Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James K. Rowe, Associate Professor of Political Ecology, University of Victoria

United States President Donald Trump has apparently dodged yet another bullet.

If history is any indication, the latest alleged attempt on his life at the White House Correspondents dinner couldn’t have happened at a better time given his sagging popularity. But amid widespread skepticism and the Trump team’s efforts to promote the construction of a White House ballroom in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it’s far from clear whether this incident will benefit the president.

Assassination attempts often make elected politicians more popular. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in the same Washington Hilton Hotel that was the site of Trump’s latest assassination attempt. Reagan’s approval ratings jumped after he survived the attack.

Why does political violence help bolster approval ratings?

The obvious answer is that being subject to violence can humanize victims, softening criticism from supporters and critics alike.

The less obvious reason is that dodging or surviving bullets can super-humanize politicians, making them seem “touched” by God or like they have command over the vital powers of life and death.

Trump as superhero

When Trump lifted his fist in defiance, a trickle of blood on his face in Butler, Pa., a few months before the 2024 presidential election, he created an iconic image that bolstered his campaign and created a myth of invincibility.

This is the same man who claimed in 2016 that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and…wouldn’t lose any voters.” Despite two impeachments, convictions on 34 felony charges, an admission of sexual assault on a hot microphone and multiple assault allegations, Trump was re-elected in 2024. Where others might have whithered, his forward march continued.

---

Read more:
Ego, hubris and narcissism: Where Donald Trump ranks among the other 45 American presidents

---

While Trump once claimed the ability to shoot people in downtown Manhattan and survive politically, the Butler shooting gave the impression that he himself could also be shot without losing his life, that he isn’t subject to normal vulnerabilities and that he is somehow superhuman. Trump himself has cited divine intervention as key to his ongoing survival despite multiple assassination attempts.

Terror management

Terror management theory (TMT) is a school of psychology that tracks how our relationships to life and death shape political outcomes.

According to TMT, we cope with our anxieties about death by pursuing “earthly heroism” — meaning we seek esteem according to our chosen world views. There is a growing body of experimental evidence to support this hypothesis.

Trump is walking confirmation of TMT.

He is a known germaphobe obsessed with perceptions of vitality. He obsesses over his hair since he sees baldness as weakness and defeat. By ruthlessly pursuing money — the measure of worth in capitalist economies — and by stamping his name on everything from buildings, vodka and Bibles, he has sought heroism. Even before he ran for president, you could buy a Trump-branded action figure.

According to American anthropologist Ernest Becker, whose Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death laid the intellectual groundwork for TMT:

“The real world …tells man that he is a small trembling animal who will decay and die. Illusion changes all this, makes man seem important, vital to the universe, immortal in some way.”

From his fixation on gold, grandiosity and golden locks despite his age, Trump is a master of illusion, crafting a mirage of super heroism for his MAGA base.

Heroism can also be pursued vicariously. This is something many of us do with our preferred sport teams, celebrities and politicians, feeling their victories and losses like our own.

Good timing?

Trump’s victory over death in Butler two years ago — an incident that is now being questioned even by his MAGA supporters — helped carry him across the finish line. His chief of staff, Susie Wiles, said Butler was a “big part” of his victory in 2024.

And so what to make of the recent apparent attempt on his life? Will it help resuscitate his historically low approval ratings?

---

Read more:
Donald Trump’s US ratings fall to a record low amid Iran war

---

In crass political terms, historical precedent suggests the assassination attempt couldn’t have happened at a better time. Tarred by his association with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and prosecuting an unpopular war of choice against Iran that is costing billions while raising gas prices for voters, Trump needed a lifeline.

The timing is so good for him that conspiracy theories immediately began to swirl that the attack was an inside job aimed at bolstering Trump’s slumping approval ratings.

Avoiding political death?

It is unlikely, however, that this recent incident will stave off political death. After the political failures of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Epstein files and a risky war with no clear exit, Trump is politically weakened.

---

Read more:
Panicking scientists, canceled experiments – federal funding cuts turned my work as a research dean into crisis management

---

Influential members of his own base, including former Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, are no longer lionizing him, instead musing whether he might be the anti-Christ.

Images from the recent shooting suggest weakness, not vitality. Secret service agents struggled to get him out of his seat likely due to ongoing mobility issues (though Trump claims his sluggishness was due to courageously overseeing the action).

Likewise, instead of lifting his fist triumphantly like in Butler, Trump fell down as he was rushed off stage (again, he claims he was told to get down, but his exit looks weak).

While his team will spin the latest shooting as further evidence of his super humanity, Trump is looking more politically and existentially mortal by the day.

Trump had his time in the sun, but like Icarus, his hubris and overreach are finally melting his wings. While illusion can obscure the inevitable for a while, what goes up must always come down.

