Instead of the Deliberative Debate How the Principle of Expression Plays out in the News-Generated Facebook Discussion

Instead of the deliberative debate How the principle of expression plays out in the news-generated Facebook discussion Ida Vikøren Andersen Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) University of Bergen, Norway 2020 Instead of the deliberative debate How the principle of expression plays out in the news- generated Facebook discussion Ida Vikøren Andersen ThesisAvhandling for the for degree graden of philosophiaePhilosophiae doctorDoctor (ph.d (PhD). ) atved the Universitetet University of i BergenBergen Date of defense:2017 20.08.2020 Dato for disputas: 1111 © Copyright Ida Vikøren Andersen The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act. Year: 2020 Title: Instead of the deliberative debate Name: Ida Vikøren Andersen Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen Abstract Social media have become an integrated part of people’s lives and are important communication channels, utilised both for personal communication and public debate. Several studies and theories suggest how the advent of social media impacts the public sphere and the rhetoric embedded in it. Still, we have limited knowledge about how the social network site Facebook facilitates and is utilised for public debate. This study explores utterances and modes of interaction, as well as the contextual frames that make possible and constrain these, in the news-generated social media debates about immigration in the three Scandinavian nations. The study asks the question: What characterises the rhetorical strategies in the news-generated social media debates about the immigration issue? The dissertation is a contribution to the already vast and rapidly growing literature that examines digital technology’s influence on political debate and the public sphere. The study’s contribution to this literature is its rhetorical approach, which implies an orientation to the texts in the debates, rather than the users’ experiences of them. Furthermore, it entails an approach to the texts as rhetorical moves in the debates that structure and interact with each other, and that are structured by and interact with the context in which they are embedded. Theoretically, the study combines perspectives on public debate articulated in the rhetorical tradition and deliberative democracy theory, with a variety of theoretical frameworks and concepts that, in various ways, shed light on social media as discursive arenas. In addition to arenas for political debate and opinion formation, social media are discussed as arenas for vernacular rhetoric and everyday talk, personal and individualised political engagement, epideictic rhetoric, as well as flaming and hostility. The dissertation’s main contribution is a comprehensive study of the rhetorical expressions and modes of interaction, examined against the backdrop of the contextual frames of the debates. Where many earlier studies have produced valuable insights into people’s experiences of these debates, the knowledge produced through close examination of the debates offers new ways to understand why people experience these debate arenas as they do. Through two separate parts, the analysis explores both what types of rhetorical expressions and forms of interaction are made possible by the contextual frames, and what rhetorical expressions and modes of interaction, in turn, prevail in the debates. The two chapters in the first part demonstrate how both the medium and the issue facilitate a debate characterised by personal engagement and expression, strong emotions and conflict, as well as the fusion of many different rhetorical practices and genre conventions. Through the four thematically separated chapters in the second part, the analysis demonstrates how the debates are characterised by 1) subjective and “authentic” expressions, rather than debate between conflicting views; 2) epideictic struggles over moral positions, where acts of re-definition, re-evaluation, and re-positioning dominate; 3) expression competitions, in which participants compete in performing the most savage attack on the opponent in order to secure the final say for oneself and, thereby, safeguard one’s authentic expression, and; 4) continuous negotiations of genre conventions and debate norms, whereby two contradictory, yet concurrent, debate ideals manifest themselves. These two ideals are the principle of deliberation, according to which participants should approach each other through argumentation, and the principle of expression, according to which argumentation is illegitimate, as it obstructs the individual from expressing his or her authentic self. As such, the analysis demonstrates how the debates are not characterised primarily by argumentation, but rather a variety of other modes of interaction and rhetorical expressions. Thereby, the dissertation offers new ways to describe the scope and functions of public debates in digital environments that consider the fusion of different practices, many of them not captured by an emphasis on political rhetoric and deliberation alone. In particular, by introducing the “principle of expression”, the dissertation offers a way to describe a particular characteristic of these debates that enable us to better understand why and when these arenas fail to facilitate argumentation, what causes an aggressive tone, and why they, by many, are experienced as particularly hostile environments. Acknowledgements Many people have made this project possible, better, and more fun to pursue. First and foremost, I would like to thank my two good friends and supervisors: Jostein Gripsrud and Jens Kjeldsen. Jens, I genuinely appreciate your friendship, our good talks, your critical reading and important feedback. Your enthusiasm for the field of rhetoric – and for everything that you do – is contagious, and it has been great to have had the opportunity to learn from, and collaborate with, you. I especially want to thank you for stepping in and guiding me through the last and most demanding parts of this four-year rollercoaster- ride. Jostein, it has indeed been a pleasure to have you in my life – both as a supervisor, colleague and friend. It has meant a lot to me that you have seen my potential, believed in me and continuously challenged and pushed me to reach further. I want to thank you particularly for having gathered such an academically and socially great team in the SCANPUB-project. Our weekly Wednesdays-meetings have been both enjoyable, educational, sometimes thought-provoking, and always filled with anecdotes. On that note, I wish to express my appreciation to all SCANPUB-members, in particular the Bergen-group, for all the interesting talks, constructive feedback and good laughs. I would also like to thank my good friend and colleague, Anders Johansen, for offering to read and discuss my dissertation with me in the final stages of the process. Your awe-inspiring knowledge, enthusiasm, and ability to see the broader context has, not only been of great help in finalising this thesis but was also what spurred my interest in the field of political communication in the first place, when I, many years ago, was a student in your course. I am also very grateful for having been surrounded by and part of such an incredible milieu of young scholars at the University of Bergen. You’d have to look a long time for a group as friendly, smart, helpful and social. A special thanks to the “gang” that I have been working and socialising with since I started: John Magnus, Eirik, Magnus, Silje, Katherine, Erik and Hilde. I am grateful for all the relevant – and not so relevant – discussions, all the beers, coffee breaks and good swims in the fjords! An additional thanks to Eirik and Magnus for reading and contributing with valuable comments and useful advice towards the end of the project, and John Magnus for bringing office supplies to the corona-quarantine. I look forward to spending time more with you all – hopefully, it will not be too long before we are allowed to have close contact again. I would also like my fantastic colleagues in the Research group for rhetoric, democracy and public culture and the Research group for media use and audience studies for making these four years both educational and fun. Thanks also go to Sine Just for reading and commenting on a late draft of the dissertation, and to Hallvard Moe for reading an early draft of the thesis. I want to thank my mother, Astrid, for providing me with the care only a mother can offer, and for always being both my biggest fan and the most inspirational role model. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my truly amazing boyfriend and best friend, Oskar, for all the cheering, for all the comfort, and for helping me keep track of what is important in life throughout these four years. Your patience and high spirits have been (and still is) greatly appreciated! Bergen, March 2020 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1! New arenas – new rhetorical cultures ................................................................................. 4! Social media as arenas for public debate ............................................................................. 9! Aim, scope and contribution ............................................................................................. 12! Research questions and research design ............................................................................ 15! Background: The refugee crisis in

Load more