Audience Engagement on Twitter: The Rijneveld Translation Controversy
Laura Gurwin
Master of Art: Media and Communication: Culture, Collaborative Media, and Creative Industries Master’s Thesis, One-year Master | 15 Credits | Year: 2021 Supervisor: Signe Ivask Examiner: Alessandro Nani Examination date: June 1, 2021 Grade Awarded: A Word count: 14,686 ABSTRACT
Much research exists on cancel culture and cultural gatekeeping. However, there is little research on more recent examples of cancel culture stemming from the Netherlands. The current study sought to examine how active Twitter users have responded to what I have titled, the Rijneveld translation controversy on Twitter. This controversy involves questions of racism or reverse racism after a Dutch White translator, Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, reversed their decision to translate works of the African-American writer, Amanda Gorman after receiving much backlash from the public. This was followed by debates on Twitter causing an uproar. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the different issue- frames tweeted about by active Twitter users through a qualitative content analysis. In order to inquire into the opinions addressed at various stages of the controversy, tweets were collected over the course of three different time periods. A general observation was that a majority of Twitter users were upset by the pushback Rijneveld received and even regarded the situation as an example of “reverse racism” and radical wokeism. Moreover, several different actors/stakeholders were targeted or “called-out” by the “Twitter mob,” including the Dutch journalist, Janice Deul who led part of the pushback against Rijneveld. These issues are substantially less about the art and craft of translation and reflect a broader societal issue that Twitter users felt a need to address through this controversy.
Keywords: Qualitative Content Analysis, Twitter, Cancel Culture, Wokeism, Reverse Racism, Scandal, Public Opinion
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...... 2
Table of Contents ...... 3
List of Figures ...... 5
List of Tables ...... 5
List of Diagrams ...... 5
1. Introduction ...... 6
2. Context ...... 9
2.1 Black Lives Matter Protests and Dutch Colonial History ...... 10
2.2 Twitter Affordances ...... 12
2.3 Twitter Use in the Netherlands ...... 15
3. Previous Research ...... 15
3.1 Twitter: Audiences, Engagement & Counter-Public Narratives ...... 16
3.2 Cancel Culture & Cultural Gatekeeping ...... 18
4. Theoretical framework ...... 22
5. Methods ...... 26
4.1 Content Analysis ...... 26
4.2 Data Collection & Sampling Method ...... 28
4.3 Developing a Codebook ...... 31
4.4 Research Paradigms ...... 32
4.5 Ethical Considerations ...... 34
3 5. Analysis of Results & Key Findings ...... 36
5.1 First period: Rijneveld first announces the translations job ...... 38
5.3 Second Period: Rijneveld reverses their decision ...... 40
5.4 Third Period: one month later ...... 43
5.5 Status Dissonance Theory ...... 45
5.6 Trivialization Theory ...... 47
5.6 Scandal-reform cycle & Social Theory of Scandal ...... 48
6. Concluding Discussion ...... 51
References ...... 56
Appendix: Codebook ...... 68
4 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions (Over the Course of All Three Periods) Figure 2. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between February 23rd – 25th Figure 3. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between February 26th– 28th Figure 4. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between March 23rd – May 3rd
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of Data Extraction Periods, their Corresponding Events and Sample Size Table 2. Coding Process
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1. “Ingredients of basic scandal” and “Some elements of more complex scandals” (Thompson, 2005) Diagram 2. “Scandal-Reform Cycle” (Sass & Crosbie, 2013) Diagram 3. A Re-modeled Scandal-Reform Cycle based off of diagrams by Sass and Crosbie (2013) and Thompson (2005) Diagram 4. Re-modeled scandal-reform cycle applied to Rijneveld controversy
5 1. INTRODUCTION
The young African-American writer, and activist Amanda Gorman wrote the renowned poem The Hill We Climb which she recited at Joseph Biden's 2021 presidential inauguration ceremony. This poem was written specifically for this event, with the message of unity and progress concerning social justice and division in the United States (Gorman, 2021). The poem refers to a hill that symbolizes the current political and racial climate of the nation. It will take time to reach the top of the hill, meaning that establishing unity among people will be challenging. However, it is by no means unachievable (Poll, 2021). Moreover, she asks readers to reflect upon America's history and how although there is hope for a better, more unified future, no one can escape the past (Poll, 2021). This poem has resonated with many people, and to allow audiences to connect with this work, it has been and continues to be translated into different languages, Dutch being one.
On February 23rd of this year, Marieke Rijneveld, a young non-binary1 Dutch author who received the International Booker Prize, took to social media, including Twitter, to announce that they would be the one to translate Gorman's The Hill We Climb into Dutch (Harrison, 2021). Soon after, Rijneveld received backlash from journalists such as Janice Deul and other social media users. Many were upset that the translation job was not given to a Black Dutch author (Deul, 2021). Over weeks, what was meant to be joyous and positive news became a controversy that had offended many people. It was argued that a Black author would better understand the deep meanings and context behind Gorman's words. As a result of the uproar, Rijneveld reversed their decision. Rijneveld wrote a poem expressing their sentiments and the reasons behind their decision which they shared on social media. It is essential to clarify that they were not forced to quit; instead, Rijneveld felt they were no longer an appropriate
1 Rijneveld’s preferred pronoun is “they”.
6 candidate. Since this new decision was made, growing numbers of people have expressed their opinions about this dispute on Twitter.
People's perceptions of what makes a translation strong are essential to better grasp why various arguments have been made on social media. Some translators find that translating "is an attempt to bridge beyond identity, beyond cultures, bringing someone, something that is very different from us into our ecosystem" (Bhanoo, 2021, para. 1). In saying this, it can be argued that great art is universal in the sense that it is often relatable or can resonate with many, regardless of one's background or circumstances. Others find comfort and reassurance in hiring a person who "conveys the ‘untranslatables’” or, simply put, someone who has genuinely experienced something similar (Bhanoo, 2021, para. 17). Therefore, this issue must be considered relative in that it is very personal to each writer. Similarly, views of social media users vary and these responses are the very ones that can significantly influence the types of writers who are chosen to translate not only Gorman's work but the works of countless others.
Rijneveld’s publisher, Meulenhoff had suggested the young author as a translator to Gorman who quickly agreed. Although Rijneveld and Gorman’s backgrounds and life experiences were very different, Rijneveld claims to have a strong understanding of what division feels like in their experience as a non- binary individual (Flood, 2021). Nevertheless, many other people disagreed with Rijneveld as a first choice and much of this opposition was expressed on Twitter (Seveno, 2021). Although this social media site has been considered one of the less popular platforms in the Netherlands. From 2020 to 2021 it increased from 2.8 million users to 2.9 million users (Statista, 2021). In other words, it is increasing in popularity. Rijneveld's Twitter backlash shows that there are enough users taking part in the "Twitter mob," – people who take to Twitter to mobilize people against various stakeholders (Young, 2019). The purpose of this so-called “mob” is to silence someone, rendering the Rijneveld dispute as an
7 example of cancel culture. Cancel culture occurs when a public figure is ostracized or excluded for having done or said something offensive and unacceptable (Stewart, 2016). The public can withdraw support through boycotts for example or “calling” public figures out via social media.
Concerning this translation controversy, social media audiences have a great deal of power in influencing the decisions and reputations of others. Examples of such stakeholders in this translation dispute are professional translators, Gorman, publishing companies, and readers. Although Rijneveld is the primary focus of this research, similar examples exist in countries such as Spain. Victor Obiols was asked to step down after completing his translation of the poem since the publisher preferred a Black female activist (Holligan, 2021; Pineda, 2021). Therefore, the uproar that translators and publishers have received online has influenced the creative decisions made within by publishers. However, what can help stakeholders react to these situations is understanding how exactly the public feels and perceives the circumstances.
Understanding audiences can be beneficial to individuals as well as businesses that deal with the consumer market, including cultural goods. Nowadays companies are very fearful of boycotts in which anyone can start a campaign against a company via social media (Shank, 2020). It is now much easier for people to hurt the reputation or mobilize people against a company that deals with the public. Companies are very aware and sensitive of this. There are examples of book cancellations by major publishing companies such as Simon and Schuster and Hachette whereby authors have been involved in scandals and received backlash (Alter & Harris, 2021). The backlash convinced publishers to end contracts with specific authors (Alter & Harris, 2021). Therefore, companies that publish or sell cultural products must be sensitive to public opinion. This is important because the Web 2.0 makes it very easy to mobilize people against a company or a brand and try to get people to attack it, boycott it, or cancel it. It
8 can be helpful for companies that sell these cultural products to be sensitive to and aware of public opinion.
In the case of Rijneveld, illuminating the complaints against as well as support for the writer can show how opinions come in many forms. Therefore, this study seeks to explore audience engagement on Twitter with a specific focus on the different views of Rijneveld. With this in mind, the following research question is posed:
How have active Twitter users responded to a controversy regarding translation and identity?
In terms of contributing to the field of media and communications, this study explores the complex global issue of racism in this case, expressed through Twitter, cancel culture and cultural gatekeeping. Using such a current example, I will examine developments almost in real time and explore how they evolve. This will be done using a qualitative content analysis whereby themes found within people's opinions will be extracted and analyzed. With this in mind, this research will provide insights into how people perceive this controversy online, which can serve as a guide for translators, publishers and others working in the industry. As mentioned previously, similar situations involving the translation of Gorman's work by translators in other countries are happening now, rendering this research very timely. Furthermore, as half-Dutch myself, I have a great passion and interest in this controversy. It is delicate and filled with nuances that I intend to explore with respect, sensitivity, and an open mind.
2. CONTEXT
This section highlights contextual information that can be helpful in understanding the relationship many Dutch people have with racism in relation to its history and how this was reflected in the Black Lives Matter protests. In
9 addition to this, information will be provided on Twitter as a social networking site as well as its relevance in the Netherlands.
2.1 BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTS AND DUTCH COLONIAL HISTORY
To better understand how this controversy came to be and why it is essential, one should acknowledge the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement alongside Dutch colonial history. The BLM movement was founded by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi in 2013 to fight against "anti-Black violence" and general racism (often through police brutality) (Linscott, 2017). The deaths of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Ahmaud Abery in the United States in 2020 drove people to protest all over the United States, attracting widespread media attention (Giorgi et al, 2020). This inspired worldwide protests, including in the Netherlands. Protests have taken a different form in different countries depending on their history. For example, in the Netherlands, a dimension of the demonstrations is the Dutch colonial history and the Dutch role in the slave trade.2 Of course, the police brutality in the United States was an essential part of the protests as well. However, many young protesters were also deeply upset by a statue of a Dutch East India Company representative and called to have it removed (Schlagwein, 2020). BLM is a movement that brought about awareness of racism while stressing the importance of being antiracist. Consequently, this encouraged many Dutch people to look back on their colonial history and reflect on how the government has and is currently dealing with issues of racism. As Gorman (2021) has written in her poem, The Hill We Climb, "It's the past we step into and how we repair it" (para. 2).
According to Weiner (2014) and van Dijk (1992), the Netherlands has refused to admit that it has performed racist acts in the past. Weiner (2014) clarifies the
2 The Dutch East and West India companies were involved in the slave trade and this is a part of history that Dutch people are coming to terms with.