James K. Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Another alleged attempt on Trump’s life: A political lifeline or a damaging display of weakness? – https://theconversation.com/another-alleged-attempt-on-trumps-life-a-political-lifeline-or-a-damaging-display-of-weakness-281675

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christy Zhou Koval, Professor, Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Ontario

Most people know about the glass ceiling: the invisible barrier that keeps women from reaching top leadership positions. Researchers have also identified the glass cliff, where women are placed in leadership roles during times of crisis, and the glass escalator, where men in female-dominated fields get fast-tracked into management.

These concepts all assume careers move up. Increasingly, however, they do not. More people are building careers sideways — taking on extra gigs, branching into new skill areas or negotiating customized roles within their organizations. We call this lateral work.

As companies flatten their hierarchies and organize around project-based work, lateral moves have become the new career ladder. According to Statistics Canada, roughly 2.4 million Canadians — nearly nine per cent of the working-age population — engaged in some form of gig work in 2022.

This is especially true for freelancers, who must constantly seek out new clients and new income streams to advance. For women, advancing this way comes with added challenges. Our research shows that they hit a different kind of invisible barrier — the “glass wall.”

The freelancing catch-22

Freelancers face a well-documented dilemma: you need experience to get hired, but you need to get hired to gain experience.

The standard advice is to start as a specialist, build a reputation, then gradually branch out into new areas of work. A songwriter may focus on specializing in writing top lines but later take on writing lyrics. A cinematographer might move into production design. This kind of lateral expansion is meant to signal ambition and versatility.

In our research, we tested whether this advice works equally for men and women by tracking the careers of more than 8,000 K-pop songwriters.

When men expanded into new work roles, they were seen as strategic and ambitious, and their career prospects improved. But when women made the exact same move, they were perceived as less in control of their careers, and their prospects did not improve. This is the glass wall in action: the invisible barrier that limits women’s career opportunities when they try to expand into new roles.

In two follow-up experiments with participants from South Korea and the United States, we found that these patterns stem from gender stereotypes about agency. Agency — the sense that a person is acting deliberately and on their own terms — is a trait that is historically associated with men more than women.

Men’s lateral moves are read as deliberate career moves, while women’s are read as reactions to circumstance — signs they are impulsive, accommodating or that they failed in their original role. That gap in perceived agency, in turn, lowers how competent and committed women are seen to be.

Not just a freelancing problem

Although we identified the glass wall in freelancing, the dynamic almost certainly extends into conventional workplaces as well. The modern workplace increasingly expects employees to manage their own career trajectories.

Employees are expected to negotiate customized work arrangements, take on responsibilities outside their original job descriptions and signal their versatility through lateral moves.

In all of these cases, workers are doing something similar to the role expansion we studied: branching into new areas under conditions of ambiguity, where it is hard for others to evaluate their competence upfront.

Our theory predicts that in these situations — where workers have autonomy and evaluations are uncertain — gender stereotypes can creep in.

The presence of a glass wall matters now more than ever. The McKinsey Women in the Workplace report found that up to 19 per cent of organizations have scaled back flexible work options and up to 17 per cent have reduced diversity and inclusion resources.

The pay data tells a similar story. Statistics Canada data from 2025 shows that women aged 15 and older earned 88 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the gap is wider still for racialized and Indigenous women. In the United States, women now earn 82 cents per dollar.

Among freelancers, the gap is larger still. A 2024 analysis found that women quote approximately 10 per cent lower hourly rates than men. With fewer structures governing how lateral moves are evaluated, gender stereotypes are more likely to shape who gets the next opportunity.

What can be done

Addressing the glass wall requires action on several fronts. Most companies track whether men and women are promoted at equal rates. However, few track what happens when employees move sideways. Auditing lateral move outcomes by gender would be a practical first step.

For clients and hiring managers, the glass wall represents a missed opportunity. Women with multiple skill sets are, in effect, an undervalued talent pool; they are likely to be discounted not because of ability, but because of bias.

Freelancers themselves can take steps too. In our interviews with K-pop songwriters, several women told us that presenting under an incorporated business name, rather than their personal name, helped redirect clients’ attention from gender cues to their portfolio alone. This small shift can change the frame substantially.

Finally, for policymakers, accredited certification schemes for skill expansion could help all freelancers, especially women, to credibly signal their investment in new roles. When credentials carry real weight, evaluators have less reason to fall back on gut feelings shaped by stereotypes.

The rise of freelancing and flexible work was supposed to free people from the biases embedded in corporate bureaucracy. Research on gender stereotypes has long suggested that bias does not disappear when formal structures are removed, but rather expands into the space left behind. Our findings bear that out.

