the authors use previously unavailable data on discrimination against Jews in 76 countries with significant Jewish minority populations to analyze the patterns and causes of discrimination. They find that government-based discrimination against Jews is below average, but societal discrimination is higher against Jews than most other religious minorities. They focus on three potential causes: religious causes, anti-Zionism, and belief in conspiracy theories about Jewish power and world domination. While all of these factors cause discrimination against Jews, conspiracy theories are the strongest predictors.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Jonathan Fox ◽  
Lev Topor
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
National Data ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
Comprehensive Comparison ◽  
Cross National

This chapter introduces and summarizes the book. It addresses four questions: First, what is this book about? Most studies focus on anti-Semitism. This book focuses on the causes of discriminating against Jews. The authors’ findings are valid whether or not this discrimination or its causes are labeled as anti-Semitic. Second, what are the patterns of discrimination against Jews? The authors address this in more detail in Chapter 2. Third, what are the causes of discrimination against Jews? This book focuses on three prominent theories from the anti-Semitism literature: religious motivations, anti-Israel motivations, and belief in conspiracy theories of Jewish power. Fourth, why is this study unique? This is the first book to examine the causes of discrimination against Jews using cross-national data from 76 countries. It also provides a comprehensive comparison of the predictions found in the anti-Semitism and social science academic literatures focusing on theories which explain the causes of discrimination.

Characterizing QAnon: Analysis of YouTube comments presents new conclusions about a popular conservative conspiracy

First Monday ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Taninecz Miller
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Computational Social Science ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Science Methods ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
The Social ◽  
Global Affairs ◽  
Party State

QAnon has become an important phenomenon in American politics due to both its relative popularity as well as its adoption/endorsement by political elites. However, this conspiracy theory/social movement has received sparse investigation in the social sciences. This gap is particularly noticeable in regards to the QAnon movement’s overall beliefs and perceptions of global affairs. This piece addresses these research gaps by using repeatable inductive computational social science methods to analyze a sample of comments from YouTube, a platform popular with QAnon followers. This investigation affirms previous observations regarding QAnon’s narratives connecting the U.S. government (particularly prominent Democrats) and alleged sexual violence against children, anti-semitism/fundamentalist Christian theology, and pro-Trump sentiments, and also reaveals several novel conclusions regarding QAnon. These novel observations include: [1] that the QAnon community sustains substantial discussion of international affairs, largely revolving around China, Russia and Israel (in order of prominence); [2] that discussion of China in QAnon comments received more “likes” than other international topics; and [3] that a nexus of conjectures tying former presidential candidate, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Chinese party-state dominate these China-centric comments. Aside from these novel conclusions regarding QAnon, this paper also seeks to make a contribution to repeatable social science analysis of YouTube comments more generally.

Conspiracy Theory Phobia

2018 ◽  
pp. 178-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juha Räikkä ◽  
Lee Basham
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Conspiracy Theory ◽  
Political Accountability ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
Psychological Mechanisms ◽  
Equal Consideration

Many scholars and journalists have recently questioned why people believe in conspiracy theories. Perhaps equal consideration should be given to the opposing question, why do people not believe in conspiracy theories. People who refuse to evaluate conspiracy theories evenly and openly may suffer from conspiracy theory phobia. This phobia manifests when a person rejects conspiracy theories out of hand without an appropriate evaluation of the available evidence, or if her reaction toward conspiracy theories is one of mockery, contempt, or hostility. Conspiracy theory phobia is likely explained by non-rational psychological mechanisms. In this chapter, we show how confirmation bias and pragmatic hypothesis testing can drive the rejection of conspiracy theories. Arguably, conspiracy theory phobia can distort social science and undermine political accountability within functional democracies.

scholarly journals ANTI-SEMITISM AND PROGRESSIVE ERA SOCIAL SCIENCE: THE CASE OF JOHN R. COMMONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Fiorito ◽  
Cosma Orsi
Keyword(s):  
Labor Market ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Southern Europe ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Anti Semitism

This paper explores John Commons’s views toward Jews in order to assess whether his published writings contain assertions that today would be stigmatized as anti-Semitic. The evidence we provide shows that Commons’s racial characterization of Jews was framed within a broad and indiscriminate xenophobic framework. With other leading Progressive Era social scientists, in fact, Commons shared the idea that the new immigration from eastern and southern Europe would increase competition in the labor market, drive down wages, and lead Anglo-Saxon men and women to have fewer children, since they would not want them to compete with those who survive on less. Within this general xenophobic context, Commons developed assertions regarding immigrant Jews that show traces of explicit anti-Semitic accusations.

‘The Irish and the Jews have a good deal in common’: Irish republicanism, anti-Semitism and the post-war world

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (165) ◽  
pp. 57-74
Author(s):  
Brian Hanley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Visible Minority ◽  
Conspiracy Theories ◽  
Anti Semitism ◽  
Irish Republicanism ◽  
Post War

AbstractThis article examines how anti-Semitism influenced republican politics in revolutionary Ireland. It looks at Irish republican attitudes toward Jews, including examples of anti-Semitism. Jews were a visible minority in Ireland and one that was sometimes seen as unionist politically. This article illustrates how conspiracy theories about Jewish influence sometimes featured in Irish nationalist tropes, but were far more common in British and unionist discourses regarding events in Ireland. It also shows how individual Jews took part in revolutionary activities, even as some republicans expressed suspicion about them. Outside Ireland, Irish revolutionaries interacted with Jews in several locations, particularly the United States. There was often cooperation in these settings and both groups expressed solidarity towards one another.

Race, Religion, and Informed Consent — Lessons from Social Science

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dayna Bowen Matthew
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Managed Care ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Systemic Approach ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Decision Points ◽  
Susan Wolf ◽  
The Way

Patients belonging to ethnic, racial, and religious minorities have been all but excluded from the legal academy’s ongoing conversation about informed consent. Perhaps this is just as well, since the conversation appears to have concluded that the doctrine has failed to serve as a meaningful regulation of clinical relationships. Informed consent does not operate in practice the way it was intended in theory. More than a decade ago, Peter Schuck noted the “informed consent gap” that distinguishes the “proper” law of informed consent “on the books” from the actual consent law in action, and called for a more contextualized approach to informed consent. Susan Wolf later called for a systemic approach to informed consent in order to accommodate multiple decision points in the managed care setting. Some reformers have sought enhancements to expand the doctrine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document