10 different reasons for which racism has come to exist in the country. However, this section will focus on Dutch colonial history that is visible in the country's "racial images" of today (Weiner, 2014, p. 734). Very simply put, the Dutch East and West India companies were both chartered companies that had the goal to carry out trade and colonization. They were much more potent than smaller trading companies. Since the country dominated many of the coastal shipping routes, the Dutch East and West India companies were in charge of trade operations that required more power. As a result, they were able to globally dominate trade, representing a period known as the "Golden Age" (Weiner, 2014). During this time, these chartered companies carried out exploitation overseas and "massacred and enslaved native populations in colonies from the West Indies to South Africa to Indonesia" (Weiner, 2014, p. 737; Welie, 2008). During this time, many people who were subject to the oppression and slavery of colonialism such as those in Suriname and the West Indies, became slaves to many White Dutch.
Weiner (2014) also mentions that many Dutch people believe their country is progressive and antiracist. Even in a postcolonial Netherlands, there is still negative imagery of the Black community. A prevalent example is the controversial Dutch tradition of the "Zwarte Piet" or Black Pete in English (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2015; Pijl & Goulordava, 2014). The traditional holiday known as Sinterklaas celebrates Saint Nicholas who arrives in the Netherlands by boat from Spain and is accompanied by his black servants ("Zwarte Pieten"). The controversial issue is that White Dutch men and women often played this role in blackface (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2015; Pijl & Goulordava, 2014). Moreover, Van der Pijl and Goulordava (2014) examine racist roots in the Netherlands and how a Black individual is valued in society today. As a result of colonial history that is often forgotten and the country's folkloric customs, Pijl and Goulordava (2014) argue that a Black person in a postcolonial Netherlands is still devalued, objectified and commodified. In light of this, the Zwarte Piet debate has been
11 going on since 2013. However, due to the backlash from other countries, Dutch people began to realize that they should change this loved tradition. In many cities in the Netherlands, Zwarte Piet is no longer celebrated in Blackface.
2.2 TWITTER AFFORDANCES
In answering the current study's research question, data will be extracted from the social media platform Twitter. Therefore, a general understanding of the platform will be provided along with some of its affordances. These will demonstrate why this is an appropriate platform for this research. Twitter was first created in 2006 and quickly gained popularity in 2007 where it became a widely used platform (Hansen et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2011). It is still considered a popular platform today with a staggering 187 million daily users (Fontanella, 2021). Many researchers define Twitter as a microblogging site (Kwak et al., 2010; Fiander, 2012; Hansen et al., 2020; Chauhan & Panda, 2015). Microblogging refers to "the capability of blogging small amounts of text to a website in much faster cycles usually from a mobile device" (Jackson, 2010, Microblogging section, para 1). However, Twitter can also be accessed on other devices such as computers.
According to Oltmann et al. (2020), Twitter makes use of "material features" through its technology. These features allow users to "further communication in some way" (Oltmann et al., 2020, p. 3). Firstly, users can consume or produce "tweets" which are short messages containing up to 280 characters (Lowe & Laffey, 2011, p. 183; Dijck, 2011; (“Counting Characters,” n.d.). Tweets allow for the sharing of information about a vast array of topics from one's simple day-to- day activities to news-related issues and much more (Java et al., 2007). Individuals can use and search for hashtags (#) or tag other accounts. Additionally, users can follow or be followed by users and re-post tweets that have been published by others, known as "retweeting". Every user also has a
12 Twitter timeline where tweets posted by followed users appear. There is also a section with trending topics that can be explored (Deller, 2011).
Twitter's material features as mentioned above, provide users with particular functional affordances. Functional affordances are “principal functions that affect how social media messages are transmitted or saved” (Moreno & D’Angelo, 2019, p. 5). Oltmann et al. (2020) claim that such affordances stem from the relationship between a technological apparatus and the person using it. Some of Twitter's affordances are listed as follows: "persistence, visibility, spreadability, and searchability" (Oltmann et al., 2020, p. 3). For example, hashtags generally shine light on specific issues or topics and can be easily searched. They help information spread more quickly to audiences that often extend beyond one's own following (Oltmann et al., 2020). Information is also made more visible through Twitter's retweet function whereby users can be exposed to content from other accounts that they do not necessarily follow.
Zheng and Yu (2016) examine the concept of affordances in relation to social media use in a slightly different way. They agree that there are functional affordances that many social media platforms have in common (such as persistence and visibility, to name a few) (Zheng & Yu, 2016). However, they argue that it is just as essential to examine such affordances by taking into account their social aspects (Zheng & Yu, 2016). They refer to these affordances as ‘affordances-of-practice’ (Zheng & Yu, 2016). Therefore, one should look beyond the relationship between technology and humans by thinking about the practices that emerge from this relationship. In other words, it is no longer enough to consider the relationship between the apparatus and the user on an individual level. It is essential to think about how Twitter’s technological properties used by people, influence the collective actions of numerous individuals.
13 In order to better understand this influence on collective actions, comprehending/recognizing people's needs and goals for using social media (within specific contexts such as cultural or social) can be valuable (Zheng & Yu, 2016, p. 293). Many people have a common objective or share a similar view that they wish to communicate to others via social media. As a result, social groups have emerged that strive to fight for or against matters that are important to each group. For example, many communities on Twitter have the collective goal to use Twitter to drive online activism with the hopes of spreading ideas and information (Zheng & Yu, 2016; Li et al., 2020). Others wish to push issues further in the hopes of starting online social movements. With having different social groups or communities online, there are also more opinions and ideas expressed which can lead to new forms of debate and this is where my choice for Twitter can be better understood.
Twitter's functional affordances and affordances-of-practice are both of the essence here. In my opinion, without Twitter’s functional affordances, it would not be possible to look at the collective actions fostered by certain technologies. Debate is better made possible through visible, searchable and persistent information dissemination and expression. As mentioned previously, social media platforms can share some of these functional affordances. However, with differing audiences and needs, affordances-of-practice will likely differ per platform. Take the example of Facebook. Facebook has similar functional affordances however the audience differs from that of Twitter. Facebook users are known for using the platform to engage and connect with friends and family (Swanner, 2016). On the other hand, Twitter better connects users "with the world more efficiently" (Swanner, 2016, para. 29).
Facebook contains algorithms that draw users to content posted by friends and specific Facebook groups (Cox, 2021). Instead, Twitter's algorithm exposes users to all tweets, but those that it believes the user would find most interesting
14 appear on the top of one's Twitter timeline (or feed) (Cox, 2021). Debates do occur on Facebook, but they are likely to occur within smaller networks or specific Facebook groups/pages that one needs to actively find and request access to in many cases. This renders Twitter a more suitable platform for debate and information dissemination in the form of microblogging. People worldwide can more easily come together and express opinions about various causes and topics. As a result, users can debate more easily with others who might not be in their direct network.
2.3 TWITTER USE IN THE NETHERLANDS
According to Statista (2021), Twitter is not considered the most popular platform in the Netherlands with Facebook leading. However, it is growing in popularity and today, almost three million people in the Netherlands are using this platform (Statista, 2021). Twitter is currently a second leading social networking site with a 13.52% market share (Global Stats, n.d.). Twitter has greatly influenced community sentiment and many people such as journalists rely on this platform "as a source of public opinion" (p. 2) A study was conducted by Kingeren et al. (2020) to see whether Twitter would be "a reliable proxy of public opinion" (p. 16) compared to opinion polling. It was found that public opinion on Twitter although imperfect, is reliable in the sense that views on Twitter mirror what public opinion polling would otherwise show (Klingeren et al., 2020). Furthermore, as mentioned in the above section, Twitter is simply a more robust platform for debate and examining polarized opinions. For these reasons, I believe Twitter to be a suitable and reliable platform for this research.
3. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
My research focuses on sentiments of an online debate expressed on Twitter in relation to the Rijneveld translation controversy. For this reason, it is essential to look at previous research that can help provide some insight into the topics
15 relevant to my current research. Therefore, this section discusses previous research on Twitter audiences, how they engage in online debate and how such discussion is fostered. Additionally, since the Rijneveld dispute is considered an example of cancel culture, this concept will also be explored further. By examining previous research on the relevant topics, insights are provided into the research gap that the current study seeks to fill.
3.1 TWITTER: AUDIENCES, ENGAGEMENT & COUNTER-PUBLIC NARRATIVES
The current research focuses on active Twitter users and how they engage online. From the Rijneveld debate alone, Twitter users have proven to have a great deal of agency and influence over themselves and others. For this reason, I believe it is essential to look at how audiences can engage and interact on this platform and with what effects. Twitter audiences have different reasons for engaging in the platform and interacting with others. What is important to acknowledge is how much agency audiences have when it comes to influencing different situations.
I will begin by addressing two specific types of audiences on Twitter. Very generally speaking, there are passive and active users of social media with some who fall in between both categories. Passive users consume or monitor media content without actually engaging with it (Trifiro & Gerson, 2019). Active users are those who actively engage with media content through "liking, commenting, sending messages, and otherwise engaging with other users" (Trifiro & Gerson, 2019, p. 1). Twitter allows for and thrives off a participatory culture that fosters interactivity between different types of users such as, "those involved in making media: celebrities, journalists, producers, writers, media organizations and the users of that media" (Deller, 2011, p. 228). Participatory culture is made up of users who are "grassroots advocates for materials which are personally and socially meaningful to them" (Jenkins et al., 2009, para. 15; Fuchs, 2014). This
16 culture is firmly based on the idea that what active users create (in this case, the contents of tweets) is significant to the creator and matter and appeal to others, further encouraging meaningful interaction.
With such interaction and engagement online, active Twitter audiences can hold the power to influence situations and people. Deller (2011) claims that certain power relations between audiences can come into play due to users' senses of agency. Some researchers believe that celebrities and others who represent official opinion leaders carry more influence than others. Perhaps this is due to their status and level of influence on large numbers of people (Deller, 2011). However, this is not always the case. For example, Deller (2011) conducted a study on power relations on Twitter in order to examine the influence that a collective group of users could have on media companies. They found that hierarchies of power exist on the platform in which opinion leaders, celebrities and other official accounts have a solid ability to spark or provoke debate amongst Twitter members (Deller, 2011). However, what was also found is that ordinary Twitter users can disseminate information through discussion, which can influence specific stakeholders and outcomes.
With such audience agency, I would like to emphasize Twitter as a digital space that welcomes "healthy debate" as well as counter-public narratives that challenge societal norms despite possible tensions between people (Wheatley & Vatnoey, 2019, p. 5; Gutierrez, 2020; Ineland et al., 2019). According to Ineland et al. (2019), Twitter can be regarded as an "arena for negotiation of power, where marginalized voices can be given influence in the public debate" (p. 238). Such debates can be transformed into information that receives widespread media attention. When enough people come together and mobilize their voices to express particular sentiments, opinions or messages, whether through a single tweet or a Twitter discussion, it can influence the behavioral outcomes of others.
