ࡱ> [ Cbjbj 7ΐΐ+A8O|toR??UUUoooooooPrtoBBBoUUnoLPLPLPB0UUoLPBoLPLP6kJ-nUOJQ#Gloo0oltu4K`tu8-n-ntuAnL *< LP3dc;ooOoBBBBtu :  Definition of Comprehensive Examinations: Breadth Differentiation in Perspective: Rival Narratives on Democracy, Public Sphere(s) and the Media (Approved) Daniel Ahadi Student ID: 200013465 CMNS 895: Comprehensive Exam September 27, 2008 Supervisory Committee Members for Comprehensive Examinations Senior Supervisor: Dr. Catherine Murray, Professor, School of Communication, 911Թ Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________ Supervisor: Dr. Kirsten McAllister, Assistant Professor, School of Communication, 911Թ Signature: ________________________ Date: ______________ Additional Supervisory Committee Member Supervisor: Dr. Karim H. Karim, Associate Professor and Chair, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University. Breadth Comprehensive Exam Differentiation in Perspective: Rival Narratives on Democracy, Public Sphere and Media Overview My breadth comprehensive discusses issues concerning medias role in a western democratic society. My first point of departure is that under the liberal model of governance, the promises of individual freedom, rights, access (material and power), and representation are yet to be realized. Discourses of exclusion and marginalization are frequent: discriminations based on gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation; political marginalization based on ideology; infringement of individual rights as a consequent of socially deviant behavior; and intentional or unintentional misrepresentation (e.g. through media) are examples of how the exclusionary discourses operate in society. Discourses of inclusion then define and reward good citizenship-- those who comply with the dominant norms and value systems in society (such as secularism). My second point of departure is that media matters in this equation: media can play an informative role; media can create consensus; media can escalate or prevent conflicts; media can be platforms through which citizens can debate on issues concerning politics, culture, economic, etc. The point of intersection between these two points of departures is the public sphere. Both the system of (democratic) governance, and the media system, form and articulate the role and function of the public sphere. In other words the characteristics and ideological boundaries of a public sphere are dependent on a) the system of governance within which it operates, and b) the media system which operates within that system of governance. But at the same time it should be noted that the media system, operating within a strong public sphere, could bring about change in the system of governance (the political system), adding to the complexity of the equation. It is the relationship between the three--democratic system, the public sphere, and the media-- which I set to investigate in this comprehensive exam, in relation to my area of research: the Muslim diaspora. My area of study is the Muslim diaspora and their communication environment. I define communication environment as a physical or symbolic (can be virtual) space within which members of a community interact with one another and the rest of their surrounding. For the purpose of my research I include media and organizations into this equation. It is an environment that operates distinct from the mainstream of society, but not seeking to replace it; rather as a complement to the existing mainstream media and organizations. As Roger Silverstone (2007) argues, contrapuntal as a structural component of contemporary culture and its mediation, involves the recognition of a dynamic of representation and reading (of media production and consumption) which is both plural and singular (p. 90). Empirical research on media content suggests that media representation of Muslims is characterized by intentional and unintentional racialization, resulting in a portrayal of the religion as violent. This system of representation is linked to the political or democratic model and the public within which media operates. Therefore I set to investigate alternative models through which marginalized groups (in this case Muslims) represent themselves in society, facilitating stronger publics and a differentiated democratic system that is more tolerant and inclusive. This comprehensive starts off with outlining three different models of democracies: Liberal, Republican and Deliberative. I will argue that these three models foster a western liberal model of citizenship which is based on the universal right of citizens to participate in the political process as voters or, at best, as political candidates for different offices in the governing branch. Politics is constructed as a contest, and thus power as something that needs to be conquered. In response to these models of democracy, I propose-- based on literature from the cultural pluralism school of thoughts-- a differentiated citizenship, which argues for a fragmentation of power in institutions of communities. The second part of this comprehensive focuses on the fragmentation of the bourgeois public sphere-- as one homogenous platform for debate-- into different sphericules of civic participation. Third, the role of political communication, as mediated public sphere, will be discusses in light of two general theories about political communication: media malaise and the liberal model of media. While critical media theorists (media malaise scholars) argue that the current political media system fosters a passive citizen-- much along the lines of the type of citizens fostered in the western democratic models-- the more liberal media scholars (Norris, 2000) argue that the current, dominant market-oriented media system, with all its shortcomings (monopoly, filters, etc.), play a significant role in cultivating political awareness among the public. Lastly, I review the role of ethnic media as alternative communication infrastructure as facilitator of this differentiated experience of citizenship. This breadth comprehensive exam is linked to my area of dissertation, namely Muslim diasporic communities in the West, in following ways: Can the current liberal-democratic system of governance accommodate diversity, or should alternatives to the dominant definition of political involvement (voting and running for office) be discussed and adopted; Can the Habermasian, bourgeois public sphere (to which mainstream media system belong) facilitate and foster publics who are aware issue concerning minorities (alienation, isolation, disproportionate representation, etc.), or are alternative public spheres (plural) needed to accommodate non-mainstream cultures and nations; This comprehensive exam is treated as a teaching comprehensive and aims for an overview and mastery of different theories of media, rather than any particular focus on questions concerning specific areas of my dissertation research. The depth comprehensive exam is reserved to address specific issues on identity formation of Muslim diasporic communities. This comprehensive examination explores the following key issues: Three historically established democratic models, and offer an alternative; The historical and contemporary revisionist meanings of the public sphere; The role of the mediated public sphere in political communication, or the role of the mediated public sphere (mainly news media) in fostering political participation among citizens; The role of alternative communication infrastructure (ethnic media) in fostering stronger publics, and greater social inclusion of minority groups.          