Amid rising political violence worldwide, this Workshop investigates the transformative nature of political elites’ hostile communication styles and their consequences for democratic functioning. The Workshop promotes conceptual and methodological innovation, unpacking different shades of elite hostility beyond the catch-all label of polarisation – e.g. uncivil, intolerant, and violent rhetoric – and their effects on democratic stability.
From an empirical perspective, the Workshop favours longitudinal and comparative approaches, studied across multiple political and institutional contexts. From a normative perspective, the Workshop will investigate which conditions allow democratic regimes to cope with increasing partisan hostility.
Adversarial, aggressive and violent rhetoric between partisan rivals is on the rise. While political conflict is intrinsic to democracy, contemporary attacks extend far beyond harsh policy disagreements: some leaders resort to personal insults, undermine their opponents’ legitimacy, and, in certain cases, encourage violence against them. Scholars have raised concerns about the threats posed by such rhetoric. In the US, rising elite hostility has unfolded alongside episodes of political violence, such as the 2021 storming of the Capitol, the 2024 assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and multiple political assassinations in 2025. While the precise role of elite rhetoric in these events remains debated, they illustrate its risks for democratic stability.
Research has begun to explore these links, examining how hostile rhetoric affects turnout, political trust, willingness to cooperate, and even support for violence. Yet, existing evidence remains limited, constrained by its focus on Anglo-Saxon cases and by conceptual fuzziness under the catch-all label of polarisation. Recent frameworks offer sharper tools, distinguishing between different kinds of hostility, and enabling systematic testing of their distinct effects across contexts. Building on these advances, this Workshop addresses three core questions:
1 How has hostile rhetoric evolved over time? Is there a structural trend toward 'nastier' politics across democracies?
2 How is hostile rhetoric shaped by political and institutional contexts (e.g. electoral systems, party structures, political cultures, media arenas)?
3 What are the democratic consequences of different types and intensities of hostile rhetoric (e.g. on turnout, trust, stability, policymaking)?
1: To what extent are hostile styles detrimental (or not) to democratic regimes?
2: How did political styles and hostile rhetoric evolve over time?
3: Which political and institutional contexts explain varying intensity of hostile/violent styles across countries?
4: How does the medium (i.e. written, audio and visual content) shape the use of hostile/violent styles?
5: How do different contexts (i.e. social networks, parliaments, print media) shape hostile/violent styles?
1: The normative implications of uncivil/intolerant/violent communication styles on democratic regimes
2: Research design favouring a longitudinal perspective (in single or multiple countries).
3: Comparative approach beyond the usual suspects of the US and a focus on populist/authoritarian leaders.
4: Varying subgroups of elected politicians (women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, etc).
5: Varying arenas of communication (electoral ads, TV debates, press interviews, social networks, parliaments, etc).
6: Innovative use of audio-visual features of hostile or violent communication (e.g., Instagram, TikTok, YouTube).
7: Computational and multimodal methods (e.g., natural language processing, computer vision, audio analysis).