17 Gutierrez (2020) conducted a study on the strains found between counter- publics on Twitter. These counter-publics took place on what Gutierrez (2020) calls, Black and Latinx Twitter. This research was focused on the general sentiment of the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite debate in which Twitter users were fighting for equal representation of minorities within the Academy Awards. It was found that both social groups disagreed with one another which developed into a sort of competition between minorities (Gutierrez, 2020). However, this rivalry inspired people to mobilize to protest against the Academy Awards. Consequently, enough voices were heard and changes were made in the grading criteria of the panel of judges at the Oscars. This is just one example of how audiences on Twitter appeared to have a great deal of agency regarding having control over their behaviors and meeting their goals.
3.2 CANCEL CULTURE & CULTURAL GATEKEEPING
While a participatory culture can foster more profound and often positive connections between individuals, it can also be a means of calling people out or "canceling" them – another example of how audience agency can influence others. Clark (2020) conducted a study on the presence of "cancel culture" on Twitter. Cancel culture in relation to Twitter is a "phenomenon, in which tweets are amplified and circulated through large-scale networks to shame – or even unmask or "dox" – identities whose speech is deemed unacceptable" (Stewart, 2016, p. 78). It is often carried out to address or fight against injustice (Clark, 2020). The most common examples of people who have been cancelled include well known individuals such as celebrities (Clark, 2020). Bouvier (2020) points out that platforms such as Twitter are democratizing digital public spheres for public and political discourse; however, it can be damaging at the same time. Therefore, Twitter must be cautious in allowing people to express opinions about social justice (Bouvier, 2020). These types of behaviors can be regarded as
18 exercising one's right to democracy, yet at the same time, they can be considered polarizing.
As a result of cancel culture and simply being able to express oneself freely on platforms such as Twitter, users as a collective can hold great power as cultural gatekeepers or mediators (Chin-Fook & Simmonds, 2009; Erigha, 2020). According to Erigha (2020), cultural gatekeepers are people who make "racial valuations" through "race-based judgments" (p. 2). In the context of the Rijneveld controversy, such gatekeepers can influence or threaten a writer's reputation and cultural capital by "connecting race to ideas about value, success, and failure" (Erigha, 2020, p. 2). Therefore, cultural mediation can censor many peoples' voices and prevent them from creating art or expressing their feelings or views. Although not all theorists and researchers agree that cultural gatekeeping occurs on social media, Chin-Fook and Simmonds (2009) argue the opposite. Individuals are more involved in the gatekeeping process due to social media's democratizing and interactive nature (Chin-Fook & Simmonds, 2009). Cultural gatekeeping along with cancel culture have the power to censor people and their crafts. Regardless of how others perceive it, it will influence the art of translation and the industry to which it belongs.
What has been described above ties in with this idea of the Twitter "mob mentality." "Mob" here indicates/implies that multiple people are involved for this mentality to apply. Mob mentality occurs, in this case, on Twitter when "multiple perpetrators pursue one victim" (Replogle, 2011, p. 801). Several different consequences arise in the case of groups virtually harming others. Du Plessis (2016) examined how Twitter mobs have influenced journalism concerning how and what news is being reported. Journalists resorted to writing slanted news to avoid getting into any sort of trouble with groups of Twitter users who make "virtual noise" far too loud and degrading (Du Plessis, 2016, p. 40). Du Plessis (2016) believes that the mob mentality leads to victims who once felt
19 confident and self-assured to feeling as though they need to self-correct themselves. Depending on the circumstance, self-correction might be necessary. However, there have been cases where journalists and celebrities have tweeted controversial remarks which have hurt their reputations and even ended their careers (Du Plessis, 2016). Even if apologizing for a comment can reverse a person's dismissal, Du Plessis (2016) claims that enough fear has been evoked among journalists reporting news on Twitter.
While Du Plessis (2016) finds Twitter mob mentality to be quite a negative phenomenon, there are examples where the message behind this mentality comes from a well-intentioned place (Bouvier, 2020). Bouvier led a study on racist call-outs on Twitter. She examined tweets that included "racist call-out hashtags" (Bouvier, 2020, p. 3) and in the end, Bouvier (2020) had mixed feelings. For example, it is considered positive that many people choose to speak up about and criticize racism. Twitter is regarded as a suitable platform for this type of protest (Bouvier, 2020). However, the cancel culture aspects or mob mentality can take away from the actual cause. The victim of cancel culture becomes a "folk-devil, rather than a real person with everyday flaws" (Bouvier, 2020, p. 10).
On the one hand, it is perhaps debatable whether call-out culture is a healthy use of Twitter since users can work against each other rather than with one another. On the other hand, Twitter is all about engagement with others. Users can often feel inclined to express themselves resulting in the creation of competing forces and perhaps is necessary to foster meaningful discourse and debate. In cases of online discussions and debates there can come agreement and unison and vehement disagreements between people (Bail et al., 2018). Bouvier (2020) believes that polarization stems from a majority of people who engage and debate with others online with "high levels of affect and emotion" (Bouvier, 2020, p. 2). Another potential driver for polarized opinions is echo-chambers as well as trench warfare.
20 Liao and Fu (2014) examine the dynamics of online debate concerning echo- chambers and trench warfare. Echo-chambers refer to "patterns of information sharing that reinforce preexisting [beliefs] by limiting exposure to opposing [views]" (Bail et al., 2018, p. 9216). Social media users tend to be drawn to others who are similar to them or hold similar ideologies (Bail et al., 2018; Liao & Fu, 2014). Consequently, Yiu (2020) claims that such chambers discourage or even prevent users from exposing themselves to different views. Although the internet helps foster echo-chambers which some believe deter people from having debates, researchers have found that as important it is for people's beliefs to be reinforced and confirmed by others, confrontation is just as fundamental (Karlsen et al., 2017; Wollebæk et al., 2019). Findings of a survey experiment revealed that echo-chambers have not entirely stopped social media users from engaging with others who have different views (Karlsen et al., 2017). They found that trench warfare helped explain debate dynamics more clearly (Karlsen et al., 2017).
Trench warfare is characterized as situations "where attitudes are reinforced through both confirmation and disconfirmation biases" (Karlsen et al., 2017, p. 257). Confirmation bias occurs when individuals surround themselves with information and people who reinforce or support their personally held beliefs (Karlsen et al., 2017). Disconfirmation bias is different although it results in a similar outcome. This type of bias occurs when individuals engage with people in such a way that any opposing opinions are heavily criticized (Karlsen et al., 2017). This is done to ensure that a person ends up having an even "stronger belief in the already held opinion" (Karlsen et al., 2017, p. 260). Therefore, regardless of the type of bias, trench warfare facilitates polarized viewpoints, often evident in online debate.
For the current research, it is essential to understand why users choose to speak up online and how Twitter is an appropriate place to do so. Additionally, previous research on cultural gatekeeping, cancel culture and Twitter as a
21 platform for polarized opinions provides insights into the current study's relevance and importance. No scientific research has been conducted on the Rijneveld controversy specifically since it is very recent. Therefore, although limited in scope, my research will provide new insights and ways of understanding how this controversy has resonated with active Twitter users. Moreover, much research has looked at debate dynamics and how they have formed. However, there is one commonality which is that little to no discussion about online debates comprise Dutch Twitter users.
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This analytical framework serves as a guide or empirical lens through which I will justify my research aims and examine my data. Therefore, I intend to use the Social Theory of Scandal and the Scandal-Reform Cycle to make sense of my research. First and foremost, a scandal can be defined as the "actions or events which involve, among other things, the transgression of certain values, norms or moral codes" (Thompson, 2013, p. 67). Based on Thompson's definition of scandal, the Rijneveld controversy can be considered a scandal. Furthermore, since I am exploring public opinion on Twitter, I believe it is essential to consider Thompson's concept of mediated scandals. Such scandals can exist where mediated communication occurs within digital public spheres (Twitter). "Mediated publicness" is another relevant term, which refers to the idea that people who have not explicitly witnessed a scandal can still be exposed to it via for example, social media. Social media users in this case can be informed about scandals (whether alleged or actual) online.
Thompson (2013) has developed the Social Theory of Scandal involving three critical notions: reputation, trust, and power. According to this theory, "scandals are struggles over symbolic power in which reputation and trust are at stake" (Thompson, 2013, p. 243; Dziuda & Howell, 2021). Symbolic power refers to one's ability to exert influence by symbolic means (such as words or gestures).
22 Concerning the Rijneveld dispute, there is power in deciding who gets published and who is not allowed to translate. More specifically, it can be said that symbolic power lies in the hands of the two transgressors – the publisher, Meulenhoff and writer, Rijneveld. Both can influence the situation so that reputation and trust are protected. On the other hand, we must not forget the power of the audience (Twitter users) who criticized or approved of the choice of Rijneveld. In doing so, audiences have the ability to harm the reputation of these stakeholders. This has been taken into account from a contextual point of view since the reputations of both Rijneveld and the publisher, Meulenhoff will potentially be addressed in my data sample.
This theory demonstrates an implied threat to "cancel" the publisher and "cancel" the translator. Therefore, scandals can very much be similar to cancel culture which was discussed in the previous section. After receiving backlash or disapprobation, the publisher is undoubtedly aware that it can be economically harmful. One recent example of a scandal which has come to be an instance of cancel culture involves the Republican senator and author, Hawley and the American publishing company, Simon and Schuster (Alter & Harris, 2021). A scandal arose when Hawley attempted to block the confirmation of president Biden's election and people in the country rose in arms and protested. Hawley had a book contract with Simon and Schuster. However this was cancelled after the much-received backlash (Alter & Harris, 2021). Corporate political donors also said they would stop donating money to his campaign. In this case, Simon and Schuster and the public had symbolic power to influence how the scandal would influence Hawley's book contract and overall reputation.
Although scandals are not usually indefinite, they tend to last anywhere from a week or several months (Thompson, 2013). For this reason, I will examine tweets over different points in time and compare any differences or similarities in patterns of opinions addressed. In terms of a scandal's developments or
23 understanding how it evolves, the process shown in Diagram 1 and 2 below can be helpful (Thompson, 2013; Sass & Crosbie, 2013). According to Thompson, first, an immoral or questionable action/event takes place (the transgression), followed by public disclosure/allegations which results in public disapprobation (Thompson, 2013). Regarding the Rijneveld controversy, Rijneveld accepted the translation job (the transgression) and revealed this information on their social media (public disclosure). This eventually led to public disapprobation or a strong sense of disapproval from the public (backlash on Twitter). This last step can end here, or it can form a cycle in which public denials and counter- allegations are made, leading to more investigations or revelations and even a second-order transgression. In Rijneveld's case, perhaps the second-order transgression is them reversing their decision of being Gorman's translator since this follow-up mediated event provoked new reactions.
Diagram 1. “Ingredients of basic scandal” and “Some elements of more complex scandals”
24 Sass and Crosbie (2013) devised a “Scandal-Reform Cycle” which maps out some of Thompson’s more nuanced steps. However, they showcase them in a somewhat clearer and more straightforward way (Sass & Crosbie, 2013). I would like to adjust these steps slightly so that it can be better applied to the Rijneveld controversy. This revised model is shown below in Diagram 3. First, is the transgression (actor deviation), followed by public allegations (media reports). This eventually leads to public disapprobation (public outrage). Soon after, the transgressor (or institution) will respond in the hopes that trust is restored. It is this last step about trust that I would like to change to ‘public response’ which can entail either restoration of trust among the public or further disapprobation. In my opinion, this cycle simplifies the steps and clearly showcases how two scandals can occur within one cycle.
Diagram 2. “Scandal-Reform Cycle” (Sass & Crosbie, 2013)
25 Diagram 3. A Re-Modeled Scandal-Reform Cycle based off of diagrams by Sass and Crosbie (2013) and Thompson (2013).
5. METHODS
The current research uses a mixed-methods approach to explore how active users have responded to the Rijneveld translation controversy on Twitter. More specifically, a qualitative content analysis will be carried forth to investigate the various issue frames addressed on Twitter at three different points in time. The following section provides insights on the chosen method for this study and the data collection/sampling, developments of the codebook, the most appropriate research paradigm and finally, ethical considerations.
4.1 CONTENT ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, I chose to conduct a qualitative content analysis to determine and describe the arguments addressed on Twitter in response to the Rijneveld controversy. A content analysis is defined as a systematic means of
26 analyzing text by identifying patterns. More specifically, it is "the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns" (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). Hseih and Shannon (2005) claim that this analysis is used to explore a particular phenomenon to acquire more information. Similarly, Collins (2018) states that it is used to provide “an initial understanding of an issue or a situation and is usually conducted because a research problem has not yet been defined” (p. 51).
In my case, I wish to gain insights into Twitter users' reactions to the Rijneveld translation dispute. With this in mind, I have explored this topic through both inductive and deductive approaches or methods of reasoning. Deduction involves theory which is used to form hypotheses. Data is then observed and any predictions are rejected or confirmed. Induction looks at research in the opposite direction in which data is first explored for patterns which is then linked to theory. Since the present study is both explorative and descriptive, I have used a mixed-methods design.
On one hand, there is an explorative aspect to this research that requires an inductive approach. I first collected a sample of tweets from Twitter which were analyzed (or explored) to identify patterns. Mayring (2014) refers to this as "inductive category development" (p. 12). On the other hand, this research is also descriptive which involves a deductive approach. Although I am not using theory to form hypotheses, I use Scandal theory to guide some of my research choices. Additionally, through the coding process, I have registered the frequency of each category which were operationalized in a codebook (Mayring, 2014). This codebook serves as an indispensable guide that showcases the systematically categorized information to be examined in the tweets.
27 There are both positive and negative reasons for conducting a qualitative content analysis. One negative is that conducting a content analysis is limited in scope (Allen, 2017). For example, specific relationships between variables cannot be established or explained, such as cause-and-effect (Maier, 2017). Fortunately, I am not interested in drawing such conclusions. Instead, I am interested in the “actual communicative message characteristics” as well as “what can be inferred from the message” (Maier, 2017, p. 2). Moreover, I can also examine tweets over time allowing me to draw conclusions about Twitter users’ means/processes of communication (Maier, 2018). A second disadvantage is that content analysis is considered time consuming. This can discourage the collecting of large enough samples of data (Maier, 2018). However, a qualitative content analysis involving inductive reasoning offers flexibility as a researcher as well as a better understanding of what people ascribe meaning to (Collins, 2018, p. 43; Allen, 2017). All in all, this method is deemed appropriate and helpful despite a few of the mentioned pitfalls.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION & SAMPLING METHOD
My data sample comprises of tweets extracted directly from Twitter. Usually, researchers who wish to use Twitter data often need access to Twitter’s application programming interface (API). This software serves as a connector or bridge “between two applications that want to communicate with each other” (Fontanella, 2021, para. 6). This provides access to tweet creation, profile information, as well as a “high volume of tweets on particular subjects in specific locations” (Fontanella, 2021, para. 6). Initially, I planned to use the application, Rstudio which connects to Twitter’s public API and uses statistical programming language to extract tweets. However, there were slight complications since my data requires extractions from different points in time, starting from February of this year which I do not have access to with Twitter’s standard API. Therefore, I decided to use Twitter’s advanced search tool to filter through different criteria such as, search terms, mentions, hashtags, accounts, replies, and specific dates.
28
It is considered essential to look at different time periods because each represents a different stage of a scandal. The first two periods represent certain events that take place within a few days of each other. However, the third period does not and I believe it is important to clarify why. Opinions represent a dynamic process. For example, early commenters might base their opinions purely on their own reactions without being influenced strongly by others. On the other hand, later commenters will likely have more information and will probably be more aware of what others have said. In a way, the debate and discussion are being advanced to a further stage because people have more information and have more variety of opinions. That is why the third period takes place approximately one month after the initial period. If the third period were not included or occurred only a few days after the second period, I would not have been able to explore as deeply the dynamic process of dialogue that is involved in the different phases of scandals. Furthermore, the third period had to comprise more days compared to the first two since not enough data was available to be considered a sufficient sample size for that period. Please see Table 1 for an overview of each period and its corresponding event.
In order to collect my sample of tweets, a purposive sampling method was carried out. Purposive sampling is the process of selecting data which is most suitable for the research method and topic (Palinkas et al., 2015). A type of purposive sampling is judgment sampling in which the researcher decides exactly what unit of analysis is best in answering the given research question (Battaglia, 2008). This is considered a popular sampling method for qualitative content analysis (Frey, 2018). One disadvantage of this method is that it reduces generalizability of results, resulting in a compromised external validity (Frey, 2018). However, the nature of content analysis and inductive reasoning is to explore a certain topic which means it is more important that the units of analysis are suitable to the topic than having a very high external validity (Collins, 2018; Elo et al., 2014).
29 It is not possible to be entirely sure that each Twitter user has sufficient knowledge about the translation controversy. However, I am making the assumption that most users are informed enough about the dispute.
To ensure content relevancy in my sample, the search term, “Rijneveld” had to be present in all tweets. Any of the following search terms could also be included: "Amanda," "Gorman," "Dutch," "White," "translator," "Translates," "Translating," and "Translation.” However, to gather as much data as possible, I included any replies to the tweets that appeared in the search. As a result of the advanced search, a total of 2,832 tweets were collected. Of this initial sample, a total of 1,427 tweets were comprehensible and clearly linked to the Rijneveld controversy.
Table 1. Overview of Data Extraction Periods, their Corresponding Events and Sample Size Time period (all Event Number of tweets take place in 2021) extracted
1) February 23rd to Rijneveld announces translation Pre-coded: N = 238 the 25th job (plus an extra two days for Official sample: N = 148 follow-up responses/tweets) 2) February 26th to Rijneveld reverses their decision Pre-coded: N = 2364 the 28th (plus an additional two days for Official sample: 1,218 follow-up responses/tweets) 3) March 23rd to Follow-up period to see how Pre-coded: N = 230 May 3rd people’s responses are after Official sample: 61 approximately one month after Rijneveld’s initial translation announcement.
30 4.3 DEVELOPING A CODEBOOK
A codebook was created comprising the most prominent themes found in the data sample (N = 1,427). I have undergone a coding process described by Thomas (2006) which is displayed in Table 3 below. I have adjusted each step slightly to suit my research and personal process.
Table 3. Coding process
Initial reading of Read through Go through data Include the most tweets (exclude part of sample to again to reduce important irrelevant identify general any overlapping categories (or tweets) themes. Provide categories and see codes) into them with if any new codebook and code specific category categories arise. all tweets names. accordingly
N = 2,832 N = 1,427 N = 1,427 N = 1,427
26 categories 10 categories 7 categories
During the pre-coding or initial reading phase, I went through all 2,832 tweets to check for irrelevant or non-usable tweets. These include tweets that have nothing to do with the Rijneveld debate. Moreover, tweets that were incomprehensible in terms of grammar and content were not included. Once this was done, I went through the remaining sample of 1,427 tweets and marked down important themes/patterns. Then, I grouped together any overlapping or similar patterns. Following this step, I went through the data one more time to make sure I included all important categories or added any missing ones. Finally, I narrowed down the categories to a total of seven (excluding sub-categories).
31 I decided to inductively extract themes from each time period until I reached a saturation point – the moment I noticed patterns were repeating with no new ones arising. For the first time period (February 23rd – 25th), this point occurred after looking through 50% of the tweets. For the second time period (February 26th-28th), I went through 15% of the data since this was a much larger number of tweets. For the final time period (March 23rd – May 3rd), I coded 50% of the dataset. Finally, a codebook was created with the following categories (some of which include sub-categories): - Racism and reverse racism - Failure to use members of ethnic minorities as translators - Translator’s skills - Radical wokeism - Criticism towards: Meulenhoff, Rijneveld, and/or Janice Deul - Support for: Rijneveld and Gorman - “Let’s move on” Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed overview of the codebook, including operationally defined codes with coding instructions.
4.4 RESEARCH PARADIGMS
A paradigm is a very abstract construct referring to a person’s general world views “revolving around the notion of the creation of knowledge and how change can be accomplished” (Collins, 2018, p. 38). This can be applied to fields of research known as, research paradigms. Research paradigms can be understood as a set of beliefs, views or assumptions “within a research community about ontological, epistemological and methodological concerns” (Collins, 2018, p. 167). Ontology concerns the nature of being or existing. Epistemology involves the study of knowledge and how it is acquired. Lastly, methodology regards the “process of research” (Collins, 2018, p. 54). Since the current study involves a mixed-methods design including both deductive and inductive logics of enquiry, I argue that two paradigms are relevant when it comes to providing my research
32 a lens through which certain assumptions are made. These include interpretivism and neo-positivism.
Interpretivism argues that reality goes deeper than objective empiricism in the sense that “the social world is constructed by people who carry out social actions and give meanings to them” (Johannesson & Perjons, 2014, p. 169). Meaning and understanding can be derived from subjectivity. One epistemological assumption that stems from this paradigm is constructionism, which claims that understanding social scientific knowledge and “the social world has to be through the language of the participants” and that “social reality has to be discovered from the inside” (Blaikie & Priest, 2017, p. 104). This means that knowledge is not grounded by theory, but rather by all members that make up social reality (Blaikie & Priest, 2017). However, Collins argues that constructionism and interpretivism in general goes beyond one’s subjective emotions or beliefs. It is believed that examining the ways individuals ascribe meaning to certain matters can provide valuable insights “that essentially [reflect] significant qualities of both our culture and of the phenomenon” (Collins, 2018, p. 39). I believe that exploring Twitter users’ reactions to this translation controversy gives organizations and people in general a better understanding of what people find meaningful and how this reflects culture and society today. More than this, it also demonstrates how people use social media which is a culture in itself.
On the opposite spectrum is neo-positivism, a paradigm that represents objectivity and how empirical data is essential to understanding the world and one’s field of research. Neo-positivism is quite the opposite of interpretivism since the social world is believed to be understood only by looking from the outside – with the help of theories and preconceived ideas which are to be falsified through research (Blaikie & Priest, 2017). Although I strongly emphasize the interpretivist paradigm and how it has influenced my overarching
33 research, neo-positivism is also applicable here. A mixed-methods research design has been implemented in which deductive measures have also been taken. Scandal theory offers a better understanding of symbolic power that audiences (Twitter users in this case) can have on transgressors. Furthermore, it also helps to explain the developments of scandals that I have examined to some extent. Therefore, I have taken inspiration from other people’s theories and ideas to help guide my research. Therefore, although neo-positivism does not influence my research as much as interpretivism, it is still pertinent.
There have been debates going on about mixing research paradigms and whether this should be accepted or not. Some argue that it is not possible since “certain research tools fit in with the philosophical notions of certain paradigms” (Collins, 2018, p. 49). However, Collins (2018) also points out that paradigms are continuously evolving and changing. This so happens because paradigms are created by members of society. These members' view about social reality and simply the world and what they agree on as a collective can change overtime. For this reason, Collins (2018) argues that a mixed-methods research can be guided by more than one paradigm.
4.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is important to consider ethical considerations when collecting data and using it in the given research. In this section, I will focus on the importance of autonomy, Twitter legalities and research objectivity.
I will first focus on the importance of autonomy which includes privacy and consent. Autonomy is defined as “the right of participants to be treated as independent moral agents and to determine their own best interests” (Gold, 2020, p. 3). I have examined tweets from Twitter, which are deemed public information (Twitter, n.d.). Some researchers argue that tweets can violate users' privacy since they are not always aware of how their tweets are used (Fiesler &
34 Proferes, 2018). However, tweets are public by default. Additionally, users can "protect" their tweets by ensuring that they can only be viewed by their followers. I intend on using public tweets which Twitter (n.d.) defines as "being visible to anyone, whether or not they have a Twitter account" (para. 3). However, to make sure that privacy is respected, all user names will be removed assuring anonymity. Therefore, confidentiality and privacy will not be significant issues, and user consent will not be necessary.
Additionally, it is possible that users created tweets without realizing they were unprotected. However, for this research, I will assume that all users are aware of Twitter's definition of public information. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that anyone who makes a Twitter account or simply browses through the website (or app) without logging in, automatically agrees “to Twitter’s Terms of Service” (Gold, 2020, p. 4). Within these terms, it is also made clear that data can be used for research purposes (Gold, 2020).
Furthermore, research objectivity is of the essence, especially considering my personal interest in the given study. Payne and Payne (2004) claim that personal prejudices must be excluded from the research. Therefore, I will ensure that my personal views will not influence my data collection nor analysis in the slightest. Research objectivity can be translated into reliability. I strongly believe in conducting reliable research through transparency in relation to research and sampling methods as well as protocols (Payne & Payne, 2004). I am carrying out qualitative research which involves inductive methods. In other words, I am fully responsible for analyzing my data sample and creating categories that are accurate and representative of the most important themes. Payne and Payne (2004) stress credibility. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare “the independent judgements of more than one researcher” (Payne & Payne, 2004, p. 155). Nevertheless, I will ensure transparency and absolute clarity in the codebook that I create.
35 5. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS
The objective of this research is to answer the following research question: how have active Twitter users responded to the Rijneveld translation controversy on Twitter at different points in time? In answering this question, I will discuss the themes that were found and categorized after conducting a qualitative content analysis. Prior to analyzing themes from the three studied time periods, I will first provide an overview of the most and least prominently expressed opinions. Following this, I will focus on the key themes in each time period. The research question along with the analysis will be supported with scientific literature and relevant theories.
Of all the 1,427 tweets that were examined, the smallest number of extracted data came from the third time period (the announcement of the translation job), with the second least amount from the first time period (the one-month follow- up). The largest number of tweets analyzed were posted during the second time period (the reversal of Rijneveld’s decision). Therefore, it can be said that most Twitter users were interested in using their voices and expressing opinions when it came to Rijneveld stepping down from the position. However, this will be further explored in the upcoming sections.
All in all, 20% of Twitter users believed that Rijneveld’s pushback, which eventually led to their reversed decision, was guided by racism. Furthermore, approximately 15% of tweets expressed discontentment with the Dutch journalist, Janice Deul. Many perceived her as being racist or having racist intentions in suggesting that Rijneveld be replaced by a Black translator. Additionally, radical wokeism in relation to those who contributed to Rijneveld’s backlash represented 13% of all expressed opinions. Generally, Twitter users were in favor of Rijneveld and 11% felt sadness towards them. In contrast, 11%
36 of Twitter users expressed a desire to move on from the debate since it was leading to polarization among users.
Each of the least discussed opinions represented 3% of the data which included the following: the belief that Rijneveld is a skilled writer and contrastingly, that she was unsuitable for the job and lacked English knowledge, followed by the lack of ethnic minorities as translators. It is clear that there are people who are less in favor of Rijneveld though not nearly as many in comparison to those who were outraged by the backlash against Rijneveld. Figure 1 below depicts all categories and sub-categories in addition to the percentage frequency of each. Each category is represented by a particular color.
Figure 1. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions (Over the Course of All Three Periods)
37 5.1 FIRST PERIOD: RIJNEVELD FIRST ANNOUNCES THE TRANSLATIONS JOB
Several patterns were identified in the first period (from February 23rd to the 25th) during which Rijneveld first introduced their translation job on Twitter (with a few follow-up days). The most important categories include: “criticism”, “reverse racism”, “support” and “radical wokeism”. These will be discussed in this section, however all categories including sub-categories are visually shown in Figure 2.
Firstly, of the themes that are represented in this time period, criticism and more specifically, that towards Meulenhoff is the most prominent (19%). There were also critical eyes focused on Rijneveld. However, most users found fault with the publisher with the belief in mind that it had made an inappropriate decision to present Rijneveld to Gorman as the ideal candidate. The following tweet exemplifies this criticism, “Btw, it's not so much about Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, but all about @Meulenhoff and their responsibility to give marginalized artists opportunities.” It can be said that many users strongly believed that it was the publisher’s duty to present Gorman with an appropriate and representative selection of translation candidates. This is made more apparent in the following tweet, “Ignoring young Afro-Dutch talent, while banking on traction gained by anti-racist struggle abroad. A pattern throughout the Dutch literary world, and frankly the humanities more generally.”
In contrast, 15% of tweets express negativity toward Rijneveld’s backlash by claiming it was led by racism. In other words, people found that it was racist to discourage someone from carrying out a particular task because of the color of their skin. There clearly was a debate taking place on what correct terminology was most suitable to use in this situation. For example, many argued in favor of the term reverse racism since most instances of racism involve victims who are
38 Black. Therefore, some regarded Rijneveld’s situation as a more unusual or uncommon form of racism in which there is a so-called White victim. On the other hand, many argued that reverse racism is not correct or accurate terminology since it simply is an instance of racism carried forth by what many perceived to be Black or “woke” people as indicated by the following Twitter user: “I think I’ve seen this before, a person of one color can't write about or comment or whatever what a person of ANOTHER color writes, says or film... And no, it's not REVERSE racism, it's just racism, only this time, inflicted by a black person to a white person. Humankind baby!!”
“Woke people are more racist than you think, on the contrary, they are the racists of the decade”
"Radical wokeism" and "support" were the third most addressed categories with a total of 12% for each. These themes clearly indicate favorable attitudes toward Rijneveld. Twitter users claimed that wokeism has gone to an extreme since people began to question Rijneveld. Moreover, wokeism mainly was discussed as being quite a negative pattern. For example, one Twitter user tweeted, “Just another example of useless ‘woke’ hysteria that only serves to divide rather than unite.” Unlike radical wokeism which was primarily discussed with a negative tone, sadness towards Rijneveld represented disappointment among users. Many people tweeted the Dutch words, “triest” and “teleurstellend” meaning sad and disappointing.
All in all, this controversy has to do with the literary and translation industry which includes publishers, writers and translators. For this reason, it is surprising to see that most opinions were not actually focused on categories pertaining to the art and craft of translation such as Rijneveld’s proficiency of the English language. Instead, the most addressed arguments reflect cultural
39 issues and identity politics such as ethnic identity. This information demonstrates what Twitter users find more critical at this stage in the controversy.
Figure 2. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between February 23rd – 25th
5.3 SECOND PERIOD: RIJNEVELD REVERSES THEIR DECISION
The second period (from February 26th to the 28th) represents the initial announcement of Rijneveld’s reversed decision with a few follow-up days. Findings indicate that the most significant categories include: “reverse racism”, “criticism,” “radical wokeism,” “support” and “Let’s Move On.” These will be discussed below, however a general overview of categories is shown in Figure 3.
Unlike the first period discussed previously, the second period triggered slightly different reactions. “Racism” the was second most prominent theme in the first period. However, it now is the most expressed opinion representing 25% of the data from this period. Moreover, racism was discussed differently in the first
40 period compared to the second. For example, in the first period racism refers to the pushback. In the second period, it relates to the influence it played in Rijneveld’s reversal of their decision. The following tweet captures the general tone people used when addressing concerns about racism:
“Let’s just call this what it is: pure racism. Write off someone on the basis of skin color, without considering their (literary) qualities and suitability as a translator. It is pure racism, nothing less than that.”
The next most prominent theme was ‘criticism’, specifically towards Deul in which she was regarded as being racist. A total of 20% of twitter users expressed dislike towards her. This one example of a tweet represents one of many similar opinions about Deul, “Janice Deul or Klu Klux Klan – both considered pure racism.”
Another perceived contributing factor to Rijneveld’s reversal of their decision was placed on radical wokeism (14%). In the first period this category referred to the backlash that planted seeds of doubt in Rijneveld. However, in the second period, it is more discussed as a contributing factor to Rijneveld’s reversed decision. Furthermore, many people characterized wokeism as an oppressive weapon when taken too far. One Twitter user described it as “scary” and “a disease,” (although 11% of users tweeted about their sadness that Rijneveld did not fight the pushback). Dissimilarly, 7% of users expressed a desire to end the debate that was dividing people. What is interesting is that users went so far as to say that this debate had turned Gorman’s poetry about unity into art that divides people as expressed in the following tweet,
“Curious to know what @TheAmandaGorman thinks of the fact that black (women) poets were sidelined by her Dutch publisher to translate her
41 work here in the Netherlands? [Because] they actually exist. And that her work is being described as an antidote to ‘polarization’?”
In addition, it is interesting to compare the prominence of categories in the second period with those of the first. Not all themes had yet been formulated in the initial days of the translation debate. For example, “criticism towards Deul” and “let’s move on” are two categories that gained traction in this period. Perhaps this is due to the fact that people had a few days after Rijneveld actually reversed their decision to become aware of Deul and her role in the pushback. Furthermore, the “let’s move on” category represents a desire to move on from a polarizing debate. This shows that in the initial days of Rijneveld’s announcement of the job, the discussion was not yet overwhelmingly polarizing.
After having examined tweets from this period, very few of the tweets addressed the art and craft of translating (similar to the first period). Therefore, it is again clear that issues of culture and identity politics were most popular. Furthermore, a new topic was introduced in this period including the criticism of a Dutch journalist who happened to be one of the commentators on Twitter. In the first period, the stakeholders were Gorman, Rijneveld, and Meulenhoff. Now, there is a fourth character – a critic of the publisher and Rijneveld. Therefore, in addition to commenting on issues and those three stakeholders, they are now commenting on an additional person (Deul) and what she has to say. Within this public discussion there are those who discuss specific issues or arguments and there are others who have criticisms of other participants in the debate/engage in name-calling. Many people accused Deul of being a racist without providing any evidence. In other words, they engaged in “ad hominem” attacks on her. This is considered a significant change since the first period also considering that criticism of Deul represented 15% of the entire data sample (N = 1,427).