Figure 1: Visualizing the Logic of the Breadth Comprehensive Exam I. Rival Narratives of Democratic Models of Governance Second to existentialist questions, democracy is perhaps one of the most discussed concepts in western philosophical debates, with many definitions coming from different political ideologies. While it is well beyond the scope of this comprehensive exam to define democracy, I have made it my task to review three models of democracy, namely, liberal or representative democracy, republican or participatory democracy, and deliberative democracy. The first challenge was one of deciding on terminology; there seem to be an extensive gallery of terms basically describing the same principle (except for deliberative democracy which was consistently used by all scholars to refer to the type of democracy that involves direct engagement of the citizens in the political process). In order to better represent these literatures, I have chosen to indicate the two most common terms used by scholars to describe the first two models of democracy below (i & ii). This section ends with a critical questioning of the concept of democracy in a local, national and global perspective. Liberal or Representative Democracy: James Mill described the liberal democracy as the grand discovery of modern time. Built on Montesquieus conception of democracy, this model celebrates the separation of powers and allows for meaningful accountability within the political system. According to the liberal view of democracy the state is conceived as an apparatus of public administration which duties are to serve the interest of society. The society in turn is conceived as a system of market-structured interactions of private persons and their labor (Habermas, 1998, p. 239). The political process is an aggregation of private social interests which manifest itself through election of those representatives that will best serve the private interests of the citizens. In this way, the elected body (parliament, government, etc.) act as a representation of the political will of the citizens, and are trusted with the task to carry out that will. Under this model politics is in essence competition for administrative power, and the role of the citizens is to safeguard individual rights and aspirations by electing the most suitable candidate to office. This process involves the transfer of power from citizens to those they elect to represent them, and regards active politics as the domain of government and interest group leaders (Cunningham, 2002). The questions that arises with this model is one of the ability of citizens to influence the political decision making process after the elected officials take office. What if election promises made during campaigning are not kept? Other questions that may arise are dealing with issues of power and diffusion of it; under this model power is granted by the public to elected officials, and thus the publics political power is reduced to elections and occasional referendums. Republican or Participatory Democracy: While the above model of democracy can be categorized as vertical (Habermas, 1998) or participatory (Cunningham, 2002) democracy can generally be regarded as a horizontal model. Democracy is synonymous with the political self-organization of society. In opposition to the civic privatism of a depolitisized population and in opposition to the acquisition of legitimation through entrenched parties, the political public sphere should be revitalized to the point where a regenerated public can in the forms of a decentralized self-governance appropriate the governmental authority that has been seized by a self-regulating bureaucracy (Habermas, 1998, p. 247). In this equation, unlike the former model, there are two institutions of power: the public and the government (Cunningham, 2002, p. 126). The government is a body of power with its own interest and the public is to defend their own interest by negotiating and making contracts with the government. The success of such model is to guarantee the existence of platforms for inclusive discussion and will-formation in which free and equal citizens reach an understanding on which goals and norms lie in the equal interest of all (Habermas, 1998, p. 241). The questions that this model raise address the same issues as the one in the former model, meaning democratic process and power, but these questions concern different processes. One of the main concerns is in regards to the balancing of interests and reaching a compromise; whos voices and opinions carry more weight? Secondly, as Cunningham suggest, this type of participatory democracy is more suitable for localized politics (city and regions). On the state/province, national, and international levels such participatory practices are very difficult to carry out. Finally the concern is that those people with money and time to travel will dedicate their time to such political activities, which in due course will result in the emergence of a political elite. Deliberative Democracy: This model of democracy depends heavily on communication infrastructure and processes. Out the three models, this is perhaps more closely related to Habermas public sphere, and he has written on deliberative models of communication and democracy (1998, 2006). According to Gastil (2008) deliberative democracy rests upon three principles: inclusion, participation opportunities, and enlightened understanding (pp. 5-8). The process of participation is extended beyond then just expressing ones opinions; the public must have the capacity to hear from thousands or even millions of fellow citizens at the same time (p. 8). The short hand definition of deliberation