This research shows how face masks took on discursive political significance during the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States. The authors argue that political divisions over masks cannot be understood by looking to partisan differences in mask-wearing behaviors alone. Instead, they show how the mask became a political symbol enrolled into patterns of affective polarization. This study relies on qualitative and computational analyses of opinion articles ( n = 7,970) and supplemental analyses of Twitter data, the transcripts of major news networks, and longitudinal survey data. First, the authors show that antimask discourse was consistently marginal and that backlash against mask refusal came to prominence and did not decline even as masking behaviors normalized and partly depolarized. Second, they show that backlash against mask refusal, rather than mask refusal itself, was the primary way masks were discussed in relation to national electoral, governmental, and partisan themes.

This research shows how face masks became politicized during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. While differences in mask wearing behaviors between liberals and conservatives declined over the course of the pandemic, masks remained controversial in the American public sphere. We argue that political divisions over masks cannot be understood by looking to partisan differences in mask wearing behaviors alone. Instead, we show how the mask became a political symbol enrolled into larger patterns of affective polarization, defined by animosity toward the opposing party. This study relies primarily on a combination of qualitative coding and computational text analysis of a large corpus of opinion articles published during the first 10 months of 2020 (n = 7,970). It also relies on supplemental analyses of social media data (from Twitter), the transcripts of major news networks, and longitudinal survey data. We show that backlash against mask refusal—rather than mask refusal itself—was the primary way that masks took on political significance in the American public sphere. Anti-mask discourse consistently occupied a marginal role in the public sphere, while backlash against mask refusal came to prominence and did not decline even as mask wearing behaviors normalized and partly depolarized. We argue that the mask refusal backlash discourse appealed primarily to liberals and show that it was particularly resonant with national political discourses. Beyond the case, this research demonstrates how to use media data to understand how a new set of issues and objects becomes integrated into broader patterns of political polarization.

No abstract

Should you help a wild rabbit fleeing a wall of flame? What is our responsibility to wildlife affected by wildfire? This paper focuses on two cases of ad hoc public aid to wildlife that occurred during California's 2017 'Thomas Fire' and were subsequently popularised online. We take the discourse surrounding these cases - specifically, a viral video of a man removing a wild rabbit from the fire's flames and the widespread call to leave out buckets of water for displaced animals - as an invitation to engage in broader ethical and theoretical discussion about our individual relationships to wild animals during the age of ecological crisis termed the Anthropocene. Through this case analysis, we identify emerging tensions between what we call 'interventionist' and 'anti-interventionist' positions and assert that, while anti-interventionist positions are generally framed in rational, empirical or technocratic terms, a full consideration of already-existing human entanglements with the natural world troubles this frame. We conclude that the Anthropocene presents unique circumstances that give substantial support to the interventionist position; at the same time, we continue to uphold the value of key critiques present in the anti-interventionist argument, which might yet help to shape the most effective form of human aid to wild animals and alleviate problems of ecological sustainability, more broadly.

No abstract

This article analyzes the tension between the built and intrinsic elements that constitute Santa Barbara, California, as a place, by investigating two related questions: How is Santa Barbarans’ sense of place impacted by citywide cultural preferences for a specific plant aesthetic? and How have recent drought conditions affected that plant aesthetic, and its population’s cultural relationship to nature and the environment? The analysis focuses primarily on two key informant interviews, with Madeline Ward, the city’s water conservation coordinator, and Timothy Downey, the city arborist, and is further supported by ethnographic field notes. I argue that the California drought has brought parallel changes to both the city’s physical appearance and its residents’ aesthetic preferences regarding plants. This has further prompted changes to popular conceptions of Santa Barbara as a place, stemming from residents’ desire for an aesthetic that is better in tune with the ecological conditions of the area.

No abstract

In 2019, Los Angeles, California's City Hall was reported to be infested with rats. LA's pest control contractor later drew a link between this rat problem and nearby encampments of unhoused residents. I use these connected cases of homelessness and rat control in Los Angeles to investigate the spatial and symbolic logics that guide urban social processes. Using computational and qualitative text analysis, interviews, and participant observation, I argue that rats and homelessness are issues tied to the proper place of nature in cities. While urban nature is central to the aspirational goals of urbanization, where institutions craft a desirable, recognizably urban life, I argue that managing it means not just introducing "good" nature (parks, street trees, etc.) to cities, but also keeping "bad" nature at bay. Practically, this entails guarding public faith in the boundary between "indoors" and "outdoors." Homelessness and rat infestations present challenges to this goal because they represent inverse spatial transgressions of the indoors/outdoors divide. Rats bring the outdoors inside, compromising safety and security. Homeless encampments, meanwhile, represent domestic, indoor life spilling over into the outdoors. City institutions materially maintain the indoors/outdoors divide and symbolically attend to it by removing meaningful indications of these spatial transgressions.