42 Figure 3. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between February 26th– 28th
5.4 THIRD PERIOD: ONE MONTH LATER
Tweets were analyzed from approximately one month after Rijneveld’s initial announcement about the translation job. Extracted tweets from this period were posted between March 23rd and May 3rd. Findings show that the most significant opinions within these dates include: “support,” “reverse racism,” “criticism” and “radical wokeism.” These will be discussed below along with the least prominent categories from this period. A general overview is given in Figure 4.
What is interesting here is that the three categories that indicate unfavorable attitudes about Rijneveld were among some of the least addressed opinions. For example, a lack of ethnic minorities as translators was mentioned by 6% of Twitter users. Followed by this is criticism of Rijneveld’s level of English which represented 3% of tweets and criticism towards Meulenhoff representing 2%. Additionally, Rijneveld as an unsuitable choice only represented 1% of tweets. It should be acknowledged that a desire to end this debate represented 5% of the data – a slight decrease from the previous time period. All other categories,
43 including the “support,” “racism,” “radical wokeism,” and “translator’s skills” were most agreed upon opinions ranging between 10% and 18%. The most prominent opinion was that Rijneveld is regarded as a skilled writer (18%) followed by racism (13%), criticism of Deul and radical wokeism (11%).
On the whole, reverse racism and radical wokeism are still very prominent opinions in this period. However, for the first time, the art and craft of translation has become an important issue. Rijneveld has received recognition for what people believe are vital skills in literary writing. Therefore, there has been quite a shift in opinions since the second period. Perhaps this has to do with the amount of time that had passed since the initial phases of this controversy during which people may have been exposed to new information. It can also mean a different audience joined the conversation later on. However, it is interesting to see how in this stage, Rijneveld and Gorman have both received a majority of support.
Figure 4. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between March 23rd – May 3rd
44 5.5 STATUS DISSONANCE THEORY
Reverse racism is by far, the most prominent opinion expressed by active Twitter users. Another term for this which has been used by researchers is ‘anti-White bias’ (Wilkins et al., 2013). Reverse racism or anti-white bias has been and continues to be an up-and-coming issue since the last few decades (Wilkins et al, 2013; Scott, 2018). Apparently, “many in the racial majority now believe that White Americans face as much or more racial discrimination than people of color, particularly Black Americans” (Scott, 2018, p. 130). Currently in the United States, White individuals make up the racial majority. Although Wilkins et al. (2013) and Scott (2018) primarily focus on Americans, the racial majority in the Netherlands is also White (Weiner, 2015). Therefore, information posited by Scott (2018) is deemed relevant. Furthermore, increasingly more members of the racial majority (Whites) find themselves feeling discriminated against and this has also been made clear in the data analysis of the current research with reverse racism being the ruling opinion among many Dutch people.
Scott (2018) argues that status dissonance theory can help explain why more White individuals feel discriminated against which can provide potential insights into why this was such a prominently expressed opinion. Firstly, status dissonance refers to the discrepancy between where a person thinks they should rank themselves and where they believe or assume others rank them. Therefore, it is all about perception and not fact. This theory claims that “one’s referential structure provides the framework for evaluating the fairness of an outcome” (Scott, 2018, p. 137). Referential structures refer to where one places him/herself within a social hierarchy based on his/her nominal characteristics (such as race).
This theory is therefore, centered around the status value one attributes to themselves taking into account their nominal characteristics. Whites tend to rank themselves highly within the social hierarchy – thus perceiving themselves as having a high-status value. However, when a they feel threatened by
45 minorities in some way, a status dissonance is created. The dissonance is that most White people rank themselves highly, however, they believe that society ranks them lower (Scott, 2018). Based on this theory, in the case of Rijneveld, the majority of Twitter users’ status value was threatened by anyone who questioned Rijneveld due to her being White. As a result, status dissonance led the racial majority to believe that their rank was much lower than they think it to be. Therefore, this theory posits that in such a case, a person’s perception of what is considered a fair and just outcome is greatly influenced by dissonance.
Wilkins et al. (2013) conducted a study on anti-White bias and how White people react to such bias. According to their research, there are low- and high-status perceivers. These low- and high-status perceivers are influenced by what they believe a fair social structure looks like. For example, low-status perceivers (low status value) might rank themselves highly while assuming that others/society rank them lower due to being a racial minority. If they speak up about injustice and demand equality, high-status perceivers will most likely pushback with negativity since they believe they are more deserving of opportunities.
In applying this theory to the current research, low-status perceivers (Black people/anyone anti-Rijneveld) have spoken up about a lack of ethnic minorities as translators and have questioned Rijneveld as a candidate. However, the high- status perceivers (White people/Rijneveld supporters) have felt threatened by this since they consider Rijneveld (who represents the White majority) to be deserving of the translation role. Therefore, their stepping down was considered an unfair outcome. Of course, it is impossible to be sure that this is the case in the current research also for the reason that very little information is known about each Twitter user. Nevertheless, it is one theory that should be considered.
46 5.6 TRIVIALIZATION THEORY
Previous studies have found that cancel-culture is an up-and-coming trend in society (Chiou, 2020; Bouvier, 2020; Clark, 2020). Chiou (2020) claims that cancel culture is twofold or that it cuts both ways. On one hand, public figures are held responsible for immoral behavior. On the other, the process can turn into “digital vigilantism” in the sense that people feel as though even the most severe and cruelest forms of public shaming is justified. (Chiou, 2020, p. 297). Research shows that such justification of denouncement is due to moral righteousness whereby a person is “morally inferior” (Chiou, 2020, p. 297). What renders this mentality potentially dangerous is that a person can be led to believe that grave harm to reputations is imperative (Chiou, 2020; Workman et al., 2020). With this in mind, some researchers believe that when the act of cancelling others is carried forth, it can draw attention away from important/underlying messages and unfairly paints an evil picture of someone (Thompson, 2013; Bouvier, 2020).
The current research demonstrates or points towards similar findings or conclusions. A category called, “let’s move on” was established which was deemed significant since holistically speaking, it was the fourth most prominent opinion addressed. This category represents Twitter users who felt as though the debate was polarizing and aggressive. The term cancel culture was not always explicitly stated, though it was clear that this translation controversy was an example of this. It is an indirect indication that several people found tweets to more harmful than not, further supporting findings from previous studies. What can be considered new information is that Twitter users in this study found the quality of the debate to be minimized due to the perceived harmful public shaming of others.
47 Findings can possibly be better understood with Thompson’s trivialization theory. This theory argues that media can sensationalize scandals leading to a lesser quality of debate. The issue is that public discourse is reduced to topics that are considered of little value or simply unimportant (Thompson, 2013). As a result, “important matters are pushed to the margins of the public sphere” (Thompson, 2013, p. 238). Therefore, Twitter users who posted content pertaining to this category perhaps feel the quality of discussion has lowered to a point where communication is only causing harm.
5.6 SCANDAL-REFORM CYCLE & SOCIAL THEORY OF SCANDAL
In this section, I will refer back to Thompson’s (2013) Scandal theory and previous literature to make sense of the timing as well as content of the tweets. Scandal theory provides me with an empirical lens through which I am able to make certain claims about my results. Firstly, I will discuss the most prominent findings from each time period in addition to the number of tweets that was collected for each.
First, between February 23rd and the 25th, a total of 148 tweets were examined. The most expressed opinions were criticism toward Meulenhoff, reverse racism, and radical wokeism alongside sadness towards Rijneveld. Therefore, it is clear that most Twitter users expressed discontentment with Rijneveld as the chosen candidate despite pushback from Rijneveld supporters. This was initially considered the scandal since it eventually led to Rijneveld’s reversal of their decision.
During the Rijneveld’s decision reversal period, a total of 1,218 tweets was analyzed for this period. This number in itself is an indication that perhaps this scandal is more complex than Thompson’s model of basic scandal ingredients posits (Thompson, 2013). During this time, the most prominent arguments include reverse racism, criticism towards Deul, and radical wokeism. Therefore,
48 although similar to the previous period, now there is far more argumentation in favor of Rijneveld and more hate was directed towards those who were against a White translator. It can be argued that Rijneveld’s reversal of their decision is as scandalous as them accepting the translation job (if not more so given the abundance of tweets).
For the last period, a total of 61 tweets was analyzed, of which most users wrote about Rijneveld being a skilled writer, reverse racism, as well as radical wokeism and criticism towards Deul. Again, it is clear that in the aftermath of it all, Rijneveld was considered a very sound candidate for Gorman. Additionally, although very small in sample size for these dates, opinions have not changed much compared to the last period.
After analyzing the impact of the second period of tweets, the scandal is more complex and requires a model that includes both orders of transgression. I would like to refer to Diagram 4 below of the re-modeled cycle.
Diagram 4. Re-modeled scandal-reform cycle applied to Rijneveld controversy
2. Public allegations – Rijneveld announces translations job on Twitter + journalists and social media users question this choice
49 According to Thompson’s (2013) social theory of scandal, three key pillars include: trust, reputation and (symbolic) power. This falls in line with Sass and Crosbie’s (2013) reformed scandal cycle in which restored trust is the objective for the transgressor(s). It can be argued that trust was not restored for anti-woke Twitter users. Tweets from the last period indicate that there are still people who are unconvinced of the outcome. However, it is also possible that people have simply accepted it and have moved on to other matters. Regarding symbolic power, audiences especially those in the first period had enough influence to convince Rijneveld to step down from the position. Perhaps some of this power also stemmed from influential media reports and debates that took place outside of Twitter. Nevertheless, Twitter users as a collective had the capacity to cancel others and act as cultural gatekeepers.
One can refer to Diagram 4 in order to place the most noticeable moments of cancel culture that occurred throughout all three periods. Findings indicate that Twitter users had already begun to “cancel” Rijneveld and Meulenhoff in the public disapprobation phase. Cancelling these actors had perhaps started in the previous phase of public allegations. However, it can be considered to be at its strongest when more voices joined the discussion during the third phase. Another example of cancel culture occurred after the second-order transgression (when Rijneveld reverses their decision). Considering the significantly larger number of tweets posted in the second period compared to the rest, it can be said that the most extreme example of cancellation took place in the public response phase after the second-order transgression. Rijneveld and Meulenhoff were still targeted by Twitter users. However, Deul was by far the most cancelled individual out of all the actors.
Thompson (2013) has stated that his view of scandals and their phases are somewhat simplistic since they omit sub-scandals that occur due to the side conversations happening within the larger debate. A similar argument can be
50 made for cancel culture in the sense that it is a dynamic process that can have some overlap between the phases. Therefore, I argue that the process of cancelling someone can occur in multiple stages, however the degree at which it occurs, differs. Cancel culture was most severe during public disapprobation and especially after the second-order transgression.
6. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
This research was conducted in order to answer the research question: how have active Twitter users responded to the Rijneveld controversy online at different points in time? It was generally found that active Twitter users were mostly communicating about their negative attitudes about radical wokeism, reverse racism and various relevant actors in this debate. This was done through a qualitative content analysis. For this section, I would like to take a moment to reflect on some of the key findings as well as their implications.