is the careful examination of a problem and arriving at a well-reasoned solution after series of discussions, considerations, and dialogues. The social process of communicating is as important as the exchange of opinion; it is through the social process of communicating that an enlightened understanding of a specific subject can be reached. Cunnigham (2002) mainly based on other authors, lists a series of shortcomings of this model of democracy, including the following: deficit in the current democratic system to facilitate such dialogical process; the surrender of the public will to the preexisting conditions and values systems within which deliberative process is conducted; the idealized and normative character of the deliberative model of democracy. John Gastil (2008) offers different practical procedures through which this model of democracy can be implemented in different institutions of power, including the judiciary, legislative, and the public. Critical Intervention: Out of the cultural pluralism school of thought a number of criticisms have emerged on the validity of these liberal models of democracy. These models operate on the premises that political participation is highly partisan and ideological. The political process is ultimately defined by all three models as a vertical model of engagement, where the structural configuration of the political landscape allows only competitive participation is encouraged. The flow of power is always hierarchical, and bound to the historically established institutions such as the legislative assemblies, judiciary, and executive power. Within this power structure the Political always remain a hierarchical structure (whether top-down or reverse). Moreover, the existing models of democracy, by way of defining the Political as a competition, have created conditions of inequality and oppression in society: for example, despite the fact that many immigrants acquire full citizenship rights, many ethnic groups remain excluded from the bourgeois public sphere, and are reduced to second-class citizens (Young, 1995, p. 176). The critics of established models of democracy argue for alternative spheres of engagement, based in a non-partisan model, and a differentiated citizenship model which does not regard loyalty to the nation-state as its first priority. Michael Walzers solution lies with a differentiated sphere of political engagement that is detached from the nation-state (2003). The questions he poses are as follows: a) what is the preferred setting, the most supportive environment for a good life, and b) what sorts of institutions should we work for? (p. 8). He concludes that historically established models of democracy are wrongheaded because of their singularity: established models of democratic political engagement approach the question of good life by focusing on the nation-state as their arena. Within this arena, the concept of citizenship is constructed around common values and loyalties towards the nation-state and its social structure (be it through patriotism and nationalism, loyalty towards the market, or loyalty towards ideologies and parties). REAL politics are then constructed around existing structures of power. Other post-national scholars, in similar way, argue for a fragmentation of power in an increasingly globalized world and the mergence of a pro-social engagement of citizens. Such engagement is not partisan and limited to party-politics. Held (1996) speaks of alternative political engagements (NGOs, international organizations, anti-establishment global movements, etc.) that transcend the national. Within this model of civic participation (largely based on a social democratic model of political participation, where social cohesion is imbedded in the strengthening of public sector and civil society) individuals change their patterns of political participation based on contexts and interests that may or may not go beyond the local or national. Other cultural pluralists (Kymlicka, 1994, 1995 & 1997; & Taylor, 1994) argue for alternatives to the national sense of identity, but continue to use the nation as the framework within which these alternatives can take root (through accommodation of diversity). A third argument is offered by the egalitarian school: Barry (2001) offers a critique of the cultural pluralism thesis and argues that the core of this conception of citizenship, already worked out in the eighteenth century, is that there should be only one status of citizen (no estates or castes), so that everybody enjoys the same legal and political rights. (p. 7). Egalitarians argue that differentiated rights fragments the social fabric of the nation-state and its ideals of universal citizenship rights What is evident from my readings is that the differentiation school of thought (Young, Kymlicka and Held), despite its efforts to accommodate differentiated identities, remains truthful to the frameworks of the nation-state. Walzers answers his own question on the good life by calling for a communitarian civil society that is fundamentally secular in nature: [I] want to stress the central role played by ideological single-mindedness: the intolerant universalism of (most) religions, the exclusivity of (most) nations. The actual experience of civil society, when it can be had, seems to work against these two; indeed it works so well, that neither religious faith not national identity is likely to survive for long in the network of free associations (Walzer, 2003, p. 21). This is a very ideological and idealistic model of communicating democratic values. Much similar to the forces in the West who see the Western liberal democratic model as the solution to world problems (specially is Iraq and Afghanistan), the secular, post-national communitarian civil society that Walzer speaks contradicts the reality many people in non-Western societies are facing. Ideological secularism as manifested in many Western countries, especially West European countries (Modood, 2007, p. 76) advocates for a separation of religion and state along private and public lines: religious rights are manifested in the private sphere, while in the public sphere religion remains an outside force (except for the case of the U.S. where religious groups are strong and politically mobilized: Modood, 2007, p. 76). Such secular model of governance, dating back to the French revolution and the Enlightenment, has become synonymous with modernism, and in turn modernism has become synonymous with Westernization. That has been the case in Turkey and Lebanon; two highly religious countries that adopted the secular model of governance in mid-20th century and have since struggled to maintain a balance between religious life and secular life. What is evident is that there is nothing inherent about secular models of civil society and democracy that makes them better than alternative or parallel models. The Western construction of what constitutes an ideal form of civil society/democracy is nothing but a model of citizen involvement/governance. However, over time and through hegemonic forces of neutralization and naturalization, such model, especially as manifested in Europe, becomes the agent of legitimization of democracy, modernity, and civil society (Kahraman, 2005, p. 85). There are other community based communication models that extends beyond the secular model, and in many cases are much more responsive to the needs of the cultures outside the North Atlantic. So in other words, what we in the West may regard as retrogressive and anti-modern might in many instances be of use in other context; in other words, to use an idiom de jour our enemy combatant or terrorist, is someone elses freedom fighter. The aim of this section of the comprehensive exam is not to advocate for a better model, rather it is to highlight that other alternatives exist and operate outside the definition of Western secular civil society and democracy. Considering my area of dissertation (Muslim communities in the West) my object of analysis (or case study) for this comprehensive exam is the Muslim faith. Recent publications have highlighted the urgency in addressing faith-based community development. Modoods (2007) book on multiculturalism discusses the problems with the secular model of citizenship of the west (Chapter 3: Liberal Citizenship and Secularism). He challenges the banishment of religion to the private realm, and argues that just as gay and ethnic identity, religious identity needs to be addressed in the public sphere (2007). Kahraman (2005) in The cultural and historical foundation of Turkish citizenship: Modernity as Westernization challenges the over-reliance of the Turkish system of governance on Western theories of democracy and argues that in the 1990s the state-centric and secular aspects of citizenship have been challenged by various sources who seek recognition (including ethnic and religious groups). Another source that challenges the hegemonic conception of secular citizenship is a recently published book Development, civil society and faith-based organizations: Bridging the sacred and the secular, by Gerard Clarke and Michael Jennings (2008). There are three chapters in particular which discuss faith-based organization in the Islamic world (Chapter 2: Faith based organization and international development; Chapter 9: Saudi Arabian NGOs in Somalia: Wahabi Dawah or humanitarian aid?; Chapter 10: Faith-based organizations as effective development partners? Hezbollah and post-war reconstruction in Lebanon). What is evident from these titles is that the Western conceptions of democracy, civil society, and participation are not responsive to changing geo-political conditions of the world. The promises of liberal democracy have made limited breakthrough in place like Iraq and Afghanistan, and those place where liberal democracy has been imposed on (Turkey) are now facing challenges from groups who have been marginalized under the conditions of secular liberal democracy. Also, within Western nations global migration has severely challenged the homogenous dream of the nation state, along with its common values and system of governance. Under different immigrant management regimes (assimilative, integrative, melting pot) new forms of domination and alienation have emerged; societal symptoms are emergence of ethnically segregated enclaves in major Western cities, low political turnout among ethnic groups, marginalization in the workforce of immigrant groups, and slow rate of naturalization in many European countries. These frustrations are not only limited to immigrant groups. The promises of liberal democracy have also failed to address concerns raised by aboriginal groups in place like Canada and Australia. Similarly in the United States majority of black Americans continue to live under circumstances that are significantly lower in standards than those for white, middle class Americans. The egalitarian public arena for debates and deliberation as promised by the most progressive model of liberal democracy has fallen short in responding to the needs and aspirations of these marginalized groups. The ballet box-democracy of many western nations has largely failed to engage the public in the political process. In the second part of this comprehensive exam I investigate the role that media play in fostering political and civic engagement. The break down is as follows: I seek to examine the historical foundations of the public sphere, as outlined by Habermas, and outline some of its shortcomings by visiting revisionist scholarship on the concept of public sphere. I will continue my discussion with a narrow focus on mediated public sphere by investigating medias role in facilitating public discourse and civic engagement of citizens. In this section I will review literature from two schools of thoughts: the media malaise theory and the liberal theory on media. Last in my inverted pyramid approach to this comprehensive, I will review differentiated forms of media, which arguably can facilitate a greater civic engagement of citizens parallel to the mainstream media. In this last section I will review literature on ethnic media. II. The Public Sphere: Historical and Contemporary Understanding The bourgeois public sphere, as outlined by Habermas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere have come under immense criticism for its shortcomings and failure to address diversities in ethnic, cultural, racial, and gender belongings (Benhabib, 1992; Fraser, 1992; Karim, 2002). The idea of this part of the comprehensive is to review the historical meanings of the public sphere as defined by Habermas, and move on to revisions of the thesis based on recent developments and changes brought about by globalization and immigration, as well as changes and trends in media policies and governance, concerning deregulation and monopolization of the media. The Habermasian public sphere has been criticized for subscribing to the liberal idea of a one single, comprehensive sphere of debate which seemingly is always preferable to multiple publics (Fraser, 1992). Such homogenous public, it is argued, cannot possible facilitate and accommodate differentiated needs and aspirations of citizens of different heritage. Instead, scholars argue for a multiple model