Monstrosity and dehumanization in the 2016 U.S. presidential contest

Project Summary: In this article, I argue that monstrosity was used as a metaphor to convey the dangerous potential of the candidates and to challenge their moral standing. Monstrosity is also a mechanism for dehumanization – the “act of perceiving or treating people as if they are less than fully human” which involves “denials of humanness” to individuals and groups (Haslam and Stratemeyer, 2016, 25). Social psychologists generally take a quantitative approach to the study of dehumanization, while recognizing that dehumanization has qualitative variants – animalistic, mechanistic, subtle, and blatant (Haslam and Stratemeyer, 2016; Kteily et al 2015; Pacilli et al 2016). Using the data collected here, I explore how monstrous characterizations of the candidates map on to the quantitative measures of dehumanization employed by this literature and in my own research (Cassese 2017). The results highlight the external validity of these measurement approaches and their clear relevance for capturing the dehumanization of political groups and candidates. Data Abstract: The text and images included in this collection were gathered on an ad hoc basis as examples of monstrosity and dehumanization in the discourse surrounding the 2016 Presidential race. They demonstrate the emergence of a “monster” narrative framework, which either characterized the candidates explicitly as monsters (e.g. “Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster”) or more implicitly as abnormal, deviant, and warped (e.g. an “abomination”). The data consist of political cartoons, memes, screenshots from television programs, as well as headlines and excerpts from mainstream news sources and political blogs. They also include comments from public officials, political advisors, journalists, and political analysts. Data collection began during the 2016 presidential primary race and concluded shortly after the inauguration. Preliminary observations about the data were published in The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage in an article called “Here are 3 insights into why some people call Trump a ‘monster’” (Cassese 2016). Works Cited Cassese, Erin. 2016. “Here are 3 insights into why some people call Trump a ‘monster.’” The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/31/here-are-3-insights-into-why-some-people-think-trump-is-a-monster] Cassese, Erin. 2017. “Dehumanization and Partisan Polarization in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race.” Manuscript under review. Haslam, Nick, and Michelle Stratemeyer. 2016 “Recent Research on Dehumanization.” Current Opinion in Psychology 11: 25-29. Kteily, Nour, Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz, and Sarah Cotterill. 2015. “The Ascent of Man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5): 901-931. Pacilli, Maria Giuseppina, Michele Roccato, Stefano Pagliaro, and Silvia Russo. 2016. “From Political Opponents to Enemies? The role of perceived moral distance in the animalistic dehumanization of the political outgroup.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 19(3): 360-373.

项目概述：本文主张，怪物化（monstrosity）被用作隐喻，以传递候选人的危险潜质，并质疑其道德立场。怪物化同时也是去人性化（dehumanization）的实现机制——即“将他人感知或对待为不完全具备人性的行为”，该过程涉及对个体与群体的“人性否定”（Haslam与Stratemeyer，2016，第25页）。社会心理学家在研究去人性化时通常采用定量研究方法，同时认可该现象存在多种定性变体：兽性化、机械化、隐晦式与公然式（Haslam与Stratemeyer，2016；Kteily等人，2015；Pacilli等人，2016）。本文借助本次收集的数据，探讨针对候选人的怪物化表征如何与该领域文献及本研究采用的定量测量手段相契合（Cassese，2017）。研究结果凸显了此类测量方法的外部效度，以及其在刻画政治群体与候选人去人性化现象时的显著适用性。

数据摘要：本数据集收录的文本与图像均为临时采集所得，作为2016年美国总统大选相关话语中怪物化与去人性化现象的示例。这些材料展现了“怪物”叙事框架的兴起——该框架要么将候选人明确刻画为怪物（例如“特朗普是共和党人的弗兰肯斯坦式怪物”），要么隐晦地将其描述为反常、乖张且扭曲的存在（例如“可憎之物”）。数据集包含政治漫画、表情包、电视节目截图，以及主流新闻媒体与政治博客的头条与节选内容，同时还收录了公职人员、政治顾问、记者与政治分析师的评论。数据采集始于2016年美国总统初选阶段，于就职典礼后不久结束。针对该数据集的初步观察结果已发表于《华盛顿邮报》的“猴子笼”专栏，文章题为《以下是为何部分人将特朗普称为“怪物”的3个洞见》（Cassese，2016）。

参考文献：
1. Cassese, Erin. 2016. 《以下是为何部分人将特朗普称为“怪物”的3个洞见》. 《华盛顿邮报》“猴子笼”专栏 [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/31/here-are-3-insights-into-why-some-people-think-trump-is-a-monster]
2. Cassese, Erin. 2017. 《2016年美国总统大选中的去人性化与党派极化》. 待审手稿。
3. Haslam, Nick, and Michelle Stratemeyer. 2016. 《去人性化研究最新进展》. 《当代心理学观点》11: 25-29.
4. Kteily, Nour, Emile Bruneau, Adam Waytz, and Sarah Cotterill. 2015. 《人类的崛起：公然去人性化的理论与实证证据》. 《人格与社会心理学杂志》109(5): 901-931.
5. Pacilli, Maria Giuseppina, Michele Roccato, Stefano Pagliaro, and Silvia Russo. 2016. 《从政治对手到敌人？感知道德距离在政治外群体兽性去人性化中的作用》. 《群体过程与群际关系》19(3): 360-373.