I would first like to discuss the unfolding of scandals (or controversies) since it can help to better understand how people react to new information as well as each other. Although this research was focused on examining the different sentiments expressed about the translation debate, I also was able to explore the dynamic process of communication between active users. In comparing the three different time periods and how categories varied in frequency, it is clear that Twitter users were responding to new information. For example, in the second period, two new categories arose, one of which is criticism towards Deul who wrote an article in a major Dutch newspaper criticizing Rijneveld and Meulenhoff. At the time, this was a recent development that perhaps led the discussion into a new direction. Additionally, many more users joined the conversation during the second period. Consequently, in this time, users had the opportunity to be exposed to new views and information. This demonstrates that the controversy evolves in a dynamic way since users will join in and others drop out of the conversation. Moreover, people sometimes react to each other and
51 build on what others have said. For example, below is an example of a Twitter user responding to another tweet:
“The more I read about it the more baffled I am at the disdain for this work. Why on earth would you hire someone to translate a piece who a) doesn't even master the skill of translation and b) doesn't even speak the language. This has everything to do with color and exclusion.”
“Yes, this fairy tale makes no sense. The publisher has nominated someone to translate a work by Amanda who a) does not have the skill and b) does not even speak the language. This is an example of white privilege and exclusion par excellence.”
Although tweets differed in topic to some extent during each period, the overall debate exemplifies a more significant trend in society or culture. Reverse racism and wokeism were among two of the most tweeted about opinions compared to opinions pertaining to the art and craft of translation. This indicates what exactly people find most important when it comes to this translation debate. Perhaps it is not exactly the translation debate itself that is receiving attention. Instead, issues around political correctness, culture and how we treat one another were considered more significant. Of course, it is impossible to know people's motives or reasoning behind the content of each tweet. For example, it is possible that some individuals used this platform and the translation dispute as a vehicle to draw attention to themselves or to their political agendas. Nevertheless, this research indicates that people are more interested in or concerned about (radical) wokeness and identity politics than they are about the details of literary translation.
Based on the findings as well as previous research, I believe it is appropriate to classify the Rijneveld controversy as an example of cancel culture and according
52 to Twitter users in this research, radical wokeism. What is interesting is that the concept of cancelling individuals and wokeism have existed before they had a name. However, people were not as conscious of these concepts because they were not officially labeled (Mishan, 2020). Only in recent years have both terms been made official rendering it easier to link this controversy to the broader issue. The term cancel culture was first made official in 2016 after the hashtag #MeToo movement (Oxford English Dictionary, 2021). Wokeism in relation to racial issues received its name in 2009 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2021). However, it is also easier for people to link their discussion of Rijneveld to trends in the larger society or culture because there is the concept and word of wokeism.
According to the hypothesis of linguistic relativity discovered by Whorf, terminology that describes certain phenomena shapes a person’s view of the world (Black, 1959). Therefore, people’s views of the world are influenced by their vocabulary. Now that there are official terms for cancel culture and wokeism, it can be said that more people are able to identify examples of these phenomena. Therefore, although the phenomena that they describe are not new, the mere existence of the labels makes it easier and quicker for people to bring those concepts into the discussion. With a shorthand way of describing a nuanced concept, it is much easier to discuss certain matters. In addition, people can use it as a way of quickly and easily denigrating others or simply labeling questionable and unacceptable behavior.
This research provides insights that can be deemed valuable for those who are affected by controversies and any other interested parties. First of all, it can help to better understand how these controversies develop and take on a life of their own. Also, it can be interesting and helpful to see that inaccurate assumptions are made at times about what people care about and prioritize. Furthermore, these findings point to topics of a larger debate that go beyond literature and translation. This means that decisions made by organizations and people in
53 other industries can also benefit. They may decide to disregard this information but it does indicate something about public opinion or at least about the most vociferous opinions.
It is important to also address some limitations of this study in addition to opportunities for future research. With regard to the interpretation of the results, I had to make an educated guess that people who tweeted about the Rijneveld controversy were informed on the matter/familiar with the facts. However, it is impossible to understand the motives of each Twitter user through a content analysis. Consequently, this may have reduced some of the quality of the research findings. Therefore, perhaps it would be interesting to carry out qualitative interviews related to this research topic to acquire data that is slightly richer in meaning. Furthermore, the sample size of the data was relatively small. In the future, a larger sample would be best to improve the study’s external validity or generalizability to the population. On the other hand, this was inductively analyzed and according to Collins (2018), inductive reasoning calls for a lesser need to generalize results. Moreover, this study and its codebook relied on inductively extracted patterns and my own judgment as a researcher. Therefore, I made decisions about my data collection/sampling as well as codebook and operational definitions. This allowed me to make the most sense of my data and draw the most meaningful conclusions that I could. However, it would be interesting to include a stronger deductive approach whereby a certain number of codes are pre-selected based on theory. This reduces the chances of researcher bias due to subjective meaning creation.
With the aforementioned limitations in mind, there are a few different interesting opportunities for future research. For example, after seeing this controversy unfold and understanding the impact it has had on Rijneveld and Meulenhoff, it would be interesting to explore whether there would be changes in the policies or procedures of publishers choosing translators in the future.
54 Additionally, having limited my study to Twitter comments, this research could be extended to other platforms. For example, a comparison could be made between the opinions expressed by Twitter users and by professional translators in other forums.
55 REFERENCES
Allen, M. (Ed.). (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage Publications.
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. F., ... & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Battaglia, M., Sampling, N., & Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.n337
Bhanoo, S. (2021). Who should translate Amanda Gorman's work? That question is ricocheting around the translation industry.. The Washington Post. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/book- translations-gorman-controversy/2021/03/24/8ea3223e-8cd5-11eb- 9423-04079921c915_story.html.
Black, M. (1959). Linguistic relativity: the views of Benjamin Lee Whorf. The philosophical review, 68(2), 228-238. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182168
Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2017). Social research: Paradigms in action. John Wiley & Sons.
Bouvier, G. (2020). Racist call-outs and cancel culture on Twitter: The limitations of the platform's ability to define social justice issues. Discourse, Context & Media, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100431.
Cancel, v.. Oxford English Dictionary. (2021). Retrieved 23 May 2021, from
56 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/26916?rskey=5s0LSG&result=1& amp;isAdvanced=true#firstMatch.
Charles "Chip" P. Linscott. (2017). Introduction:# BlackLivesMatter and the Mediatic Lives of a Movement. Black Camera, 8(2), 75-80. https://doi.org/10.2979/blackcamera.8.2.04
Chauhan, S., & Panda, N. K. (2015). Hacking Web Intelligence. Syngress.
Chin-Fook, L., & Simmonds, H. (2011). Redefining gatekeeping theory for a digital generation. The McMaster Journal of Communication, 8. https://doi.org/10.15173/mjc.v8i0.259
Collins, S. E., Taylor, E., Jones, C., Haelsig, L., Grazioli, V. S., Mackelprang, J. L., … & Clifasefi, S. L. (2018). Content analysis of advantages and disadvantages of drinking among individuals with the lived experience of homelessness and alcohol use disorders. Substance use & misuse, 53(1), 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1322406
Counting characters. Developer. Retrieved 22 May 2021, from https://developer.Twitter.com/en/docs/counting-characters.
Cox, L. (2021). How the News Feed Algorithms Work on Facebook, Twitter & Instagram. Blog.hubspot.com. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-algorithm-works-facebook- twitter-instagram.
D. Clark, M. (2020). DRAG THEM: A brief etymology of so-called "cancel c. "ture". Communication and the Public, 5(3-4), 88-92. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2057047320961562
Deller, R. (2011). Twittering on: Audience research and participation using
57 Twitter. Participations, 8(1), 216-245. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1050.7682&r ep=rep1&type=pdf
Deul, J. (2021). DPG Media Privacy Gate. Volkskrant. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-een-witte- vertaler-voor-poezie-van-amanda-gorman-onbegrijpelijk~bf128ae4/.
Dijck, J. V. (2011). Tracing Twitter: The rise of a microblogging platform. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(3), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.7.3.333_1
du Plessis, C. (2016). Smothering South African reporting: Are racism accusations and Twitter mobs being used to stop truthful coverage at election time?. Index on Censorship, 45(2), 36-40. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306422016657021
Dziuda, W., & Howell, W. G. (2021). Political scandal: a theory. American Journal of Political Science, 65(1), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12568
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE open, 4(1), https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244014522633
Erigha, M. (2020). Racial Valuation: Cultural Gatekeepers, Race, Risk, and Institutional Expectations of Success and Failure. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa006
Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). "Participant" perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media+ Society, 4(1), 2056305118763366. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305118763366
58 Flood, A. (2021). 'Shocked by the uproar': Amanda Gorman's white translator quits. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/01/amanda-gorman- white-translator-quits-marieke-lucas-rijneveld.
Fontanella, C. (2021). How to Get, Use, & Benefit From Twitter's API. Blog.hubstop.com. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https://blog.hubspot.com/website/how-to-use-twitter-api
Frey, B. B. (Ed.). (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n685
Fuchs, C. (2021). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage Publications.
Garnham, N. (2007). Habermas and the public sphere. Global Media and Communication, 3(2), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1742766507078417
Giorgi, S., Guntuku, S. C., Rahman, M., Himelein-Wachowiak, M., Kwarteng, A., & Curtis, B. (2020). Twitter corpus of the# blacklivesmatter movemencounter-protestsotests: 2013 to 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.00596. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4056563
Gold, N. (2020). Using Twitter Data in Research Guidance for Researchers and Ethics Reviewers. 1-12. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/data- protection/sites/data-protection/files/using-twitter-research-v1.0.pdf
Gorman, A. (2021). The Hill We Climb: the Amanda Gorman poem that stole the inauguration show. The Guardian. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/20/amanda-gorman- poem-biden-inauguration-transcript.
Gutiérrez, A. (2020). Situating Representation As a Form of Erasure:#
59 OscarsSoWhite, Black Twitter, and Latinx Twitter. Television & New Media, 1527476420961247. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527476420961247
Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., & Smith, M. A. (2010). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Morgan Kaufmann.
Hansen, D., Shneiderman, B., Smith, M. A., & Himelboim, I. (2020). Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL. Morgan Kaufmann.
Harris, E., & Alter, A. (2021). Simon & Schuster Cancels Plans for Senator Hawley’s Book. The New York Times. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/books/simon-schuster-josh- hawley-book.html.
Harrison, I. (2021). 'Not Worth Getting Upset About': Dutch Translator Exits Job to Translate Amanda Gorman's Poems Over Alleged Uproar, But Not Everyone Is Bothered. Atlanta Black Star. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/03/03/not-worth-getting-upset- about-dutch-translator-exits-job-to-translate-amanda-gormans- poems-over-alleged-uproar-but-not-everyone-is-bothered/.
Hilhorst, S., & Hermes, J. (2016). ‘We have given up so much’: Passion and denial in the Dutch Zwarte Piet (Black Pete) controversy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(3), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1367549415603381
Holligan, A. (2020). Wounds of Dutch history expose deep racial divide. BBC News. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-53261944.