comprised of multiple publics where both private (particular) and public (universal, common good) issues can be debated and addressed. In an interesting passage in one his latest essays Habermas addresses some of the current trends in theories of differentiated publics: The different weighting that citizens of different nations assign to rights and liberties, to inclusion and equality, or to public deliberation and problem solving determines how they see themselves as members of their political community (Habermas, 2006). So in part the will to participate in the political environment is shaped by the different experiences citizens of any given community might have of democracy, civil society and politics. The media environment within which citizens operate fosters their sense of social responsibility, their level of civic engagement and their will for political participation (adopted from the model for civic engagement presented in Marques and Santos, 2007). In Media and Morality Roger Silverstone (2007) discusses the function and obligation of media environments, which he calls the mediapolis. Mediapolis is the mediated public space where contemporary political life increasingly finds its place, both at national and global levels (p. 31). And the mediated public space (or the mediapolis) is important because the space where I appear to others as others appear to me (p. 7). The degree and nature of medias role is the subject of debate among scholars in the field of political communication. While the more critical school of thought has extensively highlighted serious concerns with the current state of corporate and profit driven mainstream media and their impact on political participation of citizens, media scholars with a more liberal inclination have sought to dilute some of these concerns by arguing that media, in their current state, are overall doing a good job in promoting and facilitating political participation. III. Mediated Public Sphere: Politics and Communication The body of literature discussing this area of study is concerned with questions of political participation of citizens. Political participation is not merely defined as the act of voting to elect officials to represent constituents. Rather it is a model of participation based on political and communicative engagement which includes citizens many acts of joining, volunteering, serving, attending, meeting, participating, giving and perhaps most importantly cooperating with others (McKinney, Kaid & Bystrom, 2005, p. 4). Therefore the question of political participation is closely tied to the models of democracy discussed above, and the question of what type of citizens each of the democratic models foster? From Political Science On one side of the fence are those who argue that political engagement of citizens has gone through a sharp decline and instead attention has shifted from the collective to the private. Instead the publics are engaged in localized and personalized engagements that keep them pre-occupied and detaches them from traditional political participation such as town hall meeting and public hearing (McKinney et al eds., 2005; Denton & Kuypers, 2008). This camps strongest evidence is the sharp decline of electoral participation (mainly in the U.S.). On the other side of the fence stand those who argue for an anti civic-decline thesis (Bennett, 1998). It is not a question of decline of civic engagement, rather a shift in focus. Citizens today are engaged in life style politics which involves more transitory engagements with localized and loosely organized associations that address issues of personal concern (Bennett, 1998, p. 42). ... to Political Communication Central to the competing decline and anti decline theses is the question of what role do media play in promoting or inhibiting political engagement? Parallel to the two camps in political science, there exist opposing views among media scholars concerning the role of the media in this equation. The decline thesis overlaps with the so called Media malaise paradigm which refers to accounts claiming that common practices in political communications by the news and by party campaigns hinder civic engagement, meaning learning about public affairs, trust in government, and political activism (Norris, 2000, p. 2). There are two assumptions made by media scholars subscribing to this thesis: a) that the process of political communication has a significant impact on the political engagement of citizens, and b) that this impact is in a negative direction (Denton & Kuypers, 2008; and McNair, 2007). In support of their argument this camp refers to several factors that have contributed to medias role as the inhibiter of political engagement of citizens: the move towards infotainment; coverage of the candidates in political campaigns rather than real policies; the erosion of public service broadcasting. The argument in the opposing camp is that exposure to media content encourages political participation (Newton, 1999, 2006; Norris, 2000). This so called mobilization theory argues that a combination of rising educational levels and easier access to ever larger amounts of political information have helped to mobilize citizens, both cognitively and behaviourally (Newton, 1999). Based on a series of empirical research in the field of political participation the liberal school of media studies seem to argue that little evidence exist to support the media malaise thesis: despite the current trends in news reporting-- sensationalism, attack journalism and negative political coverage (Newton, 1999)-- media consumption (specially newspapers) is strongly associated with political mobilization. Norris (2000) argues that blaming the media is rather deterministic, and that deep-running deficits in the democratic process should be examined as possible causes for political disengagement of citizens. A causality dilemma arises from these debates between the malaise and mobilization schools which is similar to the chicken or egg question: do you first address the deficits in the democratic system and from there you move onto issues concerning institutions that exert power over society (such as media), or do you focus on the periphery and move to the centre, meaning that institutional changes (such as media reform) will bring about changes in the fundamental systems of governance and representation? But before trying to answer this question, what is more important to ask is whether these assessments and analysis of mainstream media in our society (which equally caters to the middle-of-the-road citizens) are taking into consideration non-mainstream communication infrastructures? Maintaining the course of differentiation the last part of this comprehensive exam focuses on the different models of alternative (non-mainstream) communication infrastructure which look beyond the mainstream media and focuses on media that operate on the margins of society, and yet in an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse environments cater to a significant portion of the population: the ethnic media. IV. Differentiated Media Infrastructure: Ethnic Media as a Piece of the Puzzle The aim of this last section is to bring the circle to a full close: I started by arguing in favor of a deconstruction of the democratic project as emancipatory and here I end on the same note by arguing for a differentiated communication infrastructure that looks beyond the mainstream media as the facilitator of civic engagement and political participation. The question of why should we look beyond the mainstream arises immediately. And the answer is simple: To quote Karim (2006), national mass media systems emphasize the concept of the nation-state as the primary and natural form of polity. Going back to the cultural pluralism thesis, many of the policies and provisions under egalitarian approach to citizenship have failed to address the complex nature of generation migration and the identity formations (plural) that comes with it. In response to such deficit, many marginalized groups, including diasporic communities (especially in urban areas), have set up alternative, yet parallel institutions to remedy issues of belonging and alienation. Citizenship rights in a multicultural environment and under the tenets of policies demand provisions to execute and utilize differentiated practices that come in the form of cultural expressions through art works and literatures, organizations and associations, and a sustainable communication infrastructure which bond the communities together. As suggested by the subheading, the purpose of this section is to locate ethnic media on the social mosaic or puzzle. Their role as a differentiated media system (compared to the mainstream media) is in focus here: should ethnic media be regarded as a pro-social institution that integrate those in minority positions into the larger society, thus elevating their social role or are they playing a divisive role by segregating people into culturally and linguistically isolated groups? How do ethnic media define and frame citizenship, civic engagement, and political participation? Are there any differences to be found between ethnic and mainstream media on these questions? If yes, why is it significant to trace and highlight such differences? Ethnic medias role will be approached as an institution which operates according to the criteria for differentiated citizenship and cultural pluralism. In this regard, many of the scholarships in this field also discuss multiculturalism in their address of ethnic media (Bailey & Harindranath, 2006; Georgiou, 2006; & Karim, 2006). Reading List (Core readings in bold) I. Democracy (13 core readings) Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. Clarke, G. & Jennings, M. (Eds.) (2008). Development, civil society and faith-based organizations: Bridging the sacred and the secular. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave-MacMillan. Cunningham, F. (2002). Chapter 2: Problems of democracy. In Theories of democracy: A critical introduction (pp. 15-26). London, UK: Routledge. . (2002). Chapter 3: Liberal democracy. In Theories of democracy: A critical introduction (pp. 27-51).London, UK: Routledge. . (2002). Chapter 4: Liberal democracy and the problems. In Theories of democracy: A critical introduction (pp. 52-72).London, UK: Routledge. . (2002). Chapter 7: Participatory democracy. In Theories of democracy: A critical introduction (pp. 123-142).London, UK: Routledge. . (2002). Chapter 9: Deliberative democracy. In Theories of democracy: A critical introduction (pp. 163-183).London, UK: Routledge. Gastil, J. (2008). Chapter 3: Mediated deliberation and public opinion. In Political communication and deliberation (pp. 43-76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. . (2008). Chapter 8: Deliberative communities and societies. In Political communication and deliberation (pp. 213-248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. . (2008). Chapter 10: Toward a deliberative democracy. In Political communication and deliberation (pp. 281-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Habermas, J. (1998). Chapter 9: Three normative models of democracy. In The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory (pp. 239-252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Held, D. (1996). Models of Democracy. Cambridge; Oxford, UK: Polity Press. Kahraman, H. B. (2005). The cultural and historical foundation of Turkish citizenship: Modernity as Westernazation. In E. Fuat Keyman & Ahmet Iduygu (Eds.), Citizenship in a global world: European questions and Turkish experiences (pp. 70-86). London: Routledge. Kymlicka, W. & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen. Ethics, 104(2), 352-381. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Kymlicka, W. (2007). Ethnocultural diversity in a liberal state: Making sense of the Canadian model(s). In Keith Banting, Thomas J. Courchene and F. Leslie Seidle (Eds.), Belonging? Diversity, recognition and shared citizenship in Canada, (pp. 39-86). Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy. Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A civic idea. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Mouffe, C. (2000). Introduction. In The democratic paradox (pp. 1-16). New York: Verso. . (2000). Conclusion: The ethics of democracy. In The democratic paradox (pp. 129-140). New York: Verso. Saward, M. (2000). A critique of Held. In Barry Holden (Ed.), Global democracy: Key debates (pp. 32-46). London: Routledge. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In Amy Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Walzer, M. (1992). The civil society argument. In Chantal Mouffe (Ed.), Dimensions of radical democracy: Pluralism, citizenship and community, (pp. 89-107). London, UK: Routledge. Walzer, M. (Ed.). (2003). Towards a global civil society. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books. Young, I. M. (1995). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. In R. Beiner, (Ed.), Theorizing citizenship. Albany, N.Y., State University of New York. Young, I. M. (2000). Introduction. In Inclusion and democracy (pp. 1-15). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. . (2000). Chapter 1: Democracy and justice. In Inclusion and democracy (pp. 16-51). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. . (2000). Chapter 2: Inclusive political communication. In Inclusion and democracy (pp. 52-80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. . (2000). Chapter 3: Social difference as a political resource. In Inclusion and democracy (pp. 81-120). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. . (2000). Chapter 5: Civil society and its limits. In Inclusion and democracy (pp. 154-195). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. . (2000). Chapter 6: Residential segregation and regional democracy. In Inclusion and democracy (pp. 196-235). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  II. Public Sphere: Historical and Contemporary Understanding (7 core readings) Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. London, UK: Routledge. Baker, C. Edwin (2001). Media, market, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Eriksen, E. O. (2007). Conceptualizing European public sphere: General, segmented and strong publics. In John Erik Fossum and Philip Schlesinger (Eds.), The European Union and the public sphere: A communicative space in the making? (pp. 23-43). London, UK: Routledge. Ferree, Myra M., Gamson, William A., Gerhards, Jrgen, and Rucht, Dieter (2002). Four model of public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31, 289-324. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In Craig Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marques, M. M. & Santos, R. (2004). Top-down and bottom-up reconsidered: The dynamics of immigrant participation in local civil society. In Rinus Penninx, Karen Kraal, Marco Martiniello, & Steven Vertovec (Eds.), Citizenship in European cities: Immigrants, local politics, and integration policies. Hants, UK: Ashgate. McKee, A. (2005). The public sphere: An introduction. Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. Silverstone, Roger (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Cambridge, UK: Polity.  III. Political Communication (5 core readings) Bennett, W. L. (1998). The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science and Politics, 31, 41-61. Denton, R. E. & Kuypers, J. A. (2008). Chapter 1: Political communication defined. In Political communication in America (pp. 1-20). Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press, Inc. Gamson, W. A. (2001). Promoting political engagement. In W. Lance Bennett & Robert M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 56-74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hart, R. P. (2001). Citizen discourse and political participation: A survey. In W. Lance Bennett & Robert M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 407-432). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L. & Bystrom, D. G. (2005). The role of communication in civic engagement. In Mitchell S. McKinney, Lynda Lee Kaid, Dianne G. Bystrom & Diana B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating politics: Engaging the public in democratic life (pp. 3-26). New York: Peter Lang. McNair, B. (2007). Part I: Politics in the age of mediation. In An introduction to political communication (pp. 1-82). London, UK: Routledge. . (2007). Conclusion: Performance politics and the democratic process. In An introduction to political communication (pp. 200-204). London, UK: Routledge. Newton, K. (1999). Mass media effects: Mobilization or media malaise? British Journal of Political Science, 29, 577-600. Newton, K. (2006). May the weak force be with you: The power of the mass media in modern politics. European Journal of Political Research, 45(2), 209-234. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communication in postindustrial societies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press  IV. Ethnic Media (5 core readings) Bailey, O. G. & Harindranath, R. (2006). Ethnic minorities, cultural difference and the cultural politics of communication. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 2 (3), 299-316. Bailey, O. G. & Georgiou, M. (Eds.). (2007). Transnational lives and the media: Re-imagining diasporas. Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Ball-Rokeach, S.J. , & The Metamorphosis Project Research Team, (2000). The challenge of belonging in the 21st Century: The case of Los Angeles. Metamorphosis Project White Paper. Communication Technology and Community Program, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California. Available at [www.metamorph.org]. Ball-Rokeach, S.J., Kim, Y.C., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28(4), 392-428. Cormack, M. & Hourigan, N. (Eds.) (2007). Minority language media: concepts, critique and case studies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Georgiou, M. and Silverstone, R. (2005) Mapping Minorities and their Media: the national context. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 31 (3): 433-441. Georgiou, M. (2006). Cities of difference: Cultural juxtapositions and urban politics of representation. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 2 (3), 283-298. Karim, K. H. (2002). Public sphere and public sphericules: Civic discourse in ethnic media. In Sherry Devereaux Ferguson and Leslie Regan Shade (Eds.), Civic discourse and cultural politics in Canada (pp. 230-242). Westport, Con: Ablex Publishing. Karim, K. H. (2006). Nation and Diaspora: Rethinking multiculturalism in a transnational context. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 2 (3), 267-282.  Miscellaneous OSullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., Montgomery, M. & Fiske, J. (1997). Key concepts in communication and cultural studies. London: Routledge.  Used to describe polyphonic music with very active and strongly differentiated parts.  The anti-differentiation argument: Arthur Meier Schlesinger, The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society; William J. Bennett, The De-Valuing of America (New York: Summit Books, 1992), Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: Vintage, 1992), and Robert Hughes, Culture of Complaint (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 2 Differentiated Media: ethnic media Mediated Mainstream Public Sphere: political communication, political economy, media malaise, liberal model of media The Public Sphere: Historical and revisionist conceptions Democracy and Citizenship: Liberal, Republican, Deliberative, Differentiated (esp. religion, Islam) *345 = > Q ƺƖzsg_X_PE_hthz CJaJhbCJaJ hthz hthz 5hthY45CJaJ hthY4hthY45CJaJhthY45hth a5hthy0S5CJaJhthI. 5CJ aJ hth5CJ aJ hth| 5CJ aJ hth| 5CJaJhth`L5CJaJhth| 5CJaJhthy0S5CJaJhy0S5CJaJ45t $a$gdY4$a$gd| $a$gd*'!gdY4 = > # $ % _ ` a b  " # c { | gd*'!$a$gd*'! 0^`0gdb`gdz gdz gdY4 $ % _ `    ! " #   4 9FOPf ;N4QnŽѶ|jhth*'!0JU hthJjhth*'!6 hth1 hth*'!hth3fm5hth*'!5 hbh] hthY45hthY45CJaJ hthY4hthz CJaJhbCJaJ hthz hthz 5 hb50| av  !"""#$$d$e$%%%%%8^8gd*'! & F ^gd*'!h^hgd*'! & Fgd*'! d`gd*'!dgd*'!-M""#"+"9"X"a"""#+###%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&Q&&&9'Y'ƹƕƋhth*'!5CJjhth*'!5U-jhth*'!U_HaJmHnHsHtHjhth*'!5Uhth*'!5 hth?D2 hth3fm hth{hth*'!6 hthI"h hth*'! hthD*6%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&P&dgd*'! lgd*'!gd*'!$a$gd*'!P&Q&****111199994@5@M@N@EOPP/R0dh^`0gd1 d`gd*'!d7$8$H$`gd*'! & Fdgd*'!dgd*'!Y'*****++V+q+^0d01144666699G:o:u:v:4@5@M@AAAA)F>FK=KmMuMMNNNOOPR*R.R/Rhth*'!56,hth*'!CJOJPJQJ^JaJnHtH%jhth*'!0JPJUnHtHhth*'!PJnHtH hth*o hthJRF hth hth5 hth?D2hth*'!6hth*'!5 hth*'!1/R0R[bhlllluxxxx{{{{h d7$8$H$gd'ydgd'yLd]L`gd Ld]Lgd*'!dgd*'!/R0RVVWXXYZZ [[4[;[G\U\`}`mdnd3f4fhhhijjlllm:mfqgqqqqqsstttt^u_unuuuZv hth'y hthhthM6 hth;A hthM hth2_hth15 hth hth hth3fmhth*'!6hth*'!56hth*'!5hth*'!H* hth*'! hth12Zvwvxvvvwwxxxxx{{5=Yz̃Ѓׇ͇̇҇Ɋӊ k7DJRVZ]`ijs{띑hth*'!5CJaJhth%5CJaJ hth 3 hth7I hth. hthP hthR? hth1hth*'!5hth15hth*'!6 hth*'! hth'y hth`3hVkl7D\]}~07$8$H$^`0gd*'! 0^`0gd*'!gd*'!$a$gd*'!dgdW d1$7$8$H$gd*'!dgd*'! d`gd*'!d1$7$8$H$`gd*'!җ"78d$HJK}ҚӚԚ֚ך7]_`ԛIr AB9:؞"DEg~ооооооооооозооооаhth*'!0Jhth*'!6 hth`L hth*'!hth*'!56hth`L5hth*'!5)hth*'!56PJ]^JaJnHtH#hth*'!5PJ^JaJnHtH=78JK֚ך_`AB9:DE 0^`0gd*'!~ɟנ/Omnǡȡ23Zq-ghiĽĜĦĜĦĜĒĜĈĜĈ||shth`LaJhth*'!56aJhth*'!5aJhth`L5aJhth*'!56hth`L5hth*'!6 hth*'! hth`Lhth*'!5hth*'!0J56hth*'!0J5hth`L0J5hth*'!0Jhth*'!0J6)mnǡȡ23hi}~;<)*@Aħ01$7$8$H$^`0gd*'! 0^`0gd*'!8X}~:;<bzݥ)*f~ @Axħŧ&Z[\^bӾ|pi hthGhth*'!5CJaJhth%5CJaJj8hth*'!5Uhth*'!6 hth`Lhth*'!56hth*'!5hth`L5 hth*'!hth*'!6PJnHtHhth*'!PJnHtHhth`LPJnHtHhth*'!6aJhth*'!aJ(ħŧZ[]^,-BCFG 0^`0gd%gdG 0^`0gdU 0^`0gdGgd*'! 0^`0gd*'!Ĩ,-Ec)x 4ABC˫+ܬ2FGY}ƾ궡xpdXhth*'!5mH sH hthTo^5mH sH hthG5&hthUCJOJQJ\]^JaJ)hthU6CJOJQJ\]^JaJ)hthG6CJOJQJ\]^JaJhth`L5hthu5hthu56hthYM5hthTo^5hth*'!56hth*'!5 hth*'! hthF"ҭ %<=EMOQݮCe;rs+de^ĸбssiiibZZhth*'!6 hthTo^hth*'!56&hth*'!56CJOJQJ^JaJ#hth*'!5CJOJQJ^JaJ hth*'!CJOJQJ^JaJ hthF hth*'!hth*'!5CJaJhth%5CJaJhth*'!5jhth*'!5Uhth%56hth%5hthTo^5# OPQrsde*+ǴȴMN 0^`0gd*'! l^`lgd*'!gd*'!gd*'!IJ_*+Ǵȴ۴#LMNOQUabjrt'8fνwpdhth*'!0J56 hthQ)hth*'!5CJaJhth%5CJaJjphth*'!5Uhth*'!6 hthTo^#hth*'!6CJOJQJ^JaJ hth*'!CJOJQJ^JaJ hthTo^CJOJQJ^JaJhth*'!56hth*'!5hthTo^5 hth*'!#NPQtu8ɶʶNOACDgd`L 0^`0gd`L01$7$8$H$^`0gd*'! 1$7$8$H$gd`Lgd*'! 0^`0gd*'!fɶʶ)MNOٹV6f0ABCDQSռսΚνΒsldνhth'5 hth`Lj hth*'!5Uhth*'!56hth*'!5hthTo^5 hthTo^hth*'!6aJhth*'!aJhthTo^aJhth*'!6hth*'!0J hth*'!hth*'!0J6hthTo^0J6hth*'!0J56hth*'!0J5'DRSDEFԾվ־ؾپ۾ܾ޾߾$a$gd*'!gd*'!gd*'! 0^`0gd*'!gd`LFGHNdmstȽʽ߽)dҾӾԾվɸr^^^J&hXyhG5CJOJQJ\^JaJ&hXyhG5CJOJQJ]^JaJhG5CJOJQJ^JaJ#hXyhG5CJOJQJ^JaJ&hXyhG56CJOJQJ^JaJ hG56CJOJQJ^JaJ hXyhGCJOJQJ^JaJ-jhXyhG0JCJOJQJU^JaJhGjhG0JU h{=h*'! heU;h*'!h*'!վ־׾پھܾݾ߾'(Mٿڿۿ?ABCȿ۸۸ۨۤ h{=h*'!h*'!hg{hG5CJ hGCJ hG5CJhp;hGCJhp;hG5CJhg{hGCJhGhmHnHuhtjhtUjh%Uh%#'(ڿۿ?@ABC$a$gd*'!5 01h:pt/ =!"#$% Dd$<P  3 3"((Dd$<P  3 3"((Dd$<P  3 3"((Dd$<P  3 3"((Dd$<P  3 3"((Dd$<P  3 3"((^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH RR #( Heading 1dd@&[$\$5CJ0KH$\aJ0\@\ Xy Heading 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJDA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List e@ #HTML Preformatted7 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@9CJOJQJ^JaJ>@> Xy Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@ XyFootnote ReferenceH*0a@!0 p; HTML Cite6]0O10 p; ct-with-fmlt$L$ y0SDate4@R4 t0Header  H$6/a6 t0 Header CharCJaJ4 r4 t0Footer  H$6/6 t0 Footer CharCJaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] FCZ'@C(0.,*'@CC! *****- Y'/RZv~fվCadfiklnprtuwy{| | %P&/RhħNDCbceghjmoqsvxz} $&-!@  11@  0j( mmstloob V ( #  "? 6 ) "?V * # "? VB + C D"?V , # "? VB - C D"?\ . 3 ."? VB / C D"?\ 0 3 0"? B S  ?H0(  C)h<$t*$ lt+8!t, `0t-t. Ht/ Pt0,Ht(m\ thDchh,]hhhhDhhhhhhThhUh4VhtVhVhFhGhDGhGhGhh,hlhhh(h(h<)h|)h)h)h·h÷h ķhLŷhƷhǷh*ȷh +ɷhL+ʷh+˷h+̷h ,ͷhL,ηh̊Ϸh зhLѷhҷh̋ӷh ԷhLշhbַhDb׷hbطhcٷhbڷht۷h,Pܷh\(ݷhh4?ht@hAhBh4ChtDhEhFh4GhtHhIhJh4KhtLhMhNh4OhtPhtQhRhSh4ThtUhVhWh4XhtYhZh[h4\ht]h^h_h4`htahbhch4dhtehfhgh4hhtihjhkh4lhtmhnhoh4phtqhrhsh4thtuhvhwh4xhtyhzh{h4|ht}h~hh4hthhh4hthhh4hthhrr|CNCNNNNNPQsYsYZZ%[%[.[.[x[x[^^^^^^lluu}}ԏԏޏޏ'88’’MM*ѕѕܕ&//ɗɗїϘϘOOZ!!;;FLLVXXbb##1C #''.55=AAHccnrr|229^^rr~HHRVV`::DHHReekk++##.22<NNүү))3__uu~~մմD      !"#$&%')(*,+-./012345768:9;=<>@?ABCEDFGHJIKLMNOQPRSTUVWXZY[]\^`_abcdefhgikjlmonprqsutvxwy{z|~}x ININUNUNPQzYzYZZ)[)[9[9[~[~[^^^^__lluu}}ݏݏ%))::ĒĒOO(,,ڕޕޕ$((55ϗӗӗ՘՘X\\))DJJU`` ``hh-99E !%%-88;??GRRlpp{7;;ee|PTT_jjBFFQ\\mmss11,00;FFYYܯ155ee}}۴۴D  !"#$&%')(*,+-./012345768:9;=<>@?ABCEDFGHJIKLMNOQPRSTUVWXZY[]\^`_abcdefhgikjlmonprqsutvxwy{z|~}8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNameB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace  2008279DayMonthYear ##+ +++R+^+2255f7l7==GHLLNMTMQQTT(V0V}YYYYeengygRm\mn&nrrrruu{{}} ԏ`f:B–ǖȖϖ Y`lu"nt39jr ɢˢѢעܢ+ˤӤ=Dlsvzϰװ)1  'ֶֶضضٶٶ۶ܶ޶߶D D//11GGYYYZmmsstuwwԄBNݏ!FEfȗ. 3EFYÚߚi{|/8?~<PQ^_ڝcu 4àĠEbV@qϧeɩ,\uG]fsۮޮ[}~OٱtSԴCֶֶضضٶٶ۶ܶ޶߶D33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333335$%b#""))1158N8"^_^ss78aKzג`s BWѕ:REg/OmnǙ!23FÚ;hi|0~<Qڝ)*cADşȟ5[,-E ABCGY}ҥs:dkī+>Ȭ۬#N8Gɮ)NuAQSֶֶضضٶٶ۶ܶ޶߶&D$%ֶֶضضٶٶ۶ܶ޶߶D HQ"8*| ( 66E6w96H7l&bB/]Uڳ6Gl e<~m\vzB~v:(xh ^`5hH)h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.0^`0o(. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`o(hH) ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.4^`4o() ^`hH.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h pp^p`hH.h @ L@ ^@ `LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h PP^P`hH.h  L ^ `LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.0^`0o(.h 88^8`o(hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.0^`0o(. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.0^`0o(. 88^8`hH. L^`LhH.   ^ `hH.   ^ `hH. xLx^x`LhH. HH^H`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. \vz"86w96<~mB~]&bB( 6HQ6GlH7 B0        v                          `,K                          \        zzZI        9&f        g,MLI. ] YM'mJQ)bz A8UP`*'!Z! '~q'D*U+?D2M3Y4R?JRF8Ly0STo^$c,cI"hJj89m3fmu#uCet| a} 3Z%2_G5-;27I`H%M.%'yF- Gv,{[ a*o1;A`LW5@C@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * ArialW BatangArial Unicode MS_ Times-RomanTimes New Romana Times-ItalicTimes New Roman?= * Courier NewA BCambria Math"1h fFkFN\H\Hx4d 2qHP ?^=2!xxPolitical Communication:Behrang Daniel Ahadi8         Oh+'0  $0 P \ h tPolitical Communication:Behrang Normal.dotm Daniel Ahadi164Microsoft Office Word@T@ba =#@?@aQ#՜.+,0 hp|  H\ Political Communication: Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FkQ#Data 1TableuWordDocument7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q