As careers become more fluid and self-directed, we need to pay attention not just to who gets promoted, but to who gets credit for growing sideways. The glass wall may be invisible, but its consequences are not.

Yonghoon Lee received funding from Hong Kong Research Grants Council (ECS:26504918), which was completed on 2021

Christy Zhou Koval and Susie Lee do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Women who expand their freelance careers hit a different kind of glass ceiling — the glass wall – https://theconversation.com/women-who-expand-their-freelance-careers-hit-a-different-kind-of-glass-ceiling-the-glass-wall-280416

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James K. Rowe, Associate Professor of Political Ecology, University of Victoria

United States President Donald Trump has apparently dodged yet another bullet.

If history is any indication, the latest alleged attempt on his life at the White House Correspondents dinner couldn’t have happened at a better time given his sagging popularity. But amid widespread skepticism and the Trump team’s efforts to promote the construction of a White House ballroom in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it’s far from clear whether this incident will benefit the president.

Assassination attempts often make elected politicians more popular. In 1981, Ronald Reagan was shot in the same Washington Hilton Hotel that was the site of Trump’s latest assassination attempt. Reagan’s approval ratings jumped after he survived the attack.

Why does political violence help bolster approval ratings?

The obvious answer is that being subject to violence can humanize victims, softening criticism from supporters and critics alike.

The less obvious reason is that dodging or surviving bullets can super-humanize politicians, making them seem “touched” by God or like they have command over the vital powers of life and death.

Trump as superhero

When Trump lifted his fist in defiance, a trickle of blood on his face in Butler, Pa., a few months before the 2024 presidential election, he created an iconic image that bolstered his campaign and created a myth of invincibility.

This is the same man who claimed in 2016 that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and…wouldn’t lose any voters.” Despite two impeachments, convictions on 34 felony charges, an admission of sexual assault on a hot microphone and multiple assault allegations, Trump was re-elected in 2024. Where others might have whithered, his forward march continued.

While Trump once claimed the ability to shoot people in downtown Manhattan and survive politically, the Butler shooting gave the impression that he himself could also be shot without losing his life, that he isn’t subject to normal vulnerabilities and that he is somehow superhuman. Trump himself has cited divine intervention as key to his ongoing survival despite multiple assassination attempts.

Terror management

Terror management theory (TMT) is a school of psychology that tracks how our relationships to life and death shape political outcomes.

According to TMT, we cope with our anxieties about death by pursuing “earthly heroism” — meaning we seek esteem according to our chosen world views. There is a growing body of experimental evidence to support this hypothesis.

Trump is walking confirmation of TMT.

He is a known germaphobe obsessed with perceptions of vitality. He obsesses over his hair since he sees baldness as weakness and defeat. By ruthlessly pursuing money — the measure of worth in capitalist economies — and by stamping his name on everything from buildings, vodka and Bibles, he has sought heroism. Even before he ran for president, you could buy a Trump-branded action figure.

According to American anthropologist Ernest Becker, whose Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death laid the intellectual groundwork for TMT:

“The real world …tells man that he is a small trembling animal who will decay and die. Illusion changes all this, makes man seem important, vital to the universe, immortal in some way.”

From his fixation on gold, grandiosity and golden locks despite his age, Trump is a master of illusion, crafting a mirage of super heroism for his MAGA base.

Heroism can also be pursued vicariously. This is something many of us do with our preferred sport teams, celebrities and politicians, feeling their victories and losses like our own.

Good timing?

Trump’s victory over death in Butler two years ago — an incident that is now being questioned even by his MAGA supporters — helped carry him across the finish line. His chief of staff, Susie Wiles, said Butler was a “big part” of his victory in 2024.

And so what to make of the recent apparent attempt on his life? Will it help resuscitate his historically low approval ratings?

---

Read more:
Donald Trump’s US ratings fall to a record low amid Iran war

---

In crass political terms, historical precedent suggests the assassination attempt couldn’t have happened at a better time. Tarred by his association with deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and prosecuting an unpopular war of choice against Iran that is costing billions while raising gas prices for voters, Trump needed a lifeline.

The timing is so good for him that conspiracy theories immediately began to swirl that the attack was an inside job aimed at bolstering Trump’s slumping approval ratings.

Avoiding political death?

It is unlikely, however, that this recent incident will stave off political death. After the political failures of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Epstein files and a risky war with no clear exit, Trump is politically weakened.

---

Read more:
Panicking scientists, canceled experiments – federal funding cuts turned my work as a research dean into crisis management

---

Influential members of his own base, including former Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, are no longer lionizing him, instead musing whether he might be the anti-Christ.

Images from the recent shooting suggest weakness, not vitality. Secret service agents struggled to get him out of his seat likely due to ongoing mobility issues (though Trump claims his sluggishness was due to courageously overseeing the action).

Likewise, instead of lifting his fist triumphantly like in Butler, Trump fell down as he was rushed off stage (again, he claims he was told to get down, but his exit looks weak).

While his team will spin the latest shooting as further evidence of his super humanity, Trump is looking more politically and existentially mortal by the day.

Trump had his time in the sun, but like Icarus, his hubris and overreach are finally melting his wings. While illusion can obscure the inevitable for a while, what goes up must always come down.

James K. Rowe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Another alleged attempt on Trump’s life: Is it a political lifeline or a damaging sign of weakness? – https://theconversation.com/another-alleged-attempt-on-trumps-life-is-it-a-political-lifeline-or-a-damaging-sign-of-weakness-281675

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Emily Huddart, Professor of Sociology, University of British Columbia

Climate change has become entangled in partisan politics. In Canada, as in other countries, climate concern and support for climate policy are often coded as left-leaning positions. Meanwhile, climate change skepticism or denial is more likely to be espoused by those on the political right.

This pattern helps explain why those on the political left are consistently more likely than those on the right to accept climate science and support action to address climate change. But how big a gap is there between the left and the right in Canada? And what explains differences in levels of support for climate policy?

Our recent representative survey of Canadians, conducted in the summer of 2024, set out to answer these questions. Using a telephone survey, we gathered responses from 2,503 Canadians across the country.

We asked about their support for climate policies, their feelings about ordinary people on the left and the right, as well as their political ideology, where they live, and whether they had economic ties to the oil and gas industry.

We also examined how people feel about political groups. Political scientists refer to this feeling as affective polarization — the extent to which people feel warmth toward their own political side and hostility toward the other.

We focused our analysis on the political right. Respondents identifying as politically left-leaning showed consistently high support for climate policy, leaving little variation to explain. Those on the right expressed a wider range of views. Contrary to common assumptions, we found that more people on the right supported climate policy than opposed it. The next question is what explains the differences within the right.

Affective polarization

A commonly cited explanation for different levels of support for climate policy is economic self-interest. This factor is particularly relevant for provinces like Alberta, where the oil and gas sector plays a major role in employment and government revenue. Qualitative researchers have argued that people with ties to this industry are less likely to support climate policy.

However, we found that having ties to the oil and gas sector did not significantly predict their support for climate policy. Likewise, the degree of conservatism — whether someone identified as centre-right or far-right — didn’t make conservatives less likely to support climate policy either.

There were modest regional differences. Respondents in the Prairie provinces expressed somewhat lower levels of support compared with those in Atlantic Canada and Québec. However, region explained only a small portion of the variation within the political right.

What mattered most was affective polarization.

Negative feelings toward the left and positive feelings toward the right were by far the strongest predictors of climate policy attitudes, and explained the most variation in support.

In simple terms, people on the right who felt the most hostility toward the left, and the most warmth toward the right, were more likely to oppose climate policy.

Implications for climate change politics

These findings have important implications for how climate conversations unfold in Canada.

Avoiding political discussion with people on the opposing side of the issue may be counterproductive. Many people steer clear of contentious topics in everyday conversation, especially with those they disagree with.

At the same time, social media environments often reinforce existing views by connecting people with like-minded others. The result is fewer opportunities for meaningful exchange across political divides.

Such exchanges can help reduce polarization, but only under certain conditions.

When discussions are framed as attempts to persuade or “win,” they often entrench existing positions. When they are approached as opportunities to understand another person’s perspective, they can reduce hostility and open space for dialogue.

People rarely change their views in response to arguments alone. Instead, attitudes are shaped over time through relationships, experiences and social context. Conversations that build trust and mutual understanding are more likely to shift perspectives than those focused on delivering facts.

If opposition to climate policy is rooted in social and political identity, then strategies for building support need to reflect that reality. This doesn’t mean abandoning efforts to implement climate policies. It suggests that building broader support for climate action will require engaging people across political lines in ways that reduce, rather than heighten, partisan divisions.

In real terms, this will mean finding core needs that Canadians have in common and seeking policies that can have climate benefits while meeting those core needs.

Climate change is a complex and urgent challenge. Addressing it will require not only technological and policy solutions, but also social ones. Creating space for constructive, respectful conversations across political differences may be one of the most important and overlooked parts of that effort.

Emily Huddart receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to conduct this research.

Tony Silva received funding (as co-applicant) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to conduct this research.

– ref. Climate policy isn’t partisan — research suggests more on the right support it than oppose it – https://theconversation.com/climate-policy-isnt-partisan-research-suggests-more-on-the-right-support-it-than-oppose-it-280912