60 Holligan, A. (2021). Why a white poet did not translate Amanda Gorman. BBC News. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-56334369.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to quaLtative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732305276687
Ineland, J., Gelfgren, S., & Cocq, C. (2019). Negotiating authority: Disability, interactions and power relations on twitter. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 21(1), 238-249. https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.591
Jackson, P. (2010). Web 2.0 Knowledge Technologies and the Enterprise. Chandos Publishing.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007, August). Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56-65). https://doi.org/10.1145/1348549.1348556
Jenkins, H. (2009). If It Doesn't Spread, It's Dead (Part Two): Sticky and Spreadable – Two Paradigms — Henry Jenkins. Henry Jenkins. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2009/02/if_it_doesnt_spread_its_dead_p_1.h tml
Johannesson, P., & Perjons, E. (2014). An introduction to design science. Springer.
Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., Wollebæk, D., & Enjolras, B. (2017). Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates. European Journal of Communication, 32(3), 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267323117695734
61
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web (pp. 591-600). https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772751
Li, M., Turki, N., Izaguirre, C. R., DeMahy, C., Thibodeaux, B. L., & Gage, T. (2021). Twitter as a tool for social movement: An analysis of feminist activism on social media communities. Journal of community psychology, 49(3), 854-868. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22324
Liao, Q. V., & Fu, W. T. (2014, April). Expert voices in echo chambers: effects of source expertise indicators on exposure to diverse opinions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2745-2754). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557240
Lowe, B., & Laffey, D. (2011). Is Twitter for the birds? Using Twitter to enhance student learning in a marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0273475311410851
Maier, M. A. (2017). Content analysis: Advantages and disadvantages. The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods, 240-242. Sage Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn- resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
Mishan, L. (2020). The Long and Tortured History of Cancel Culture. Nytimes. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/t- magazine/cancel-culture-history.html.
62 Moreno, M. A., & D'Angelo, J. (2019). Social media intervention design: applying an affordances framework. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(3), https://doi.org/10.2196/11014
Netherlands: Twitter users 2021 | Statista. Total number of Twitter users in the Netherlands from 2013 to 2021. (2021). Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/880865/number-of-twitter-users-in- the-netherlands/. Oltmann, S. M., Cooper, T. B., & Proferes, N. (2020). How Twitter's affordances empower dissent and information dissemination: An exploratory study of the rogue and alt government agency Twitter accounts. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101475
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42(5), 533- 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10488-013-0528-Y.
Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key concepts in social research. Sage Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849209397
Pineda, D. (2021). Amanda Gorman brings the representation debate to the small world of book translation. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021- 03-22/amanda-gorman-hill-we-climb-translation-backlash-sparks- controversy.
Poll, R. (2021). Amanda Gorman’s History Lesson: An Inaugural Poem in the Shadow of White Supremacy, PopMatters. White Supremacy. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.popmatters.com/amanda-gorman-hill-we- climb-2650060301.html.
63
Replogle, E. (2011, December). Reference Groups, Mob Mentality, and Bystander Intervention: A Sociological Analysis of the Lara Logan Case 1. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 796-805). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573- 7861.2011.01284.x
Sass, J., & Crosbie, T. (2013). Democracy and scandal: A research agenda. Comparative sociology, 12(6), 851-862. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691330-12341285
Schlagwein, F. (2021). What should be done with controversial monuments? | DW | 18.06.2020. What should be done with controversial monuments?. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.dw.com/en/what-should-be- done-with-controversial-monuments/a-53846085.
Scott, D. A. I. (2018). Understanding White Americans’ perceptions of “reverse” discrimination: An application of a new theory of status dissonance. In Advances in group processes. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0882-614520180000035006
Seveno, V. (2021). Amanda Gorman’s Dutch translator Marieke Lucas Rijneveld quits. IamExpat. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/amanda-gormans- dutch-translator-marieke-lucas-rijneveld-quits.
Shank, L. (2020). Opinion: Social Media is Overrun by Cancel Culture. The Liberty Champion. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2020/09/opinion-social-media-is- overrun-by-cancel-culture/.
64 Social Media Stats Netherlands | StatCounter Global Stats. StatCounter Global Stats. (2021). Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/netherlands.
Stewart, B. (2016). Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied Social Theory, 1(1), 61-86. https://islandscholar.ca/islandora/object/ir%3A20261/datastream/PDF/v iew
Swanner, N. (2016). Why Twitter is a better network for real life than Facebook. TNW. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https://thenextweb.com/news/twitter- better-than-facebook.
Thompson, J. B. (2013). Political scandal: Power and visability in the media age. John Wiley & Sons.
Trifiro, B. M., & Gerson, J. (2019). Social media usage patterns: research note regarding the lack of universal validated measures for active and passive use. Social Media+ Society, 5(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119848743
Van Der Pijl, Y., & Goulordava, K. (2014). Black Pete, "smug ignorance," and the value of the black body in postcolonial Netherlands. New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, 88(3-4), 262-291. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134360-08803062
Van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & society, 3(1), 87-118. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926592003001005 van Klingeren, M., Trilling, D., & Möller, J. (2020). Public opinion on Twitter? How vote choice and arguments on Twitter comply with patterns in survey data, evidence from the 2016 Ukraine referendum in the
65 Netherlands. Acta Politica, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-020- 00160-w
Weiner, M. F. (2014). The ideologically colonized metropole: Dutch racism and racist denial. Sociology Compass, 8(6), 731-744. Weiner, M. F. (2014). The ideologically colonized metropole: Dutch racism and racist denial. Sociology Compass, 8(6), 731-744. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12163
Weiner, M. F. (2015). The demography of race and ethnicity in the Netherlands: an ambiguous history of tolerance and conflict. In The International Handbook of the Demography of Race and Ethnicity (pp. 575-596). Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8891-8_27
Wheatley, D., & Vatnoey, E. (2020). 'It's Twitter, a bear pit, not a debating society': A qualitative analysis of contrasting attitudes towards social media blocklists. New Media & Society, 22(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858278
Who can see your Tweets – Twitter privacy and protection settings. Twitter. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and- security/public-and-protected-tweets.
Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., & Kaiser, C. R. (2013). Status legitimizing beliefs predict positivity toward Whites who claim anti-White bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1114-1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.017
Woke, a. Oxford English Dictionary. (2021). Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/58068747?rskey=FJhhay&result= 3#eid Wollebæk, D., Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., & Enjolras, B. (2019). Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media+ Society, 5(2), https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305119829859.
66
Workman, C. I., Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2020). The Dark Side of Morality– Neural Mechanisms Underpinning Moral Convictions and Support for Violence. AJOB neuroscience, 11(4), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1811798
Yiu, Y. (2020). Visualizing Twitter Echo Chambers | Inside Science. Inside Science. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https://www.insidescience.org/news/visualizing-twitter-echo-chambers.
Young, T. (2019). A ‘Twitter mob’ is as phony as its outrage. The Washington Times. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/15/twitter-mob- phony-their-outrage/.
Zheng, Y., & Yu, A. (2016). Affordances of social media in collective action: the case of Free Lunch for Children in China. Information Systems Journal, 26(3), 289-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12096
67 APPENDIX: CODEBOOK
Category Definition Coding Instruction Example Racism & reverse Racism occurs when a The tweet expresses Disqualifying the translator racism person is discriminated the opinion about for the sole reason of them against because the racism being a factor being White and not Black is color of their skin. in the decision to use not the way to achieve better Many people tweeted Rijneveld or not use society. If Rijneveld would about reverse racism, Rijneveld. have mixed-race with 30% referring to racism darker skin, it's okay for them carried out towards Please code: to translate Gorman then? Rijneveld. YES à 1 50% darker? You can't defeat NO à 0 racism with racism. Lack of ethnic An ethnic minority The tweet mentions Ignoring young Afro-Dutch minorities as comprises individuals information about the talent, while banking on translators whose nationality, race, failure to use members traction gained by anti-racist and/or cultural of ethnic minorities as struggle abroad. A pattern traditions differ from translators. throughout the Dutch literary the majority of the world, and frankly the population. Please code: humanities more generally. YES à 1 Important that NO à 0 @ZaireKrieger spoke up. @Meulenhoff response? We hire "sensitivity readers". Translator’s skills Skills can be regarded The tweet mentions I think it's not just about her as professional the significance of color, but also about the fact experience in the having the necessary that she is not a translator industry and skillset of a translator. and that there are people who understanding what do have this expertise. Please code:
68 writing and translation YES à 1 entails. NO à 0
Radical wokeism Wokeism is defined as The tweet generally The work of #Gorman can no hyper-sensitivity to mentions radical longer be read uninhibitedly. perceived injustice. wokeism or Whereas art (in the broadest Radical wokeism is specifically in relation sense of the word) should be considered wokeism to anyone who has universal and connecting: that has gone too far. objections to straight through all languages Rijneveld as the and cultures, RIGHT to the translator due to her Heart. #Woke extremists; skin color. thanks!
Please code: YES à 1 NO à 0 “Let’s move on” “Let’s move on” is an The tweet contains In all fairness, I don't think expression referring to information indicating this Rijneveld translation fuss the moving on to a new that the twitter user is worth a debate. It is far too subject, activity, or would like to move on polarizing. anything else for that from this debate and matter. discuss something new or simply put an end to the polarization amongst users.
Please code: YES à 1 NO à 0
69 Criticism towards Criticism refers to the The tweet expresses Btw, it's not so much about Meulenhoff disapproval of criticism of Marieke Lucas Reineveld, but Meulenhoff based on Meulenhoff for all about @Meulenhoff and their actions. making the wrong their responsibility to give choice in hiring marginalised artists Rijneveld opportunities.
Please code: YES à 1 NO à 0 Criticism towards Criticism refers to the The tweet expresses a. Why did publisher Rijneveld disapproval of Rijneveld criticism of Rijneveld Meulenhoff choose Marieke based on their actions. for the reasons Lucas Rijneveld in the first expressed below: place. Rijneveld herself has a. Unsuitable due admitted that her English is to poor level of bad. English b. Rijneveld is the wrong b. Generally person for this job, very unsuitable for simple. the translation job without providing a reason
Please code: YES à 1 NO à 0
70 Criticism towards Criticism refers to the The tweet expresses Not just the undisguised Janice Deul disapproval of Deul criticism towards racism of @JaniceDeul is based on her actions. Janice Deul in which disgusting, but so is the total people perceive her as disrespect for Amanda a racist for Gorman's own choice. questioning Rijneveld as the candidate for the translation.
Please code: YES à 1 NO à 0 Support towards Support here refers to The tweet contains A: Rijneveld is a brilliant Rijneveld the providing of moral information that author. Why must the work be support or simply indicates the twitter translated by someone with expressing favorable user is in favor of the same skin color as attitudes towards Rijneveld for the Gorman? Rijneveld. reasons given below: a. Claiming they B: Very sorry to hear that are a talented @MlRijneveld has decided to and skillful resign this translation writer because of this intimidation. b. Expressing sadness due to the backlash or that they reversed their decision
71 Please code: YES à 1 NO à 0 Support towards Support here refers to The tweet contains Amanda chose this author to Gorman the providing of moral information that translate her work. A narrow support or simply indicates the twitter focus on their race and gender expressing favorable user is in favor of is abhorrent. And to bully attitudes towards Gorman in her them into backing out is also Gorman. decision to choose a disrespect to Amanda as Rijneveld. well. Shame on you. And in case it slipped your notice, Please code: you took away Amanda's YES à 1 power and voice. In other NO à 0 words, you have oppressed her
72