Conclusion: Making Sense of It All

  • Jonathan WheatleyEmail author


This chapter closes the book by attempting to address two paradoxes. The first is why discourses of national identity and exclusivity are more prevalent today than previously, despite the fact that, as shown in Chapter  4, on average people have become more tolerant (or GAL) on a large number of social issues, including immigration. The second paradox is why resistance to globalisation in both Britain and in other parts of Northern Europe has taken the form of a defence of (typically national) cultural identity, rather than a rebellion against economic globalisation, despite the fact that the latest wave of globalisation has been accompanied by growing economic inequalities. The clue to solving these paradoxes, I argue, lies in exploring changing patterns of political communication, especially the way opinion formers and media perform a kind of gatekeeping function that determines which issues become salient.


Issue salience Political communication Agenda setting Hegemonic order 


  1. Boggs, C. (1976). Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  2. Cram, L., Llewellyn, C., Hill, R., & Magdy, W. (2017). UK General Election 2017: A Twitter Analysis. arXiv preprint. Available at: Accessed 16 July 2018.
  3. Forster, M., Chen, W., & Llenanozal, A. (2011). Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  4. Goodhart, D. (2017). The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics. London: Hurst.Google Scholar
  5. Gramsci, A. (2006). Hegemony, Intellectuals and the State. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader, 1. In J. Storey (Ed.), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader (3rd ed., pp. 85–91). Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Wilson, C. J. (2002). Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration? Comparative Political Studies, 35(8), 965–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2006). Globalization and the Transformation of the National Political Space: Six European Countries Compared. European Journal of Political Research, 45(6), 921–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Marks, G., Hooghe, L., Nelson, M., & Edwards, E. (2006). Party Competition and European Integration in the East and West: Different Structure, Same Causality. Comparative Political Studies, 39(2), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miranda, S. M., Young, A., & Yetgin, E. (2017). Are Social Media Emancipatory or Hegemonic? Societal Effects of Mass Media Digitization. LSE Blogs. Available at: Accessed 16 January 2017.
  12. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Mouffe, C. (2018). For a Left Populism. London and Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  14. Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2014). Introduction: The Language of Social Media. In P. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  15. Standage, T. (2013). Writing on the Wall: Social Media—The First 2,000 Years. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  16. Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations