LAWRENCE, SARAH M., Phd. December 2020 ENGLISH

LAWRENCE, SARAH M., PhD. December 2020 ENGLISH

A RHETORIC OF SELF-INJURY: ESTABLISHING IDENTITY AND REPRESENTING THE

BODY IN ONLINE SELF-INJURY FORUMS

Dissertation Advisor: Sara Newman

This project examines how appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos are employed in representing concepts of body and identity in online self-injury communities and, thereby, generate community interactions and values. The study demonstrates that statements posted self-harmers are shared and reiterated throughout the community and help the community to develop shared meaning and support. The repetitive use of various lines of argument, manifested in rhetorical tropes also affect how individuals form ideas about identity and body and, in turn, help maintains a common understanding of identity and actions within the community. A RHETORIC OF SELF-INJURY: ESTABLISHING IDENTITY AND REPRESENTING THE

BODY IN ONLINE SELF-INJURY FORUMS

A dissertation submitted

to Kent State University in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Sarah M. Lawrence

December 2020

Except for previously published materials

Dissertation written by

Sarah M. Lawrence

B.A., Carlton University, 2006

M.A., Arizona State University, 2009

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2020

Approved by

Sara Newman______, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Stephanie Moody______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Derek Van Ittersum______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee

Accepted by

Babacar Mbaye______, Chair, Department of English

Mandy Munro-Stasiuk______, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS------iv

LIST OF TABLES------vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS------vii

CHAPTERS

I. Introduction------1

Literature Review------3

Conclusion ------20

II. Ethics and Methodology ------22

Development of the Question ------22

Ethics of Online Research ------25

Methodology ------36

Conclusion ------55

III. Analysis – Level I ------57

Antithesis ------57

Emphasis (Significatio) ------64

Litotes ------66

Metonymy ------68

Metaphor ------71

Maxim ------81

Rhetorical Questions ------83

Conclusion ------84

IV. Analysis – Level II ------85

Data Set 1 ------85

Data Set 2 ------100

Data Set 3 ------117

Conclusion ------135

V. Discussion ------136

Identity ------137

Body ------140

Community ------142

Research Questions ------145

Conclusion ------148

CONCLUSIONS ------149

REFERENCES ------159

APPENDICES

A. Metaphors in the Data ------166

B. Complete List of Cross-Posts ------173

C. Brief List of Examples of Self-Injury in Media ------177

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comments in Data Sets 1, 2, and 3 ------47

Table 2. Number and Type of Posts------49

Table 3. Cross-Post Categories and No. of Posts ------54

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to

SARA NEWMAN, without whose patient, constant support, frequent draft edits, and calm presence this project would have impossible;

DEREK VAN ITTERSUM and STEPHANIE MOODY, for the unique perspectives and contributions that pushed the project beyond its comfort zone;

OWEN DOLBEAR, for always being there, always listening and discussing, for tutoring help, for patience, love, support, and constantly analyzing the Internet together;

WINSTON THE PUG, who arrived at just the right time and gave adorable and cuddly support;

and

JILL LOWERY, who has seen me through more than expected and without whom I would not have arrived here.

vii

Introduction

This dissertation examines, through rhetorical analysis, the interactions of participants in three online self-injury forums as they employ words to describe and share both their wounds and their experiences with self-injurious behavior. Based on analysis, this work discusses the establishment and maintenance of online community based on appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos and formation of endoxa. Self-injury, as discussed throughout this work, refers to the intentional harming of one’s own body by means of cutting, burning, or bruising the flesh. My analysis presents a rhetorical understanding of the argumentative process that occurs in establishing oneself as a member of a self-injury specific website - an undertaking that explores both the argument constructed by the user and the character of the online community that allows such an argument to be effective. The outcome of this process is a collaborative negotiation by forum users about what it means to be a self-injurer, and the establishment of individual ethos based on personal experiences of self-injury, individual yet understood by the community.

My project expands on scholarship exploring rhetorical interactions in online communities with the goal of developing a better understanding of how the body of the user, a material presence available only offline, is represented to an online audience by means of words.

In examining language as it is used in the forums, my project intertwines with the goals of

Writing Studies and Disability Studies. As Brophy (2010) notes in her article calling for the development of a corporeal cyberfeminism, “Most interaction between individuals takes place within the context of language, and experiences are remembered, shared, reconstituted or constructed within language as well” (p. 935). Through an understanding of how language itself

1 is used as a tool of identity creation, writing scholars can better understand how language helps people establish and describe the body within online interaction and ethos construction.

Language, as I demonstrate here, is a tool through which users of self-injury forums convey their experiences, re-define themselves, and push against the roles which medicine and psychiatry

(and, indeed, the public) have prescribed for them. My study investigates how users of online self-injury forums represent their bodies and their embodied injuries, considering specifically how the body is a source of online ethos. In so doing, I examine the presence and formation of endoxa as an element of community creation. In understanding the users’ language in their attempts to present the physical body in words, scholars in Rhetoric and Composition are better equipped to understand the struggle for individuals who are marginalized as “disabled” to move beyond that status.

To those ends, my research questions are the following:

• In what ways is ethos generated and utilized in these online spaces?

• What is the role of the physical body in these interactions? How is it relayed in

language?

• How is community formed and sustained, and what role does language regarding self-

injury play in relation to this community?

• How is ethos manifested in language?

My analyses, found in Chapter Five, respond to these questions based on three sets of data, described in Chapters Three and Four. Chapter Two discusses the ethical and methodological concerns of the project. This chapter provides the scholarly and historical background on which this study is based.

Literature Review

The genesis of this project can be traced back to a single line from Ralph Cintron’s

(1997) text, Angels Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and the Rhetorics of the Everyday, a line that mentions “finding respect in places of little or no respect” (p. x). Self-injurers are marginalized in the field of medicine and in mainstream society by their actions because they express themselves by a means considered deviant and dangerous. In these mainstream and medical contexts, then, self-injurers cannot construct a respectful sense of self. This problem led me to consider the ways in which self-injurers seek to establish credibility – or “respect” to use

Cintron’s terms – among those who do accept their behavior and actions as legitimate and reasonable responses to life’s stresses. The project moved from considering the body itself as a source of ethos to the processes of establishing one’s self as credible in online environment without the body present to depict or “prove” the self-injurious actions. From this specific beginning, this project has gone on to find source material in numerous diverse works and has undergone several significant shifts, including my decision to focus on the ways self-injurers interact with one another online.

The work that inspires and provides context for this project is widely distributed among several areas of research and, to some extent, disciplines of thought. In general, interdisciplinary studies of online identity and community provided a basis for the existing work on online community and in particular, suggested what questions are of interest. Work on corporeality and representation on the Internet provides groundwork for understanding identity as a process arising by means of online human interactions. Research in psychiatry and psychology presents the clinical nature of self-injury; that is, self-harm in relation to or as a result of mental illness.

Lastly, rhetorical scholarship, specifically rhetorical interaction in medical contexts or otherwise,

3 provides an historical grounding for my dissertation and for its understanding of the everyday character of rhetorical interaction.

Throughout this work, I employ the terms “self,” “ethos,” and “identity” in my discussion of online interactions. “Self” refers to an individual’s presentation of the identity they have constructed for themselves1.

Use of “ethos” is based on Aristotle’s concept of trustworthiness of character, or more specifically, the establishment of trustworthiness of character. I consider ethos to arise from the individual’s representation of experience and include emotion and physical action as sources of meaning that contribute to perception of the individual as trustworthy. “Trustworthy” in this context indicates an individual whose words and experiences may be believed and therefore have impact on the online community2.

“Identity” refers to how people identify themselves or are identified by others in terms of social and cultural constructions3. In this project, notable cultural and social constructions at stake are gender, age, and disability, specifically psychiatric disorders.

This literature review details contributions to the project from the follow areas of scholarship: Online identity, online community, corporeality and its relationship to the Internet, medical rhetoric and the critical examination of medical canon, and argument. Work in each area informs my methods and contributed to the development of the project.

1 CompPile Glossary 2 It is possible for a user to appear trustworthy while fabricating or misrepresenting experience. It is the perception of trustworthiness that is notable here. 3 CompPile Glossary 4

Creation of online identity.

In early (pre-2000s) scholarship addressing issues of online interaction, body and mind were represented as a binary: entities able to be separated for interactions online. The body was represented as an entity necessary for the physical aspect of online communication, but not considered to contribute meaningfully to the interaction. In contrast, the mind was presented as the sole element of online engagement. Accordingly, the internet was seen as a place for users to disregard the physical limits of the body and to express themselves as they wished to be seen.

Turkle (1995) coined the term “protean self,” a self that is capable of fluid identity, and worked to describe the multiple selves it was possible for users to create in their online interactions.

Turkle found that the protean self has an ideal environment in the Internet, where the wide variety of environments offers numerous opportunities for the user to cultivate distinct and separate identities.

Stone (1995) addressed the possibilities and implications of the “boundary debate,” questioning where the true “human” lies – within the body, or, as the Internet seems to allow, beyond the body. The idea of boundary debates raised the issue of where identity exists: Is it inherent to the human body, or can it be considered distinct from the body? Is it tied to some quality of the physical self, or free to be adapted to any situation it encounters online? Stone does not offer answers to these questions; thus demonstrating the open-ended nature of the argument.

The act of questioning boundaries and recognizing the potential to establish one’s own limits shifts the understanding of online space from that of a single, pre-determined identity interacting with the space, to a place where one can shift his/her identity profoundly on a whim from situation to situation. These works by Turkle and Stone considered the revolutionary potential of the user to create and deploy a self that is ostensibly unlimited by the body, a departure from the

5 necessity of performing a self that adheres to the constraints of the physical body. For example, when one’s physical body is present, it is difficult to enact another race or gender; in text, one can imagine and represent themselves more broadly.

This early and somewhat utopian view characterized identity creation as moving beyond the limits of the physical world and self. Following this approach, scholarship began to question the ethical issues inherent in self-creation. Scholarship in the early- to mid-1990s focused on understanding the processes of creation and their connections and relevance to the offline lives of both the user and those who encountered them. Nakamura (1995) noted the problematic nature of identities based in racial stereotype, for example, when users represent themselves as members of a particular ethnic group by using stereotypical tropes. She coins the term “identity tourism” and provides the example of white male users of LambdaMOO 4enacting Asian roles as a way to experience life as a minority. The images users draw upon are often idealized tropes drawn from video games and film and serve to reinforce stereotypes and token roles. Nakamura draws attention to issues inherent in representing oneself as someone they are not, which “call[s] into question the integrity of categories of the human since they enable the non-human to assume a human face and identity” (1995, p. 184). Nakamura’s work raises issues of authenticity and stereotype5 that present a unique challenge for my research: is there an “ideal” image that self- injurers seek to establish online? Do users turn to the status quo rather than their “authentic” selves, in efforts to find acceptance? My analysis, found in Chapter Five, discusses the common approaches to online identity establishment I found on self-injury forums and considers the extent to which users rely on community-negotiated ideas of the definition of a self-injurer.

4 LambdaMOO is an online text-based community, founded in late 1990 or early 1991, where users can interact in real time. 5 Nakamura calls attention to the possibility of users who are not what they seem. In presenting themselves as a minority, users draw upon and thus reinforce stereotypes. 6

More recent work moves beyond the idea of identity as a performance governed solely by the interest of the individual and addresses the interactional element of creating an identity.

Instead of focusing on the individual and their specific actions, scholars turned to the discussions and interactions that allowed identity to function. Grabill and Pigg (2012) write that identity is produced in “small, momentary, fleeting acts” (p. 101); in other words, they describe the process of identity creation not as a single occurrence, but as an ongoing performance established through one’s interaction with a community. The “momentary acts” most often address the initial text or response to in-forum communication; rhetorical analysis of such interactions helps us to grasp the process through which an identity is both presented by the user and accepted by the community. Thomas (2007) describes the issue of online self-representation with the following statement: “In the digital world, performance is divorced from direct interaction with cues of identity and relies on texts we create” (p. 14). The stability of these acts over time produces a coherent and legitimized identity in the eyes of other users. Davis (2012) speaks to the importance of establishing a “coherent” self, arguing that without some sort of organized center and responsibility to selfhood, a user is not performing a constructive identity. In other words, identity does not manifest as a series of statements without a central support; there must be a constant element or the identity is not effective. This particular view of identity creation and coherence has influenced my dissertation by tracing those momentary acts to gain an understanding of how users express and accept self-injury as a behavior and an identity over time.

Work by Hyland (2012) and Williams (2008) describes how semiotic choices the user makes belong to identity representation. Hyland’s exploration of official vs. unofficial faculty web pages makes clear that the context in which information appears affects how it is accepted

7 by its audience. He analyzes official university website descriptions of faculty and compares them to the personal (though still professionally directed) websites of these same individuals. As

Hyland demonstrates, semiotic choices help to construct our identities.

Williams similarly notes that identity can also be produced through association. She mentions the importance of Jenkins’ (2006) concept of convergence culture, which refers to the blurred boundaries between the media, the producers of media, and the audience. Given these blurred boundaries, identity is built from multiple media and directly connected to popular culture. My project elaborates on this process of producing identity through acts of association understood in their particular context. I identify specific contexts and associations that help individuals present a “true” and acceptable self-injurious identity with their community.

In addition to focusing on the creation of identity, scholarship on online interaction has looked at the physical body. In this, it turns to the element neglected by early scholarship on online communication. Significantly, instead of focusing on the mind as the sole element of online engagement, scholars consider both the physical requirements of internet use and how the body impacts interaction. Stone (1995) and Lebduska (1999) note that, at the very least, scholars must physically engage with technology in order to communication: Typing on a keyboard and operating a computer are actions made possible by the physical body. Accordingly, a key element of my project involves how the body – not visible online in many cases – is an element of online representation, and how it is represented to communicate effectively and build ethos in a community.

Boero (2012) discusses pro-anorexia (most often referred to as pro-ana) websites, which place high value on truthful representations of the body, so much so that users suspected to be lying are called out publicly. Boero’s work describes some of the processes that these

8 communities have developed to account for the body, including posting photographs, describing specific experiences, and providing data such as weight and waist size. This work demonstrates the essential role that words and text play in representing the body as a familiar source from which to draw ethos: the body provides a basis for comparison, and users understand others through the experience of their own bodies. My project takes a similar approach in discussing how self-injurers account for their bodies in a space where the not-present body provides a basic connection to other users.

Scholarship on online identity has addressed numerous issues and topics, including the role of the mind and the body as both distinct and interrelated elements. As they show, mind and body both take on significant roles in enabling self-representation online. My project moves forward accordingly with consideration of both the conscious creation of identity and the representation of the physical self.

As discussed at the beginning of this section, the physical body constitutes a basis for meaning that has shifted over the scope of research concerning the Internet. The following section describes scholarship that specifically addresses the interrelationship between the body and online presence.

Corporeality and the Internet.

Recent scholarly work on the body and embodiment addresses how Cartesian dualism is an oversimplification of the relationship between mind and body and problematizes early-1990s work that disregards the body as an element of online interaction. In so doing, this scholarship considers other ways of understanding how mind and body relate. For example, Brophy’s (2010) work presents the act of being online as a liminal experience, that is, a “performative act of…

9 crossing a threshold” (p. 940). Brophy rejects the idea of “leaving the body behind” (p. 930) while also rejecting the idea of the internet as an extension of the body. Instead, her argument locates corporeality as central to analysis and challenges understanding of the body as pre- discursive, that is, that language is privileged as a starting point in the “’mind’ or ‘self’ making process” (p. 936). Moreover, Brophy critiques prior research that describes the presence of the body online as existing prior to language and arising only as a result of interactive online discussion. In response, Brophy draws attention to the role of the physical body as a means to access cyber interaction. Further, she draws issue with the reification of mind over body as it is conceptualized as present online, a position this project seeks to explore as it examines user description of the body.

By considering the ways the body is represented online through text, my study identifies the ways in which the body is represented in language. That is, my project considers the process through which users bring the body into an online discursive space, a space in which the experience of self-injury contrasts with the uninjured, “normal” body. As the body is

“transferred” into online text, the physical presence of self-injured wounds acts as an anchor for meaning and ethos. From this perspective, this study considers the body as a location where individuals represent mental states and ground meaning for their textual selves, thus finding space to understand their on- and offline experiences with self-harm. As such, the project explores the relationship between mind and body represented in Brophy’s text.

Grosz (1994) coins the term “corporeal feminism” in reference to her call for a feminist theory that avoids dualization of body and mind and instead “all the significant facets and complexities of subjects can be as adequately explained using the subject’s corporeality as a framework as it would using consciousness or the unconscious” (p. vii). In Grosz’s words, her

10 text is a “refiguring of the body so that it moves from the periphery to the center of the analysis”

(1994, p. ix). This approach is valuable to my project in its explicit reframing of the body as a site of meaning making, rather than simply a location for meaning to be seen or displayed.

In her discussion of tattoos and tribal markings, Grosz states that “cicatrizations and scarifications mark the body as a public, collective, social category, in modes of inclusion or membership; they form maps of social needs, requirements, or excesses” (1994, p. 140).

Similarly, my project considers intentional marking of the body as a means of mapping needs and examines the shift from corporeal to digital display of meaning. This study addresses issues of body/mind and real/digital by considering how the act and representation of self-injury in text extends to current work on the liminal experiences of the self.

The next section discusses scholarship on creation of online community. As the prior discussions of identity and corporeality indicate, formation and maintenance of online identity and its relationship with corporeality contribute to the maintenance and continuance of community. As users enact online selves, community forms around and between user interaction.

Creating community online.

As described by Jones (1995), online community is the outcome of ongoing interaction between its members. Users of a given forum must continually perform the group’s collectively established functions. This performance most often refers to maintaining focus on the topic at hand. Forums have the potential to change or evolve over time as different users join and others leave, allowing the focus and interests to shift. This view of online community as transitional and dependent upon interaction is important to my consideration of self-injury forums; the

11 interpretation begs the question of what makes up such a community and what actions are required or essential to maintaining it as it has been conceived by its users.

Scholarly literature on online communication and community often addresses the question of what forms an online community can take. Baym (1997, 1998, 2006) defines “online community” as a group that fulfills five categories: an online community has space, practice, shared resources and support, shared identities, and interpersonal relationships (1997, p. 43). In her view, community arises from the interactions of users in a digital space. The ethos of individuals within the community arise when they can speak knowingly about the community and the customs that have been established for that group.

In contrast, Haas argues that close personal interaction is not required to form community. Instead, Haas’s (2009) work on fertility websites argues that presenting oneself as a sharer of the common experience (in her case, female infertility) is sufficient to enable a user to join the conversation and thereby maintain the community. Despite the numerous works that seek to define online community, no firm definition has ever been established. Various researchers define “community” as it arises from their work rather than in relation to a common ideal.

In this study, my definition of online community is twofold and distinguished by

C/community, the former taking a larger role in meaning-making. First, I refer to the immediate community found at a web address, fulfilling the first of Baym’s criteria for community creation while prioritizing Haas’s idea of community as a direct outcome of experience. Haas’s definition allows a broader definition for community, without the requirement of prior understanding of the community as it already exists. I define community as a space for shared experience that does not require previous interaction with community canon. Baym’s definition is nonetheless

12 valuable as it provides a higher order for understanding the function of each given community as it exists beyond the general gathering of selves in cyberspace. To this point, the iteration of community in this dissertation shares an interest and operates according to both rules set by the site administrator and norms negotiated by participants. In Chapters Three and Four, I detail the differences between the three forums examined.

Second, I refer to the broad population of individuals who participate in communities of this type. Though there may be numerous locations for discussion, each with distinct web addresses, rules, and culture, there is shared meaning (Community) across the community of self-injurer, both on and offline. My discussion in Chapter Five addresses this broader online

Community and considers its function in relation to the offline self-injury community.

When users demand that others textually represent their ethos and prove that they are suited to belong to the group, they perpetuate their online Community and the interactions of the forum. Moskow and Katz (2008) write that “community is dependent on what lines of authority are socially constructed and accepted” (p. 96), suggesting that effective (in other words, openly accepted) user self-representation is based largely upon the expectations of the community.

Laukkenen (2007) further notes that different types of spaces produce varied experiences of the self. The expectations of a community are, largely, what produce that community. My project, with its analysis of how individuals present themselves, extends to this particular type of study by examining how users describe themselves and their bodies in relation to the expectations of the given community.

Understanding a group’s norms often involves considering how the given group defines and deploys insider vs. outsider status. Moskow and Katz (2008) note that users of several

Jewish web forums define lines of what is acceptable and included and call out and decry

13 behaviors that are not. Campbell (2006) depicts similar behavior through discussion of shared identity on a website for self-described skinheads, and, as described above, Boero (2012) describes the lengths to which users of a pro-ana site will go to avoid and/or banish those who they consider outsiders attempting to define themselves as insiders.

In relation to this scholarship, self-injury communities should generate interest because they rarely exist in any other form. While one may find groups of people who discuss a wide variety of interests in “real life” (in other words, when the members are physically present), it is difficult to find groups of people who meet to discuss their experiences with self-injury in an undirected format. Therapeutic groups exist but do not give participants full freedom to express themselves; they generally focus on “getting better” rather than on accepting the behavior as it is.

McKenna and Bargh’s (1998) work on individuals with stigmatized identities suggests that people with concealable stigma are often unable to find others who share their situation in “real life.” As a result, they experience marginalization and lack a peer group.

However, in their work on cyber communities of self-injurers, Adler and Adler (2008) note that the group nature of online conversation affects interaction, creating a space with few close connections despite the sharing of personal, private, and/or painful experiences. Counter to this, they also found that a small number of users shared contact information, presumably in order to continue their discussions elsewhere. This divided research outcome provides a point from which to compare my own findings.

Whitlock et al. (2006) note that “online communities may encourage more truthful exchanges” but the focus of this work is on self-presentation and the process of presentation undertaken by users. Whitlock’s question is not “what is wrong with these individuals and how

14 can we fix them,” but instead “is this mode of communication effective and how is meaning conveyed,” a consideration taken up by this dissertation.

The internet has provided a space for groups to meet without pressures such as being identified and being accessible that may occur in a physical interaction. For those with the knowledge and equipment to access the internet, online forums are places for people to meet and share their experiences with others who self-identify similarly. The result is a space, however intangible, for people to feel they are part of a group and to discuss common issues. Shaw (1998) describes the interactions of gay men on a web group that allows them to chat and share information, including representing their bodies with images and .gif files6. Such representations, similar to those described by Boero (2012) and Downer et al. (2009) about pro-ana sites, relate to my project by focusing on representing in a space where it does not and cannot physically exist.

The internet provides a way for individuals to find others who share similar experiences, especially when it is difficult because of stigma or geography. My project considers the importance of a peer group to one’s understanding of a shared behavior, and in so doing demonstrates that an individual must construct an identity belonging to shared experiences of the self-injured body to become part of a community.

Online communities focusing on self-injury often form around or include discussion of individual and community experience with the professional medical community. Users discuss and draw attention to the felt space between personal experience and its treatment and representation in medical literature and interaction. The following section discusses scholarship that informed my understanding of medical canon and its relationship to the community.

6 A .gif file is a looped moving image. 15

Questioning medical canon.

My project reinterprets self-injury and the ways it is expressed to an audience of other self-injurers, specifically in an online forum. In so doing, my work conceptualizes self-injury as a deliberate and nuanced act that represents the individual’s personal experiences. This approach questions the typical medical perspective which pathologizes self-injury based solely on a medical model. Segal defines the medical model as “the ‘official’ medicine of the Western world and the four assumptions that underlie it: 1) That diseases consist in deviations from measurable biological norms; 2) That diseases have specific and discoverable causes of origins; 3) that diseases have characteristic features that are universal; and 4) that physicians are bioscientists, ideally objective and neutral” (pgs. 23-24). In contrast, the social model addresses social issues, such as negative attitudes and exclusion from the mainstream, as the most significant contributors to disability. My project contributes to a social understanding of disability in its attempts to frame self-injury as a chosen act of communication rather solely as a result of pathology, and the importance of this choice as a factor in online interaction and community creation.

Numerous works have contributed to my understanding of this type of reinterpretation as a Disability Studies issue. Most research on self-injury views the behavior as a psychological or psychiatric disorder requiring clinical treatment (Nock and Favazza 2009). Referred to as “nonsuicidal self-injury,” or NSSI in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V (DSM-V), the label attempts to distinguish clearly between topical self-injury and concerted attempts to end one’s life. As published previously in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV-TR )DSM-IV-

TR)(2000), self-injury is solely listed as a symptom of Borderline Personality Disorder. Recently, self-injury has been further pathologized with its recent inclusion in the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual V (2013) as an “Emerging Measure or Model,” listed as a “Condition for

Further Study” (p. 8). This shift, in part the result of the recent increase in self-injury as a behavior, also indicates that the medical community seeks to define and further study the behavior as a “condition.”

The definitional shift when considering self-injury from “symptom” to established disorder to “condition” is notable in that the shift recognizes the behavior as an issue in its own right. This recognition both identifies the behavior as occurring beyond established diagnosis as well the importance pursuing research on and treating self-injury as a pathology in and of itself.

My project does not seek to remove self-injury from the sphere of mental health. The behavior is a means of coping with depression or anxiety, and often requires assistance from medical and psychological professionals. This project does, however, consider the issue as means of expression that is not reliant upon a psychiatric diagnosis and examines how that expression is represented in and form online spaces. Instead, my work considers the importance of the body as a means of expression, and self-injury as an increasingly common means though which individuals express themselves. From this point, I consider the sharing of bodily experience as a primary element in forming online community. I do not call for rejecting the psychiatric model, but for re-considering within it the experiences of the individual. With this experience, I examine the role in users’ pushing back on ideas of “normality” and how this comprises an element of community creation. For many self-injurers, mental illness is a major part of their lives, and it would be both inaccurate and grossly irresponsible to claim that they should reject medical care. My argument calls for further understanding, not a rejection of medical and psychological pathology.

Horvitz’s (2002) Creating Mental Illness interprets psychiatry’s perspectives on mental health and questions whether the taxonomy established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is useful to the patient. Horwitz’s analysis of taxonomization in the field of psychiatry presents an alternative view. Instead of seeing self-injurers as mental ill, he suggests we can alternatively consider them to be people who act in ways that produce desired results. The result re-locates self-injury as a means to an end, that is, making and displaying meaning, rather than an end of its own. This work contributes to my study in its suggestion that pathology is more fluid than often perceived, and that experience is not concrete. Thus, online interaction and community formation also pushes against pathology in light of individual experience.

According to Berkenkotter, (2008) changes in the ways in which mental illness is taxonomized has changed the ways physicians write about their patients; physicians refer to

DSM-specific disorder numbers rather than describing people as individuals. Similarly, Emmons

(2008) describes how the medical community progressively shapes and recognizes depression, specifically by means of discursive uptake, or the “repeated use of specific words, phrases and grammatical constructions [to] affirm the definition… within sanctioned linguistic framework”

(p. 2). The repeated use of terminology eventually “affirms the definition of an entity such as depression within sanctioned linguistic frameworks” (p. 160). By analyzing the individuals’ own language about self-injury, my study offers an alternative understanding to the authority-infused linguistic approach to self-injury. My project addresses similar concerns by attempting to understand self-injury from the perspective of the individual’s language rather than from the point of view of medical doctrine. In other words, my analysis of the textual representation of self-injury considers the individual construction of identity as constructed around self-injury.

Rhetorical work on health and online interaction.

My project uses rhetorical analysis to understand the words posted online by self-injurers.

Most notably, I consider ethos, pathos, and logos. In so doing, it argues that these words can be understood as rhetorical constructions in themselves.

My argument is based in rhetorical scholarship which examines rhetorical arguments and health and disability issues. Barton and Marbeck (2008) note the importance of rhetoric as a generative act reliant upon finding a means of persuasion. My project considers the act of self- injury to be such an act, and I accordingly examine the associated rhetoric to map the persuasion(s) at stake. Segal (2005) describes the role of rhetoric in explaining human activity; it is this specific point of view that my project takes in its choice to analyze wounds and words describing wounds as a means of understanding the activity itself.

James Porter (2009) writes about digital delivery as techne, “the art of creating discourse, whether speech or writing, to achieve a desired end for some audience” (p. 210). He refers specifically to the topoi of delivery when he mentions the role of the body and identity: body is entwined with ethos and is a significant aspect of making a successful argument. My project considers the role of the body not only as the location of self-injury, but as a basis for ethos.

Given the digital interface, the body must be represented through text, and the success (or failure) of employing ethos via text is a significant aspect of my analysis.

Johnson-Eilola and Selber (1996) note that “the discourses we write also write us” (p.

269), and that these discourses operate through opportunity and production as well as restriction and limitation. To consider how self-injurers present effective arguments, the analysis must ascertain the extent to which the common discourse of the forum affects the words and

19 arguments of individuals. This project provides insight into what it means to say that “the discourses we write also write us,” and provides concrete examples of discourse in action.

Wilson and Lewiecki-Wilson (2001) question why disability is “imbued with a meaning that… actually restricts thinking about it any other way” (p. 8). They note the importance of postmodern rhetoric as a means of critique, refutation, position and action. My project, though it does not title itself “postmodern,” makes use of rhetoric to consider self-injury as an argument and thus disrupt the increasingly common one-sided understanding of the behavior, while further examining this argument as an element of online community.

Conclusion

This dissertation takes an interdisciplinary approach and as such contributes to scholarship in Computers and Composition, Medical Rhetoric, Disability Studies, and the interdisciplinary examination of online identity and community.

To these ends and based in the information in the chapter, the dissertation proceeds in the following way. Chapter Two explains how the project emerged and developed, focusing on the evolution of the research question(s). This chapter also describes my methodology, including data, data collection, and data analysis as well as the ethical and practical considerations involved in undertaking a project that analyzes the words and experiences of fellow humans.

Based on this methodology, Chapter Three presents in-depth discussion of the results of my analysis. More specifically, this chapter lists the types of material found, how they are organized, and what categories I developed from them for analysis. Chapter Four further examines the numerous sources of ethos identified and provides details on how it is invoked and utilized in the online setting. Chapter Five interprets the data and addresses the research

20 questions. I first consider issues of the body and the ethos that arises from self-injury and its relation to the body. Next, I address the role ethos plays in online community, and finally, I describe how language itself is imbued with ethos.

To conclude, Chapter Six revisits the project offering implications, limitations, and contributions to the field as well as suggesting future research with a special interest in studies of the body as argument.

Ethics and Methodology

Development of the Question

The initial research question that my project asked was “How is language used to represent the self-injured physical body on the Internet, a non-physical space?” To respond, as indicated, the project explores rhetorical methods used by self-injurers to express their injuries online and, specifically, considers how they build an ethos which represents the physical body in a space where that body is not physically present. My topic and research questions have shifted over time as I have thought through and worked in my study.

This chapter describes how my project has developed. It covers the thought process behind and decisions on ethics, my methodology, and describes data collection, analysis, and coding.

To begin, I list my research questions and explain their evolution. The questions seek to expand on current work which questions how the body is represented as a location for meaning- making, even in a virtual environment. At each step of the research process, my questions shifted as I collected information and analyzed material.

Prior to collecting and analyzing the data, my research questions were:

• What kind of rhetoric is employed by users of self-injury forums, both in

interpersonal interactions and in the creation of a virtual self?

• How is the body represented in words in an online space?

• How is the body expressed and employed as a rhetorical tool in online interactions

As indicated in the previous chapter, the initial question arose out of a required reading of

Ralph Cintron’s (1997) text Angels Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and the Rhetorics of

Everyday. His phrase “finding respect in places of little or no respect” (p. x) prompted me to reflect on my personal observations concerning how people find or create respect for themselves in difficult situations, especially when the individuals are in some way socially marginalized. I recognized that the self-injurious behavior of adolescent females in a psychiatric ward falls into this category. This situation, moreover, is one to which I belong, having attempted to create respect, both of the self and through the public, by means of bodily injury. In the hospital setting,

I found that patients often sought to be the “best” self-injurer (in other words, to create the most visible and/or severe wounds) and thereby gain the attention of staff and other patients. Working from this idea, I began to consider the possibility that self-injury could be considered a rhetorical act. In other words, individuals who engage in self-injurious behavior can be understood as using the body as the available means of persuasion to argue the need for attention or acknowledgement.

While my own connection to the topic was interesting, I realized I must relate my consideration of online space as a location for discussing self-injury to a Writing Studies context.

To that end, I realized that the behavior of self-injury is a literate practice. At this point, my research question shifted and became “how does writing help self-injurers to express themselves?” I considered this question by focusing on journaling and writing therapy as well as online engagement by self-injurers in forums. However, the majority of this research is published in the fields of psychology and counseling; these are areas in which I have no expertise and no interest in pursuing for now, since they run far afield from Writing Studies.

Therefore, I decided to focus on Internet forums. My question at that point was “how do people shift the representation of this ethos of self-injury from an embodied origin to a remote cyber location?” When I analyzed a single pro self-injury forum, users represented their wounds and bodies in ways which indicated that this was a topic meriting further study. As analysis showed, users described their wounds much more clearly and frequently than their bodies to find common ground for the community. Therefore, the physical body was less “present,” while the wounded sites of the body appealed to ethos and contributed to the formation of a community.

To follow up, I conducted a series of Google searches through which I located numerous relevant forums. Online forums discussing self-injury were both publicly accessible and active, with comments made frequently. The online forums I located indicated that self-injurers sought out and communicated through written communication.

At this point, the research questions I developed relied on personal experience and the handful of articles and books with which I was familiar. In January 2013 I began to seriously consider this project as a dissertation topic which might contribute to Writing Studies rather than to an outside discipline. I decided to move forward based on my readings on online community and identity as well as my chosen methodology.

In late January 2013, I recorded the following questions:

• What role does online engagement play in the identity of a self-injurer?

• How do these people establish authenticity?

• Is SI (self-injury) a means of establishing ethos? How is this expressed? Is there a

rejection of those who don’t?

• Is a specific method of expression required by the community?

• How does the “online” nature of the discussion change the dynamic? Would this be

the same offline?

• What is the role of anonymity?

• What is the role of images?

• What type(s) of language are used?

• How are embodied injuries described or shown?

With the realization that an individual could construct separate online and offline identities (Orgad 2009)1, it became important for me to examine whether identity could be constructed by users, intentionally or not (Turkle 1995, Nakamura 1995, Thomas 2007). Put in rhetorical terms, I began to think of this issue in terms of ethos. Accordingly, I turned to research on the creation of online ethos (Hyland 2012, Donath 1998), focusing on understanding how an identity, in this case that of the self-injurer, is negotiated, developed, and policed by an online group.

With the beginnings of an analytical structure and a research focus, my attention necessarily shifted to the ethics of conducting the study. As the next section details, I turned to feminist research and ethical methodology scholarship to find perimeters and guidance on how to best form a study that protects and fairly represents participants.

Ethics of Online Research

Prior to conducting research in an online setting, numerous ethical considerations must be taken into account. This section describes the ethical considerations I identified and addressed

1 Please note that this is not a binary with which I am comfortable. As discussed by Elisabeth Grosz in her text Volatile Bodies, the idea of Cartesian dualism, that is, understanding the self as a distinct split between mind and body, does not reflect the experiences of the individual. When applied to the Internet, it is essential to remember that the mind is not the only element of the self that is present online. 25 prior to collecting data. Given the status of self-injurers as a “protected” group as defined by the

Institutional Review Board, the ethical dilemmas were extensive and challenged the scope of my project. In this study, I identify three major groups of ethical issues involving the forum participant and a variety of issues that affect the involvement of the researcher. Below, I first discuss the issues associated with undertaking research in an online community, for example, how to treat online texts and privacy issues. Second, I discuss the issues that arise when dealing with a population of self-injurers (or any protected or at-risk population). Finally, I describe the ethics of my own involvement as a researcher and, in particular, my role as an (albeit former) member of the self-injury community as a whole, if not to the online community itself.

Ethical issues: Studying an online population.

To begin, I obtained Level 1 IRB approval for my project based on the non-interactive and digital nature of the study. As a researcher in a field that does not include training to interact with individuals at psychological risk, I was unable to obtain approval to interact with individuals in any way. This limited me to analysis of words alone, without opportunity to seek feedback from their writers. The obvious drawback is that this dissertation therefore relies on words as written in the moment, without further discussion or explanation by their authors. This shifts the dissertation to an act of word analysis alone rather than a collaborative process of understanding meaning, as I had originally planned.

As mentioned, many ethical issues arise when collecting and studying online data. The

Internet provides access to the words and experiences of many groups of individuals, some of whom are difficult or impossible to study offline. As a result, I approached the data-collection process with awareness that my research may affect individuals and online communities. My

26 first consideration involved categorizing the data in two ways: “texts vs. people” and as “public or private” (Gurak 1996, McKee and Porter 2008). The outcome of these choices provided me with ways to proceed in approaching the data.

I treat the data as the words of people who require the protections of anonymity, but as publicly available information that does not require the consent of the individual. As I detail below, I removed screen names and paraphrased all content to avoid possible identification of either the individual or the web location from which the words were gathered. With respect to the difficult choice between direct quotation and protecting participants’ anonymity, I chose to rephrase comments to avoid the possibility of word search and, thus, access to the community.

This choice will affect my analysis. But, significantly, the modest rephrasing leaves the presence of rhetorical tropes intact.

I did not seek consent or inform the forums of my data collection or study to avoid causing distress to the communities. To that end, moreover, I opted to collect data that was at least two years old; thereby I distanced my research from the posters’ distress. Finally, one of the communities was no longer active at the time my data was collected and at this time the website has been entirely removed from the Internet. As such, the risk of breaking anonymity was rendered close to null.

The words at stake may be treated as texts or as the words of participants; more specifically, it is legal and ethical to cite a text without permission from the author, while a person must give consent and be offered anonymity (McKee and Porter 2008, 2009, McKee

2008, Gurak 1996). The user’s expectations of privacy must be considered. An author expects that their published text will be read and examined by unknown readers. Forum posts often take the form of conversation with other users rather than of statements to the public, despite being

27 publicly available. Words posted online by a private individual, such as those found in my data, are similar to spoken words. They are meant for the community to read rather than directed toward an audience beyond the community (Stern 2009, Hudson and Bruckman 2004, 2005). In this project, I consider online forum posts to be the words of people rather than texts. Users of online forums do not set out to discuss their lives online with the express knowledge that it may be studied, and they therefore require anonymity.

Moreover, public vs. private (McKee and Porter 2008, Svenningson 2004, Roberts et al.

2004) data are collected differently. Public data does not require consent from participants, while private data does. I considered the user’s perceptions of their privacy and whether they seemed aware of the publicly available nature of their message. According to McKee and Porter (2008) online users may not fully grasp how public their words may be. In open online communities, users may have an expectation of “community,” meaning that their words will go no further than the community. In my review of comments on the forums I studied, I did not find any explicit expectation that interactions would be limited to members of the community. However, forum participants refer to and participate in ongoing discussions within the forum rather than speaking to an outside audience. Nonetheless, due to the public nature of the forum and the fact that participants likely located the forum through online searches, I categorized this data as publicly available and therefore ethically usable for research.

Private communication is not accessible to the public and must therefore be treated differently than public communication (Stern, in Markham and Baym 2009, Hudson and

Bruckman 2004, 2005). To visit private sites, users create passwords and enter through a log-in screen. Thus, the material cannot be ethically collected without consent from all the users of the group. Using material without permission is ethical when the website it publicly accessible.

Based in my assessment of the forums and the rules of use, I collected data solely from publicly available sites that did not require a password. Although I would be working on individuals’ writing, the users had expressed no interest in remaining private. Additionally, as discussed below, I employed pseudonyms to provide anonymity.

My decision follows Hudson and Bruckman (2004, 2005) and their experiences in making users aware of their presence as researchers. In their work, they examined four separate forums and announced themselves as researchers differently in each forum: first, they had no announcement at all; second, they posted a message stating that they were researchers recording information; third, they offered the option to “Opt Out;”; and fourth, they offered an option for interested members to “Opt In.” Hudson and Bruckman received a hostile response in the latter three circumstances and no hostility when they did not make an announcement (given that forum members were unaware of the research being conducted). They suggest, therefore, it may be less disruptive to collect material from public online communities without asking permission; after all, the community’s site is publicly available.

My decisions choosing sites and the type of data involved (public vs private; text vs human) considers the effects of my work of the community. Research on (Banks and Eble 2007,

McKee and Porter 2008, Sveningsson 2004) or in (Hudson and Bruckman 2005) the community could harm or destroy the group in question. Users may take offense at the research and leave the group permanently (Sveningsson 2004), or the community could become a target of voyeurism.

Voyeurism is a factor in any analysis of or focus on online discussion. In the case of research, to avoid voyeurism, the researcher must have a purpose beyond merely opening a window to the online lives of one’s “participants2.” This dissertation’s use of forum data

2 In the case of this project, “participant” refers to the individual’s participation in the forum, since they do not actively participate in my research project. 29 contributes to research on how the body is (or is not) present in a digital space, and how community is formed around shared experience. This particular work adds the unique element of body and community formed around a socially rejected behavior that pushes against social and medical expectations, even in individuals’ desire to return to a social and medical “norm.”

Because of the potential for voyeurism, I had to make sure I protected the privacy of the community itself. The greatest threat to privacy in online research is the easily searchable nature of the Internet; if quotes are entered in a search engine, the searcher could identify the community. The web forums I examined are publicly available, archived online, and easily accessible (Bruckman 2006; McKee and Porter 2008, 2009). User names searched may connect directly to the participant’s words and give access to personal information. As such, I must ensure that readers of the published work cannot locate the source of the material. To that end, I provided each participant with a pseudonym, both names if used within the text and/or user names (Roberts et al. in Buchanan 2004; Hudson and Bruckman 2004, 2005).

To further provide anonymity, although I prefer to use direct quotes in my work, I paraphrased or altered all comments while doing my best to maintain initial meaning. I left tropes intact in order to provide the most accurate analysis possible and instead rephrased surrounding working. Following Kay Inckle’s (2010) suggestion that researchers write small fictions true to what participants say without using their specific words, I rephrased all comments by using synonyms and words which retain the basic structure and meaning of the comment. To ensure my success at this effort, I searched each of my paraphrases through Google to make sure it could not be traced to each individual community.

Ethical issues: Studying a self-injury community.

As indicated, self-injurers are considered a “protected” community by the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) and, as such, require special consideration with respect to obtaining permission to study and thereby avoiding harm to a participant. All studies involving human participants encounter this issue but for my project the possibility of harm was higher. After all, I study a group of individuals who are predisposed to damaging themselves. Due to the high possibility and potential severity of harm, I was unable to seek consent to engage with participants. Collecting data from public websites presented a safer alternative.

Another issue I faced was encountering distressing information posted by users (McKee and Porter 2008, 2009, Roberts et al. in Buchanan 2004, Stern in Buchanan 2004) within the posts I read and collected3. Statements such as “I want to cut, please help” are commonplace, given that the site is a location for self-injurers to discuss their experiences and find support. To avoid encountering a health-related emergency, I chose to collect data that was at least two years old. Because of the time lapse between posting and analysis, the events, emotions, and wounds described in the forums would no longer be current. The resulting materials would consist of the words of individuals and be treated as such. However, using older material allowed me to analyze the words without encountering any current difficult situations.

The most significant concern I faced in this project was studying and representing a group of people who choose for numerous reasons to damage their bodies. These individuals may be dealing with mental illness and/or difficult or traumatic experiences. Obviously, self- injury can be dangerous to the body and belies mental anguish. I do not wish to encourage self- injurers in their behavior, nor enable schadenfreude or voyeurism for future readers of my work.

3 That is, discussion of suicide or harm to one’s own body. 31

An essential part of my responsibility as a researcher is to avoid encouraging self-injury.

Accordingly, I avoid glorifying self-injury as well as use of “triggering” language.4 Instead, I place the project explicitly in the context of rhetorical analysis, and I chose language reflecting this distinction.

One question that I seriously considered was, in England’s words, “should we be doing this research at all?” (1994, p. 85). In other words, is it ethical and reasonable to analyze and represent the emotional and physical trauma of others to produce research? Ray (2008), in her chapter on “Passionate Scholarship,” lists four principles of research ethics5: Respect for others’ autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. The following paragraphs detail my process of meeting these principles.

In reviewing my work, I am confident that I did my best to uphold these standards.

Though I collected data without consent and thus arguably do not meet the requirement of respecting others’ autonomy, my decision was based on avoiding disruption to the community.

Again, I protect the individual by use of pseudonyms and paraphrasing in order to avoid identification and use non-current data.

Gorelick (qtd. in Kirsch 1999) writes that researchers have access to a different level of interpretation than that available to participants, and that it is our responsibility to interpret, analyze, and offer new insights that may benefit the participants in unforeseen ways. I represented the words of the users as accurately as possible while providing protection and worked to paraphrase in a way that preserved the meaning and mood of the original quote while still masking the identity of the user. I also situated the quotes I analyze in the context of the

4 Triggering language refers to terminology or ideas that may lead the individual to harm themselves, generally by raising the idea or through reminding the individual of upsetting thoughts. Common examples include reference to self-injury, particularly details about the act. 5 The basis for IRB and informed consent. 32 forum whenever possible to avoid misrepresentation. Accordingly, my study provides an understanding of the language as it is used by self-injurers. This examination illustrates the use of language to represent self-injury and to re-define it in a way that reflects the experience of the individual rather than an authoritative medical opinion.

Throughout this project, I also addressed concerns of representation and power. Kirsch

(1999) notes that we as researchers always hold power over our participants; after all, we are in a position to analyze and represent others, no matter what the situation or how the researcher tries to level the playing field. Kirsch refers to the unavoidable imbalance of power that occurs in a research project. The researcher is always in a position of power and has the capability and, indeed, goal of analyzing and representing participants. Participants, however, are often unable to participate in this act of meaning making, despite their actions providing source material.

In this project, I worked to uphold the principles of passionate scholarship. I represented data as accurately as possible, keeping in mind that I did not engage with or get consent from my

“participants.” Because my data was collected from sources that cannot speak for themselves, I did my best to treat them ethically and precisely.

The ethical considerations of this project are considerable, due to the protected and risky nature of the group at stake. Nevertheless, and indeed because of it, this work benefits those within the self-injury community, the online community, and the offline communities affected by the interactions of online community. By examining the patterns of argument and how the body forms an unspoken center for community, this project contributes to better understanding of how textual interactions introduce ideas, which are reiterated and accepted to a community’s core.

Within the self-injury community in particular, this process of forming community often pushes back against what participants experience as medically authoritative opinion and

33 direction. In their conversation, participants occasionally share or allude to being marginalized, medicated or forced into therapy in ways they resent; as a result, participants have turned to or continued self-injury as means of coping in an unconventional way. Even discussions of ceasing self-harm rely on suggestions from others rather than on seeking medical or psychological help.

The result is a community that pushes away from medical and psychological authority and instead defines itself and its experiences based on itself, outside of societal impositions.

The outcome of this research, therefore, is a rhetorical analysis that describes and explains the textual process of creating a community that exists in part to reject social norms, though it did not set out explicitly to do so. My efforts benefit the study of online community in its detailed examination of community-building; and my research offers a unique perspective on how rejection and questioning of medical authority occur within a given group and in an online space.

Ethical issues: The researcher.

In undertaking this project, I refer to my own experiences with self-injury and interactions with self-injurers for information and understanding. But, the experience of being a native of the population I study offers ethical challenges to research, though I am no longer part of the community. Jacobs-Huey (2002) describes how the researcher should negotiate legitimacy in such a situation, despite any previous relations with participants or the culture at stake.

Clearly, as she points out, it is difficult to maintain a dual role as native and researcher.

In the context of my project, self-injury links my personal life and the lives of those whose words I analyzed. This link provided me with ethos as a researcher: I am familiar with the group I studied and can use my familiarity to design an informed research project. My initial

34 concern was how I should navigate and represent my identities as “self-injurer” and “researcher” while still maintaining ethical boundaries between myself and my subjects. How should I represent myself as a self-injurer and researcher to people who harm themselves? As researcher, should I share my experiences with those I was studying? I asked myself questions such as “how much information is too much?” and “how much will a common ethos really help me here?”

According to Herrington, the “personal should join the professional when they connect”

(2001). In other words, personal experience should inform professional experience when possible. Because my project relied on personal experience, I should share that information to maintain transparency in my research (Rice 2009, Wafer 1996, Price 2012, Ray 2008). In their research on lesbian bath houses, Bain and Nash characterize the researcher’s body as a site of knowledge production (2006). To collect information for their work, they attended a Toronto bath house event and spoke from the embodied experience of presence and participation. In this project, my body was both a source for and proof of experience. Like Bain and Nash, I began my research with knowledge collected from personal physical interactions.

I recognized another potential research pitfall -- over-identification with the words of participants (Jacobs-Huey 2002). Jacobs-Huey speaks to the issue in terms of loss of self. For example, immersion in data which suggests my own previous experience may cause me to relapse. Engaging in the destructive behavior that I study would be a problematic and ethically perilous situation. A significant part of my ethos arises from the fact that although I did engage in self-injury, I no longer do so. Reading explicit details of self-injury and the emotions that accompany the situations was difficult. To avoid emotional engagement, I remained aware of my role of researcher and analyst. I found that after several passes through the data, the words had less emotional effect, and I was able to proceed with analysis without issues.

A further consideration during the analysis of data is the possibility for my insider status to affect my interpretation of the discussions at hand. Given my prior investment in and knowledge of self-injury, the potential for reading meaning in comments that arises from my own experience rather than being explicitly stated is a consideration.

Methodology

This section describes the methodological considerations undertaken in planning this project, particularly the collection of data. Throughout this project and whenever possible, I employed feminist research practices. Feminist research values treatment of the participant as an individual rather than a subject, and in so doing works to level the balance of power between researcher and research participants (see above). As I detail below, I worked to treat my

“participants” with the respect they deserve as part of my work.

Ruth Ray’s (2008) idea of “passionate scholarship”6 informed my process and choices.

Because I chose to treat the data in terms of individuals rather than texts, I had to treat its collection and analysis as an interaction with a person. Though my data was collected without contacting the individual, as I detail above, I gave the words I collected all the protections and privacy that would be accorded to a person. That is, providing anonymity through re-phrasing and using pseudonyms.

Throughout my research, I also worked to avoid “occupy[ing] the participants’ vantage points… [which] can be understood as a colonizing stance” (Rice 2009, p. 260). Identity and identity creation are significant elements of this project and are highly personalized subject choices. For example, throughout my work, I use the terms “self-injurer,” “self-injury,” “self-

6 That is, conducting research with respect for others’ autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficience, and justice (Ray 2008) 36 harm,” and “self-harmer” to describe the identity that I examined. However, users may not use these specific terms to describe their own actions. Accordingly, whenever possible, I refer to and make use of self-chosen statements of identity. There are many ways of being and identifying as a self-injurer, and it is important that participants are able to express their identity for themselves.

To collect current, in-person viewpoints on my findings, I considered forming a focus group of self-injurers on the Kent State campus to ask them about impressions of my conclusions

(Lapovsky-Kennedy with Davis 1996). Such a group would help balance power relations between researcher and participants (Presser 2005). In other words, by asking others to participate in the process of knowledge creation, I would attempt to share the researcher’s role of expertise with my participants. I hoped to take input of and interactions with the focus group into account within my analysis to avoid a unilateral statement on my findings. Though I was approved to conduct online analysis, the Institutional Review Board found a focus group too risky given the self-injurious behavior inherent to the project, and I was unable to proceed. IRB found rhetorical analysis sufficient to represent the experiences of my participants.

To create a valid representative study, as a feminist scholar I triangulated my data

(DePew 2007). Accordingly, I collected data from three forums rather than just one. Each forum is distinct in its culture and style of interaction. Comparing several sets of data leads to more generalized and broadly applicable outcomes than a single online forum. For example, multiple forums enabled me to examine whether self-injurers use the same type of language online or if that language is reliant upon the communities in which it occurs.

Ray discusses the importance of emotional engagement with the research one is undertaking. An essential element of passionate scholarship is an emotional engagement with the

37 work; as indicated, the researcher is engaged at professional and personal levels. The emotional connection is beneficial because the researcher is personally invested, but this investment can be difficult to manage. In short, emotional engagement can benefit research as long as it does not shape ones thinking.

Self-injury is a phenomenon which necessarily involved emotion and as a former self- injurer, I once occupied the space I examined for this dissertation. To maintain a healthy relationship with my project, I engaged in self reflexivity (Bain and Nash 2006, Jacobs-Huey

2010, Powell and Takayoshi 2012), that is, I actively thought through my actions and conclusions. To question and reveal assumptions, I re-considered and re-read my data and its interpretations (Price 2012, Orgad 2009, Moss 1992, Markham 2009). Moreover, I discussed the project, the data, and data analysis with other researchers, asking them to raise questions or concerns as a means of maintaining layers of critical thought.

Passionate scholarship also involves challenging the status quo (Ray 2007). My dissertation examines the language in use on self-injury sites, noting individuals’ self- classification and the group’s definition of the act of self-injury. In representing this conversation, my research privileges the experiences of the individual rather than those of the field of medicine. One potential outcome of this project is a shift in focus on self-injury from a symptom of mental illness to a method of communication. The data demonstrates individuals’ experiences with and uses of self-injury as a draw for support and affection, thus indicating an extension of medical treatment as a behavioral defect rooted in mental illness.

In the next section, I define the terminology at the core of my project and provide the reader with a clear idea of the material at hand.

Terminology.

In conducting my analysis of the self-injury forums, I employ several rhetorical terms to identify the arguments used in forum discussion. I examine ethos as it is established and exercised throughout the data. Similarly, the term endoxa refers to the ethos and cohesiveness of the community as it develops through user interaction.

I conduct a rhetorical analysis of the forum material using seven tropes, that is, figures of speech that add complexity of meaning to users’ statements. My definitions for these tropes, antithesis, metonymy, metaphor, emphasis (significatio), litotes, maxim and rhetorical questions, are based on Fahnestock’s Rhetorical Style (2011) and described below. I apply these terms and definitions to my data in Chapters 3 and 4.

Following Aristotle’s On Rhetoric (2007), I define ethos as “persuasion through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way to make the speaker worthy of credence” (p. 38). I extend this means of persuasion beyond speech to include perceived actions and meanings. That is, ethos is established and maintained not only through the speaker/writer’s immediate stated words, but also through their descriptions of personal experience and bodily injury. The described reactions of others in relation to the self-harm contribute to the individual’s credibility.

For example, several users detail their parents’ reactions and treatment of them, giving others a sense of the individual’s situation. In providing this understanding, ethos may be accorded in the form of recognizing the credibility of the individual’s troubles. I have found that the intersections of experience and injury in relation to the group is of great importance to the creation of ethos.

The seven tropes that appear most frequently in the texts and that I have chosen to examine are antithesis, metonymy, metaphor, emphasis (significatio), litotes, maxim, and rhetorical questions. The most frequently used trope in this data is antithesis, a figure of

39 argument Fahnestock (2011) defines as “argument from opposites” (p. 231). In other words, antithesis refers to an argument in which the speaker invokes two opposing values in order to make his/her point. For example, a forum user who describes his/her emotions as “dull and pointed” employs antithesis to draw attention to the confused nature of his/her feelings.

Similarly, users who indicate both the desire to stop and to continue self-injuring, as I discuss in detail in Chapter 3, express an antithetical frame of mind that is conveyed to the reader through use of opposing characteristics.

Metonymy refers to “terms chosen according to some recoverable, specifiable principle of association” (Fahnestock: 2011, p. 102). Among her examples, Fahnestock lists the substitution of “cause for effect/effect for cause” (p. 103), a relationship that is frequently seen in my data set. Several terms often refer to an experience or emotion rather than solely to the physical object stated. As I discuss in Chapter 3, “scar,” “cut,” and “blade” are the most prevalent of these terms. The words are often used to refer both to a physical object or event and to a broader experience of emotion.

Throughout the data set, metaphor is used to create meaning and convey emotion and experience. Metaphor can be defined as “bringing over a term from an ‘alien’ lexical/semantic field to create a novel pairing that expresses a point trenchantly” (Fahnestock: 2011, p. 104). In other words, metaphor is the use of an unrelated term to create meaning through previously established association. As I discuss in Chapter 3, I found four major categories of metaphors frequently used in the data, include the comparison of stopping self-harm as a “battle” or “war,” and the description of the desire to self-injure as a physical location.

Forums users frequently utilize terminology and ideas that push the reader to imagine a situation beyond that which is explicitly described. Emphasis, or signification, is defined as “the

40 use of ‘leading’ words to suggest more than is actually stated” (Fahnestock: 2011, p. 140).

Fahnestock refers to Quintilian’s three conditions for the use of emphasis: “(1) if it is unsafe to speak openly, (2) if it is unseemly to do so, (3) when it is employed simply for elegance and gives more pleasure by its freshness and variety than the straightforward statement would have done” (p. 141). Comments in this data set that employ emphasis adhere to the third element, emphasis used to add rather than to hide intended meaning.

Fahnestock (2011) defines litotes as a situation in which “the speaker requires the listener to reevaluate an expression by judging that the words actually minimize a subject” (p. 117). In other words, the speaker uses an understatement to make his/her point. Examples from this data, discussed further in Chapter 3, include “it’s just a tiny scratch” and “my leg doesn’t look pretty at all.” Each of these statements differs from the comment’s intended meaning such that the reader must re-evaluate his/her understanding of the writer’s point. This re-evaluation then draws attention to the severity or complexity of the given situation.

Similar to metaphor is the use of maxims, or “whole sentences that express common wisdom or widely accepted notions” (Fahnestock: 2011, p. 94). Examples such as “you’re only human” and “there’s a light at the end of the tunnel” can be found in many types of discussions, but within this data they are used to appeal to the specific circumstances of the users of the threads examined.

Another key rhetorical term associated with this data is endoxa, or the unique cultural information that an individual community draws upon as a source of meaning. Endoxa is the collective experiences that the community retains and draws upon. For self-injury communities, this often includes information about what wounds are meaningful, what they might look like, and how others may react. As I demonstrate in Chapter 5, endoxa is a source of information and

41 provides a basis for ethos to be established: users who draw upon endoxa are accepted more easily as a member of the group.

I chose to use gender neutral pronouns such as “they” and “their” to accommodate multiple gender identities, particularly in light of the fact that I most often do not have information about the participant’s gender.

Data and data collection.

As indicated, I collected data from three distinct self-injury websites, specifically to examine the language used by online users to represent their bodies. Adler and Adler (2008) note that there are three types of self-injury websites: Those that are pro self-injury, those that are ambivalent and foster a variety of interactions, and those that exist to support people in recovery.

My initial goal was to identify two forums. The first would discuss self-injury in a positive manner, in other words, in which users sought to reinforce their ideas of self-injury as a behavior to maintain. The second would discuss self-injury as a behavior in which users are trying not to participate. Conversation in this forum was expected take the form of a support group for quitting. As I found and discuss below, pro self-injury forums are rarely publicly available online. Therefore, my data was collected from three forums in the Adlers’ second category, providing both pro self-harm, support for those trying to stop, and general discussion.

Most forums supportive of ceasing self-injury do not require a log-in to read forum conversations, though a log-in is often a requirement for contribution to the discussion.

Therefore, any Internet user is able to read comments and responses. This format enables

“lurking,” that is, reading without participating7, as well as interaction between users.

7 “Lurking” often has a negative connotation but can also refer to users who simply prefer to read and observe rather than interact. Most websites support and enable this type of interaction. 42

The pro self-injury forums I encountered required that users sign up and create a password or, in the case of one forum, was available by invitation only8. This may be a recent development, as following negative media exposure of pro-ana (pro-anorexia), pro-mia (pro- bulimia) and pro self-injury websites, many web hosts banned discussion of these behaviors in a positive or encouraging manner. Social media websites, most notably Tumblr, enacted policies under which blogs encouraging self-destructive behavior are removed by site administrators. The handful of known pro self-injury websites either changed their focus to a more supportive environment focused on helping people stop self-injuring, or moved to a password-protected format to protect their speech. Many self-injury forums still allow users to discuss experiences and topics which are not solely limited to the cessation of self-injury altogether. However, any dedicated and ongoing space for glorification or support for the behavior is prohibited and may lead to the removal of comments and, in some situations, banning the user. As indicated, this shift in the focus of discussion online, though an authoritative rather than user-based change, required that I too shift my gaze. Rather than finding two forums, one pro and one anti or supportive of stopping self-injury, I had to work with the material I was able to find.

Accordingly, I collected three sets of data (see Fig 1 below). There are numerous self- injury forums accessible on the Internet. The data was chosen from Google using the search term

“self-injury forum” based on my requirements of discussing experience and having been posted more than two years prior to date of collection (Fall 2013). I first sought out those that presented ongoing discussion rather than threads with individual topics and responses. I felt that this style facilitated construction of community, given that users have access to the ongoing conversation.

In a thread-style forum, users must click on topics. However, thread-style forums appear to be

8 Upon searching this particular group by name, I found numerous search hits for posts by people requesting access. This level of active interest indicates that the pro self-injury point of view is still sought out. 43 used much more frequently, and as a result, only one of my data sets is a series of comments.

Therefore, my data has been chosen to suit the project rather than chosen at random, which likely does affect the findings to some extent.

Each of these sets of data comes from a site with numerous threads and discussions available. The material analyzed is not the sole discussion on the site. The sites have multiple topics, often with multiple threads for each, and threads can be created by users who have a profile9 on the site. Some threads become popular and last for years, as exemplified by Data Sets

2 and 3, while others last for only hours or days dependent on interest. A thread almost always addresses an issue larger than personal distress, though a thread might be created for individuals to post about their distress. Data Set 1 is an example of the latter, while Data Set 2 is an example of a thread created to post suggestions for alternatives and help. Data Set 3 was created as a general board for discussion.

Data Set 1 is from a pro-ana (pro-anorexia) website, with the thread moving beyond the theme of the website and focusing on self-injury, a frequent comorbidity. Data Set 2 comes from site created for discussion about self-injury that focuses strongly on ceasing self-injury. This data set begins with a call to share alternatives to self-harm, and revolves around positive ways to avoid harm. Data Set 3 comes from a site dedicated to discussion of self-injury and includes both positive and negative discussion of self-harm.

As indicated previously, each data set and every comment within that set was at least two years old at the time of collection. The conversations are organized by comment thread, each made up of numerous comments and responses. The conversations represented in Data Set 1 began more recently than my two-year limit at the time of collection, and I only collected

9 That is, they must log in and create a user name and password that enables them to return to the site. 44 comments posted outside of the two-year time frame. The result was a data set significantly smaller than the others. For Data Sets 2 and 3, I collected all threads shows on four chronological web pages10. For the two sets of data of individual threads, I collected two pages of initial comments, as well as all the comments that responded to the initial posting. Many threads only included one or two comments. My analysis was conducted on 358 individual comments.

Each data set has a unique culture as to how comments are posted and responses received. Pro Ana data spans the dates between 31 December 2012 and 11 March 2013 and includes fourteen threads, three of which are lists of suggested alternatives and one of which is a comment with no responses. The remaining eleven threads are made up of a single initial post, titled by the author, and always either expressing distress or support for others struggling with the urge to cut and/or the journey of weight loss.

Following the initial post, responses are posted between several hours to a month before the thread ends and no more responses are posted. This relies upon the type of post and content – as found here, posts expressing acute distress with responses offering support tend to be brief, while posts that elicit conversation and discussion of experience have responses in a longer span of time. Posts are conversations in the sense that multiple people contribute, though participants do not return to continue the conversation.

Data Set 2 spans the dates 25 March 2009 through January 27. 2014. It includes an initial informational post that includes definitions, warnings, safety information, and helplines. It includes 142 posts. The format of this thread is to post a comment and to respond to the comment within a single post. Therefore, visible streams of conversation are limited and single

10 Threads are shown in chronological order on a web page with “Next” and “Back” links to access those before or after. I located those appearing two years prior to my date of collection and collected the threads on that page and the three prior regardless of number. 45 posts and direct responses are most common. A single comment may elicit multiple responses, but they are directed individually to the initial participant rather than being linked together as a discussion.

This data set has several participants and one moderator, who poss frequently with information, personal struggles, and in response to others. Additionally, the moderator guides conversation and identifies and removes off-topic and inappropriate comments11. Beyond this, a majority of users post once or twice.

Data Set 3 spans the time between 30 December 2007 and 07 January 2008. It includes

140 comments. In comparison to Data Set 2, it has an almost equal amount of posts in a drastically shorter time frame: eight days vs six years. The format of the thread is similar, with responses being copy/pasted. However, the entire thread here is treated as one large conversation rather than a series of more individual posts. Participants respond to each other by name or user name, are casual in their language, and a core group remains throughout. Notably, this group discusses specific struggles that they work through and offer support with over the eight days that the thread is active.

11 Within my data, examples include someone who posted an advertisement and someone who posted a vague sentence having nothing to do with the discussion. It was not removed, but the moderator reminded the individual to stay on topic. 46

Table 1: Comments in Data Sets 1, 2, and 3

Data Set 1 From a pro-ana website, this 75 comments in 14 threads thread specifically discusses self-injury Data Set 2 From a large site focused on 142 comments in 3 threads self-injury, this thread was created to discuss alternatives to self-injury Data Set 3 From a large site focused on 140 comments in 1 thread self-injury

To collect the data, I copied and pasted each comment as well as signatures12 and previous texts to which the user responded13. To protect privacy within my own records, I did not note site-provided data associated with users, such as length of time they had been a member of the site or how many comments the user had made. My choice to avoid collecting personal data, despite its association with comments, was an attempt to maintain participants’ privacy.

Analysis

As described (in Boero (2012) and Campbell (2006), establishing an online ethos allows the user to act as an accepted community member, i.e. their opinions are valued and received with interest. Forum discussion includes consideration of group ethos and negotiation of identity.

Participants describe experiences of being known as a self-injurer and discuss the difficulties of maintaining this ethos among non self-injurers, who are often described as lacking understanding, impatient, or angry. This outsider position is a location for users to find common ground and to establish an “inside” that values their knowledge of and participation in self-harm.

12 A signature is text that appears every time the user posts and as seen within this data may include quotes, personal statements, diagnoses, and/or medicine regimens. 13 The forums represented by data sets 2 and 3 are coded so that when the user responds to a comment, sections of the original comment appear within the new comment. 47

In order to determine how ethos is being established, I examined information people offer in regard to their self-injury, such as frequency or severity of injury. In my analysis, discussed in

Chapter Five, I show how expectations of establishing one’s ethos, including describing wounds, are part of the function of the community.

Accordingly, my analysis considers each site individually and notes the behaviors and methods of expression that occur in posts and comments. As I describe in detail below, I first noted thirteen major topics of conversation and divided the data accordingly. Focusing on word choice, terminology, and tropes, I note the instances in which these elements are used.

Coding

Topics such as description of self-harm, discussion of the experience of being a self- injurer, and support for others make up a majority of the conversation in the threads. I divided the data by comment into thirteen topic-specific groups, listed in Table 2, below. Examples of each category follow. Between these categories, there is overlap where comments addressed more than one major topic. These comments were marked as “cross-categorized.” The categories are represented in Table 3.

Table 2: Number and Type of Posts TOPIC DESCRIPTION # of POSTS Alternatives Suggestions of alternatives to self-injury 73 Pro-ana/ED Discussion of anorexia, particularly in a 12 positive manner, and discussion of eating disorders in general Experience Descriptions and accounts of experience related 44 to self-injury, but not actually describing the injuries themselves. General/Thread Comments that don’t fit into other categories 60 and discussion about the thread itself. Help Me Requests and desire for input or help from 10 others on-thread Self-Injury Methods (Descriptions of specific instances of self-injury 35 and the method of causing harm.) Self-Injury – Meta Discussion of self-injury as a behavior beyond 43 the individual, including how it is perceived and how it should be defined. Stopping Self-Injury Discussion of desires and methods of stopping 23 self-injury permanently Supportive All comments that are supportive towards the 43 poster. Time Comments that refer to time passed – generally 37 in relation to length of time engaging in self- injury or length of time without Trigger/Urge Comments that use either of the words “trigger” 32 and “urge” Visual Discussion of the visual aspects of self-injury, 39 including scarring Why/Cause Comments that address or explain the reason 30 why the individual self-injures

Alternatives. Because two of the data sets specifically addressed how to cope with the urge to self-injure, the users frequently discuss methods to redirect or avert this need. These comments make suggestions, generally described as used by the poster, for avoiding self- injurious behaviors. Also included here are comments describing useful methods for overcoming the urge without specifically suggesting them as methods for others. A notable example is the

49 suggestions to “use a rubber band to snap on your wrist.” Two of the forums examined specifically request that users share their suggestions, resulting in a higher frequency of

“Alternatives” in comparison to other comments.

Ana/ED (Anorexia/Eating Disorders): Comments in this section discuss eating disorders and associated issues. Because I collected one full data set from a pro-ana website, numerous comments discuss anorexia in a positive manner and offer support for those seeking to maintain this lifestyle. The pro-ana forum I analyzed was created for users to share their experiences with and thoughts on self-injury. As a result, an overlap of self-injury and anorexia is discussed here.

For example, “I’m at 70 but working for 65… I’ve found that exercising is a good way to cope with wanting to cut! Instead of taking it out on yourself, I take it out on my bike and it all ends up with weight loss!” This shows the relationship users experience between anorexia and self- harm, and demonstrates the multiple ethoi at stake.

Experience: This section’s comments discuss experiences of self-injury and being a self- injurer but do not specifically describe acts of harming one’s own body. For example, “I’ve been cutting for around 9 months. A few friends are aware, but they haven’t done anything about it.

My dad found my razor and then wanted to know what it was for and once I told him he just put it back.” Here, instead of explicit bodily harm, the comment addresses social implications of self-injury.

General/Thread: These comments refer to the thread itself, e.g. “Great idea on making this list!! Thanks!!” and responses to comments that do not fall into other categories. For

50 example, “You opened my eyes… I never thought about it like that before.” Here, instead of harm, the commenters address maintenance of the community and issues beyond the immediate scope of self-injury.

Help Me: This section includes comments in which the user specifically asks for help or clearly indicates a need or desire for assistance. This need may be a request for emotional support from others on the forum, or may reflect their desire for some sort of intervention offline.

Notably, most comments discuss escalating seriousness of self-injurious behavior and the desire to self-injure. A brief example is “I need help, I don’t have anyone to talk to. I feel like I have a huge secret and it hurts me. I have to stop before I do something stupid but I can’t stop. I’m not a bad case, I don’t have huge scars all over, but if I don’t stop…”

Self-Injury/Methods: These comments describe specific instances of self-injury or provide detail on the methods involved. The comments range from a general statement that the poster has self-harmed, recently or not, to descriptions of the instruments involved and the wounds themselves. For example, “Today I gave in to the urge and cut myself pretty deeply. Not bad enough for the hospital, but worse than usual… I am a failure.”

SI Meta/Definition: This section includes comments that discuss self-injury as a both a culture and an issue affecting many individuals – often considering the public perception of the behavior and those who engage in it. The comments also define what self-injury is and what types of behaviors can be included under that definition. An example is “it’s generally not considered self harm unless it’s repeated and used to allay emotional or psychological pain.”

Stopping SI: These comments refer to stopping self-injurious behavior. They range from posters discussing their need to stop or attempts at doing so to posters who have been "SI-free” for a significant period of time. Posters often seek to share their experience and support with others. One poster states “I haven’t hurt myself in a few months. I’m so proud, but still sometimes miss it. I still have scars and hate them… so sick of people asking what they are.”

Supportive: All comments in this group use supportive language towards others, occasionally as a group but more often offer their support and positive thoughts to specific other users; sometimes they are mentioned by name. It especially includes numerous comments provide emergency contact information such as suicide and self-injury hotlines. All comments with supportive language were included here, for example, “Stay strong! You can do it!” and “I used to struggle with self harm… you can message me if you need to talk!”

Time: These comments refer to time. I created this section when I noticed frequent references to periods of time – generally time gone without self-injury, but also time as a self- injurer. They range from hours to years. Examples include “I fucked up… was almost three weeks clean. At least I don’t feel any more urges” and “25 days cut free. I’m so amazed at myself… actually totally shocked.”

Trigger/Urge: This section includes all comments using the terms “trigger” and “urge,” both of which are commonly used to describe the desire to cut and the specific circumstances out of which that desire arises. Chapter Four discusses these terms and their use. Examples include:

“I have these cutting urges… I am so alone” and “My biggest trigger is being bored.

Distractions are okay for a while, but once I stop the urges are back, just as intense as

before.”

Visual: Users refer to the visual appearance of self-injurious wounds. This section includes two significant topics: the appearance of the wound to the individual, and the appearance of the wound to other people. Examples include “I find my cuts pretty, like a drawing” and “I used to cut my wrists until my children noticed and started asking questions.

Now I cut my upper legs.”

Why/Cause: In these comments, users seek to describe why the poster engages/engaged in self-injury. An example: “I sh [self harm] when something is going wrong or I’m really stressed.”

Cross-categorization

As indicated, cross-categorization of comments is a significant element of my coding process. This collection of comments includes all comments posted within all three sets of data.

Rather than limiting each comment to a single category, I have noted the relevant categories into which each comment falls. As Table 3 (below) indicates, a significant number of comments fall into multiple categories – for example, “Alternatives” includes 73 posts, and 33 of those posts also fall into other categories. In Column 3, I include the categories that are most represented in cross postings.

Table 3: Cross-Post Categories and No. of Posts

CATEGORY NO. OF X-POSTS/POSTS SIGNIFICANT X-POST TOTAL CATEGORIES14 Alternatives 33 of 73 Trigger/Urge: 7 Visual: 7 Supportive: 6 Anorexia/Eating Disorders 8 of 12 Supportive: 3 Experience: 3 Experience 19 of 44 Visual: 5 Why: 5 General/Thread 10 of 59 Alternatives: 2 Meta: 2 Trigger/Urge: 2 Help Me 6 of 10 Visual: 3 Self-Injury/Methods 16 of 35 Visual: 6 Alternatives: 3 Self-Injury/Meta 15 of 43 Self-Injury/Methods: 3 Stopping Self-Injury 17 of 23 Time: 6 Visual: 5 Supportive 16 of 43 Alternatives: 6 Stopping: 3 Time 26 of 37 Trigger/Urge: 6 Stopping: 6 Visual: 5 Alternatives: 4 Trigger/Urge 25 of 32 Alternatives: 7 Time: 5 Visual: 5 Visual 27 of 40 Why/Cause: 6 Time: 5 Alternatives: 5 Why/Cause 24 of 30 Experience: 4 Self-Injury/Methods: 3

The cross-post categories shown here give an idea of the issues that are related to one another in conversation. This information then indicates the threads of discussion that are most likely to arise from a given topic, and based on my following close analysis, the types of tropes

14 See Appendix B for a complete list of cross-postings for the data as a whole. 54 likely to be used in conversation. The cross categorizations also indicate the most common topics

– as shown, “Alternatives” and “Visual” each appear in relation to six categories, more than the other categories and with a significant number of posts, indicating the importance of each as a topic. These findings are upheld by my close analysis in Chapters 3 and 4.

Conclusion

This project relies on text, that is, the words produced by the individual and posted online, as the focus of analysis. My analysis was designed to examine how words are used to represent the body and to negotiate ethos and identity within the community. Words convey meaning beyond basic use in that they are often carefully chosen with phrasing constructed by the individual to make an impact or impression. I understand self-injury to be its own embodied means of making an impact. However, when interacting online the body is not present to make those visual statements, which much then be represented in images and text. This project has focused on words in order to better understand how self-injurers represent their wounds in language. A grasp of the language of the body is of interest when applied to spaces where the body cannot be present, most notably online. This information can help scholars and users of words begin to understand the role of language in representing the body when the body is not present.

In this project, I establish an understanding of self-injury as an argument in which the body is the location and basis for proof of experience. I make use of the rhetorical concepts of ethos, pathos, and logos as a basis for examining the data. These proofs offer a means of describing data in a way that the field of rhetoric and composition will recognize. The creation of ethos emerges as an overarching theme represented in this data. My first research question asks

55 how ethos is generated and utilized in these forums. Prior to the dissertation research, my conjecture was that self-injury can be a means of establishing ethos. The data I collected has shown that this is the case: Users of all three self-injury forums frequently indicate a desire for various types of ethos, discussed in detail below, and actively establish these varieties of ethos through the information they share. In part, I demonstrate through examples from the data that the behavior of self-injury is utilized as a means of gaining ethos.

Having discussed my research ethics, data, and analysis in Chapters Three and Four I further explain my process of analysis and offer examples from the data to illustrate each category and its significance.

Analysis – Level I

In this chapter, I present the results of my coding and exemplify seven tropes examined corpus-wide. The following chapter offers my rhetorical analysis of these tropes as they form lines of argument, particularly in relation to community, identity, and ethos. Thereby, they speak to the endoxa that arises out of community interaction. As I discuss below and examine further in

Chapter 4, antithesis, emphasis, and litotes enable users to establish ethos within the community by expressing their actions of and thoughts about self-injury and its accompanying identity.

To understand how users of self-injury forums convey events and feelings to others online, I coded the three sets of data described in Chapter 2. My approach employs two tiers of analysis. The first uses codes for rhetorical figures, as I detail and discuss below. The second level of analysis examines the arguments these repeated figures make and how they are employed in community discussion, as I describe in Chapter 4.

Using my reflective rhetorical approach, I examined each comment for rhetorical elements and significant uses of ethos, pathos, and logos as well as any notable presence of rhetorical tropes. As Chapter 2 described, I identify the tropes I found. The noteworthy tropes I discuss are antithesis, emphasis (significatio), litotes, metonymy, metaphor, maxim, and rhetorical questions.

Antithesis

The most significant and frequently used trope within this data is antithesis, that is, an argument in which the speaker makes their point by invoking two opposing values. Often, the

57 antithesis consisted of opposing emotions. For example, antithesis is expressed in a comment which combines a positive message with a frowning-face emoticon, thereby representing two opposing states of mind. Thus, antithetical language represents a complex argument about emotional experience.

My data set included four types of antithesis: 1) the desire to stop self-injuring while also seeking to continue; 2) the description of possible alternatives to self-injury and their downfalls;

3) the relationship between self-injury and membership in the community1; and 4) the use of emoticons and words of opposite meaning. I discuss and provide examples of each below.

The first and most common example of antithesis occurs when the user indicates their desire to stop self-injuring while simultaneously noting an overwhelming urge to continue to do so. In other words, users often acknowledge the benefits or requirements of stopping self- injuring and indicate that they genuinely want to stop. Despite this awareness and desire, many users also describe their continued need and desire to have visual evidence of self-injury as well as to experience the emotional and physical release the action provides. Comments from each of the three forums repeatedly address this internal struggle.

Notably, antithesis is often employed as a means of demonstrating the user’s need for support from the community. The antithetical relationship between the urge to cut and resistance to cutting is described repeatedly throughout the data and used similarly in the three forums. As part of the site’s conversation, as I discuss in Chapter 4, this use of antithesis seeks assistance from the community. Thus, the use of antithesis is a source of ethos and allows self-injurers to demonstrate the credibility of the user’s need for attention from and interaction with others on the discussion board. Comments conveying this emotional relationship often ground the

1 This relationship is antithetical because of the amount of ambiguity between feeling both the need for and aversion to self-harm. 58 discussion thread, which, after all, exists to provide a space for self-injurers to interact. In other words, users frequently comment on their interactions with others, asking for input about self- injury and commenting on feedback that has been given to them. Further, users indicate that these interactions are a source of emotional fulfillment that enable them to resist their urges to self-harm.

In this data, antithesis promotes and foregrounds textual interaction by contrasting an ideal or desired state with the opposing state and allows the user to indicate their occupation of both positions. Other users are provoked to response through the presence of multiple points of view and the distress of the individual experiencing an antithetical state of mind. The comments elicit support for the established emotional need, suggestions for alternate actions, and statements of shared experience. Thus, antithesis is an essential element of community interaction that drives the thread itself.

The first comment in Data Set 1 states “The urge is really killing me. It’s been strong for several days but I’ve been able to hold it off. Usually when it gets like this I can hold off for another day or two. I want to cut so bad.” The comment exemplifies Type 1 of antithesis as it first describes the user’s work to avoid self-harm and follows with the desire to do so.

Rhetorically, the user describes two opposing ideas: the desire to self-harm, and the ability to resist that desire. As it is presented to other users, the antithetical statements amplify and define one another by contrast: the user’s strong urge is shown by their stated limited ability to restrain from self-harm. The user’s indicated commitment to stopping and, at the same time, their need for assistance are indicated through his or her efforts to abstain from the behavior in question.

The second type of antithesis appears in discussions of alternatives to self-injury and other behaviors; here, suggestions and personal feedback are frequently offered. Such discussion establishes the three forums as sources of support for stopping self-harm. For example, one user notes that they like to read to distract him/herself and suggests carrying a book. However, they continue with the statement that “it doesn’t always work,” providing a hedge for the argument.

By stating that the tactic does not always work, the speaker employs antithesis to inform readers that results may vary.

Repeatedly, users echo this sentiment: alternatives can be useful but are not always reliable. Within the community’s conversation, antithetical language involving techniques for control is followed by applying details for the suggested method. The various suggestions given anticipate and/or respond to the possibility that an alternative behavior will fail. Data Set 2 lists numerous options for avoidance of self-harm. If an alternative has limited success, the community provides further options. Therefore, antithetical discussion generates further conversation and fulfills the initial purpose of the parent comment, that is, to find some way to stave off self-harm.

Several users overtly indicate awareness of this tension between wanting and not wanting to cut. One user explicitly states “when I want to hurt myself but would rather stop, I find that drawing on myself works really well.” Again, the individual’s comment expresses two opposing desires: “I want to hurt myself” and “I would rather stop.” By requesting alternatives, they attempt to remedy the opposition between those feelings. As an argument, the antithetical comment evokes pathos through shared experience: other users are likely to understand the emotions they shared and may then be more likely to respond to the statement.

A third type of antithesis demonstrates the user’s continued commitment to the community and to the identity of self-injurer. The type also reflects ambiguity between feeling both the need for and aversion to self-harm. In these cases, users describe their success thus far and link it to continued participation in an active community. In so doing, they again express a conflict between continuing to identify as self-injurers and full members of the community, or identifying as self-injurers in recovery and, thus, no longer participants in the core activity of the community. Their continued presence in the online community indicates that the user falls into one of these groups.

In Data Set 2, one user states that they have “been going months without cutting, and when I do cut, it’s not nearly as bad as it used to be. I’m not totally free of it, though.” The individual shares their success at reducing the frequency and severity of self-harm yet points out that they is not fully free from self-injury. Through use of antithesis, the user represents both their progress towards recovery and their continued participation in the community. The individual thus establishes their ethos as recovering from self-injury based in their ability to stop self-injuring; at the same time they maintain knowledge of and participation in the community of active self-injurers. In contrast to the second type of antithesis, the individual needs a different kind of support from the community – rather than assistance with alternatives through shared emotions, strength to continue to maintain their success. Further discussion of ethos and community can be found below.

Fourth, antithesis appears in statements with mismatched emoticons and text. Emoticons express emotions in visuals which consist of letters and punctuation: for example, :) is a smiling face, while :( is a frowning face. Notably, each of the forums examined offers the option to use

61 emojis2, which are previously existing images rather than images constructed from text, as shown above. Online discussions often use emoticons and emojis to express feelings about context which cannot be conveyed in text alone. By adding feelings, they clarify and expand meaning. In conversations about self-injury, users frequently employ emoticons which express emotions antithetical to their written words. For example, “I don’t want to be in this place again

:D” indicates unhappiness in words, while the emoticon represents a broadly smiling face most often used to express joy. Another example creates antithesis in the opposing direction: “I think this thread is a great idea” is paired with a crying face.

The mismatches occur most frequently in reference to specific acts of self-harm as well as the experiences surrounding that action. For example, “It bothers me, though, that the big scar on my arm turns darkish purple when it’s cold. It’s… ew. <3” In this comment, the user describes disgust with their scars but closes with a heart emoticon. Through this antithetical visualization, the user indicates their ambivalence about the statement made: The scar is upsetting, yet the statement closes with an expression of love. In using words and images to this end, users draw attention to their confusion, unhappiness, or uncertainty about the events and feelings about it.

Some of the text/emoticon pairings also represent feelings that the user may not be able to accurately or succinctly express in print. For example, one user’s comment describing their scars ends with the statement “wonderful for my work” following by a heart. They then note that they work as a lifeguard. Here, in addition to contributing to the comment’s sarcasm, the mismatched emoticon enables the user to focus on discomfort that would require significantly

2 “Emoji” refers to a small digital image that can be inserted into text. They are often colored and occasionally animated, and while there are many emojis, those most commonly used are yellow faces. On many forum websites, typing an emoticon, for example, :-), will automatically create the emoji version of the sentiment. 62 more space to describe in words. Thus, the visual complements the verbal and contributes to a more accurate message.

As an element of conversation, these visual cues alert other readers to the user’s lack of certainty about their statement. Through these examples, users not only use antithesis as an argumentative tactic but also experience antithetical emotional thoughts (See Chapter 4).

However, such representations are not solely a rhetorical strategy aimed at the community; they are perhaps primarily directed at the user’s inward thoughts. In other words, users are representing what they think and feel both to make an argument and to examine and share their own experiences. Forum users employ emoticons as a stand-in for gesture and request the active participation of their readers: instead of meaning laid out clearly, emotion and ambivalence are expressed in the combination of the two opposing elements.

Notably, emoticons which offer support and positive attention (“Great job at not cutting!

:D”) are always properly matched; they make a positive statement and depict a positive emotion.

Apparently, users are sincere in these sentiments and thus represent them accordingly. Antithesis is then not the only way of offering emotional support to others; thus, the representation of the emoticon reinforces the text message rather than drawing it into question.

Given the lack of reference to the actual physical body on these forums, the use of emoticons to evoke and illustrate physical expression is significant. Emoticons frequently depict facial expressions; thus, perhaps lacking words, users represent their emotions as physical manifestations. In other words, emotions are shared through reference to and representation of the physical body. In this way, users draw upon the body and others’ shared knowledge of the body and its social uses to explain and depict their feelings.

In sum, antithesis is frequently used to express emotion and thereby presents arguments to readers. In depicting emotions as divided and opposing, antithesis expresses the speakers’ confusion and struggle. Antithetical language ideally prompts readers to respond to such comments, resulting in interactions that make up the content of the community. Thus, antithesis contributes to the continuance of community and the identity afforded by the community.

Emphasis (Significatio)

Emphasis (significatio) is the use of words to suggest meaning beyond what is clearly stated. A majority of comments in this data which employ significatio convey information that the user is unable or unwilling to state blatantly.

For example, one user states that “I miss blood and control. I’m twisted.” The user does not contradict their interest in blood and control; instead they question the interest as valid or acceptable. This statement adheres to the second type of emphasis in which the user avoids openly stating “unseemly” information. By stating their interest in the negative, the user conveys their experience while still acknowledging social norms. Notably, this comment also employs antithesis as it draws the reader’s attention to the opposing ideas of missing blood and control and identifying this state of mind as “twisted.”

Though these elements are not always an overt part of conversation, prior comments in the thread demonstrate that some members of the community share an interest in, or knowledge of, blood and control. Making a statement about these issues, and characterizing it as “twisted,” the speaker invites other users to reply to the comment, thereby gaining their support. Indeed, the response to this comment begins by saying “It’s not twisted, it’s just habit trying to get ahold of

64 you.” By making the statement and drawing attention to a shared group idea, the original commenter has succeeded in eliciting a certain response from another user.

Self-deprecating statements which subvert the user’s point appear frequently, most often at the end of a comment. One user closes their description of their self-injury habit by calling it

“pathetic,” a phrase that expresses their feelings towards the action and, intentionally or not, establishes a point for the launch of a rebuttal. By identifying the act of self-injury as “pathetic,” the user indicates dissatisfaction with their choices and, in following the statement with the question of “Does anyone else do this?” invites comment and rebuttal. Here, emphasis enables the user to disparage themselves while indicating their desire to find reinforcement from others who respond with similar experience.

Negative emphasis demonstrates the extent to which users struggle with their own actions and the identities that arise from those actions. This user avoids openly stating their need for attention and affirmation, instead making a negative statement and asking about others’ similar experiences. In this example, the user dismisses the experience that evokes the reader’s pathos.

The descriptor “pathetic” provokes others to feel either disgust or pity. On a supportive website such as this, the expected response challenges the negative comment, giving such a comment the likelihood of receiving kind words. Indeed, the responding comment states that the initial user is neither strange nor pathetic and responds to their concerns.

One user describes alternative behaviors and distractions which help him/her to avoid self-harm. They state, “I literally talk myself down if I’m having a panic attack and feel like cutting. I literally talk to myself, and it always helps. Maybe that makes me crazy, but at least it works.” In this comment, the user defends their coping method by identifying with an unseemly group, those who are “crazy,” rather than simply leaving the statement to be interpreted by the

65 reader. The use of emphasis here draws attention to the user’s coping mechanism and connects her behavior and the perceived behavior of “crazy” people. In making this claim herself, the user prompts comments from others.

As I have shown, users employ emphasis to draw attention to and define their struggles by avoiding direct reference to “unseemly” behaviors or ideas. Instead, users emphasize their feelings, first making a point and then stating that it is improper or incorrect. The statements made are often norms within the community (endoxa), often leading to the reinforcement of the user’s original, unseemly idea. In making statements that can be refuted, the comments solicit responses from others which will to assist the individual in feeling better or finding a resolution for their situation.

Litotes

Fahnestock (2011) defines litotes as a situation in which “the speaker requires the listener to reevaluate an expression by judging that the words actually minimize a subject” (p. 117). In other words, the speaker uses an understatement to make their point. Examples from this data include “it’s just a tiny scratch” and “my leg doesn’t look pretty at all,” phrases that differ from the comment’s theme to the extent that the reader must re-evaluate their understanding of the point.

The comment further states “It’s just a tiny scratch. I know it might seem bad, and I’m probably just kidding myself, but sometimes I really can’t see what’s so bad about it.” Here, the speaker uses litotes to convince the reader and, presumably, him/herself, that self-injury is not as serious as it is purported to be. To make this point, they minimize the significance of the wound and reiterates that it is “tiny” and, therefore, not an issue. The comment prompts response in that

66 the reader may think it is a serious wound. The speaker indicates that a small self-inflicted wound is less problematic than a large self-inflicted wound, while their vague description may lead readers to seek clarification and thus create discussion. The focus on size prompts the readers to reconsider their own assumptions about wound size and severity by shaping readers’ thinking on what wounds are most and least credible within the community. The use of litotes prompts readers to be persuaded by the user’s argument about wound size.

In the second example, the user, following a lengthy statement regarding their fears about hospitalization, states “My leg doesn’t look pretty at all. It’s infected, but that isn’t a problem for me. When I cut I just do it a little. The cuts are long but not very deep. I just like to see pools of blood.” Taken in context, “not pretty” understates the actual appearance of the individual’s leg.

They moves between understating the state of their wounds (“not pretty,” “just do it a little,” “not a problem”) and describing what is presented as the “real” situation (“infected,” “long but not deep,” and “pools of blood.”) The outcome is a sense that the situation is serious and the use of litotes draws attention to this fact. Litotes is employed here in conjunction with significatio.

Understatement, the casually-noted fact of this seriousness, conveys the gravity of the situation and the invested nature of the user.

Statements employing litotes alone are rare. Most uses of litotes combine it with other tropes, particularly antithesis and emphasis. In one frequent use of litotes, it combines with

“just” as a sentence modifier that understates a point. “Maybe I’m just insane” (Fig 1) and “I just want to tear myself to shreds” (Fig 2) both lessen the impact of the statement. Users utilize the word to either demonstrate the reasonable nature of their desires (“I’d just like to say that…” or

“I just need a hug”) or to draw attention to the extremity of the statement, as demonstrated in

Figs 1 and 2.

Throughout the data, litotes diminishes the seriousness of self-injury, as a practice or in relation to specific wounds, and draws attention to users’ need for validation and support. This language typically suggests that users are not so invested in problematic behavior while it lessens the impact of knowledge of the destructive behavior on others. Further, understatement conveys feelings that the stated desires/needs are reasonable and should be easily met.

Metonymy

Metonymy refers to “terms chosen according to some recoverable, specifiable principle of association” (Fahnestock: 2011, p. 102), including “cause for effect/effect for cause” (p. 103).

This relationship appears in specific usages in my data set. Several terms typically refer to an experience or emotion rather than solely to the physical object suggested; “scars,” “cuts,” and

“blades” are the most prevalent stand-ins. These words often refer both to a physical object or event and to a broader experience of emotion which the reader supplies but is then left unstated.

By their very nature, physical cuts and scars embody metonymy – a physical iteration of mental pain. The wounds are an “effect” that draws attention to a “cause” that the individual is often unable or unwilling to detail or explain. Self-inflicted wounds are understood in our culture to be atypical and are associated with mental illness and depression3. Thus, seeing such wounds on an individual informs the viewer that they are struggling and may need support and professional assistance. Unlike tattoos or piercings4 the marks of self-injury indicate an internal struggle and a subtle means of eliciting response. Hiding wounds or scars is, in turn, a means of concealing that struggle.

3 Notably, online self-injury forums comprise an opposing culture in which self-injury is understandable, though still recognized to be problematic outside of the group. 4 Tattoos and piercings often represent a larger meaning for the individual as well, though they differ from self- injury in that they are generally not hidden or surreptitious. 68

In this data, users most often refer to “scars” to indicate other, larger issues for potential viewers to infer. The speaker often focuses on the visibility of these wounds and the message the wounds send to observers. The community repeatedly acknowledges that self-injurious wounds indicate struggle with mental health and are, therefore, protective of how the information is disseminated. Some users struggle to hide their wounds and thus conceal their struggles, while others embrace visibility as a means of conveying experience and need. One user writes, “I go back to school this Monday and I’m worried about how people will react when and if they see my scarring.” Another states “the scars on my arm (there’s over 50) show me that I’m stronger than whatever has tried to break me. At the same time, I think it warns off people who just can’t handle me.” As the latter comment indicates, they feel that the scars themselves (the part) are physical, visible evidence of larger mental health issues (the whole). This information allows others to react or distance themselves accordingly. In each case, scars act as visual metonymy, an effect that can then be logically linked to a cause.

Within the community, wounds and scars play a different role, as indicated by the descriptions of each that users share with readers. Metonymy is not employed here through visuals, given the textual nature of the forums, but through words. One user wrote, “I cut today for the first time this year,” while another states “Anyone have any really pretty scars? I cut a rose design on my leg one time.” Each comment indicates a larger issue through statement of self-injurious action. Such comments employ pathos as a means of creating attention and conversation and contribute to the user’s ethos within the community. (See Chapter 4.)

Other users describe the purposeful display of visual wounds as a means of acquiring assistance and support for emotional and psychological distress. For example, “when I started, it was like proof. I was always so sad and depressed, but when I talked about it people would just

69 tell me there wasn’t anything wrong in my life and I had no reason to be sad. I guess I started because I wanted a reason to cry so I didn’t feel like I was crazy.” Here, the user describes their conscious effort to create an outlet for their problematic feelings. They did not feel that their ethos was represented effectively. To provide that ethos, they created visible wounds (the part) to depict their distress (the whole).

Another user describes a similar experience: “Am I the only one who gets nervous when the wounds start to fade? I feel like I always need to have marks… (as if with the fading scars, all the reason behind the cuts disappears and everything returns to silence, as if nothing had existed).” Both in their language and experiences, the individual describes a connection between wounds and experience/emotion: wounds, the part, indicate and maintain credibility and experience, the whole. Repeatedly, the connection between these elements – cause and effect – is articulated as a driving force behind self-harm.

In another example of metonymy, users refer to the physical objects they employ for self- harm to indicate the act of self-injury. For example, when one user states “I left the room where my blades were,” they refer to more than the fact that they are no longer in the vicinity of an object. This statement refers in part to the act of removing access to methods of self-injury and their choice to avoid harming. The comment also refers to the object, “blade,” as a part, to represent the whole, the individual’s sense of trigger and the desire to self-harm. To leave the room represents their physical action to resist self-harm. Similarly, the statement, “I’m really glad my partner didn’t give me the blade when I asked him to” employs the object to refer to the act of self-injury – the implication being that with the blade, self-injury would have occurred. In conjunction with its implied use, “blade” is a part that indicates the action of self-injury, the whole.

Metonymy is used throughout this data as a means of connecting visual and emotional states, as well as objects and their effects. Given the community discourse thereby created, as I discuss in Chapter 4, meaning is conveyed between readers.

Metaphor

Metaphor, the use of an unrelated term to stand in for another term in the pursuit of meaning, is frequently employed in discussion of self-harm. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) state,

“metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (p. 3).

Users in this study employ a variety of metaphors to convey their actions and the mental and emotional climate that surrounds those actions and their outcomes.

The metaphors identified within this data fall into eight categories, with a ninth category including exceptions. The categories are metaphors based on 1) active destruction and violence;

2) passive destruction and dysfunction; 3) strength, power, and weakness; 4) physical space; 5) physical body; 6) physical action; 7) metaphorical maxim; and 8) descriptive metaphor. In this section, I describe each category and discuss examples and usage. A complete list of metaphors and their classifications can be found in Appendix A.

Metaphorical representation of active physical destruction and violence includes phrasing such as “fighting,” “tear myself to shreds,” and “this is killing me.” Users also refer to the process of ceasing self-harm as a “battle,” “war,” or “struggle.” Each of these terms and phrases positions the speaker as an active participant in the process of self-injury or the cessation/avoidance of self-injury. Descriptions of destruction are used in two ways: first, to describe acts of harm, and second, to describe the process of avoiding that harm. Individual acts

71 of self-harm are rarely mentioned; rather, the behavior is described as an ongoing conflict that requires active effort to end. Immediate description of action, such as “tear myself,” refers to self-harm, while the process of ceasing self-harm is described by larger scale terminology such as “battle” or “war.”

In using strong images and ideas of war and damage, users depict their struggles to stop self-harm as complex and violent experiences. For those who have not experienced self-harm or the need to stop self-harming, that action may seem to be a simple process of no longer engaging in the behavior. In reality, refraining is not easy. In using this descriptive language, users illustrate the difficulties they encounter. Within a community made up of like-minded individuals, metaphors comparing self-injurious experience to war or damage convey the depth of the user’s current emotions. These same metaphors are also used in support of others to acknowledge the depth of their struggle. “Keep fighting” or “We’re all in this war together” refer to a sense of camaraderie and remind the speakers that they are not alone in their struggle.

A sub-category of war/damage metaphors refers to bodily damage. For example, the metaphor “I want to tear myself apart,” likens larger-scale physical destruction and damage to the act of self-harm. The metaphor is highly emotional and conveys the user’s desires for self- harm rather than safer actions. In other words, users often describe their desires for self-harm in extreme terms, though their eventual acts of injury are generally less extensive than their words suggest. Users convey their frustrations and desires for self-harm through representation of severe acts.

Speakers occasionally employ metaphorical phrases that, in the context used, are hyperbolic representations of self-injury, therefore overlapping with litotes. Statements such as

“carving myself up like a turkey, “tear myself apart,” and “I feel like attacking myself” employ

72 metaphorical phrasing likening the act of self-injury to extensive physical destruction. However, the speakers are literally carving, attacking, and tearing their physical forms, moving these phrases beyond the bounds of metaphor, and often into the bounds of hyperbole. Though the user means what they say rather than intending an opposing meaning (Fahnestock: 2011, p. 111), the statements convey an image of greater damage than is the case. The use of hyperbole enables the speaker to represent the desire and/or act of self-harm as more serious or extensive than it is.

Thus, users establish ethos within the community. Interestingly, the representation of users’ actual acts of self-injury is rarely metaphorical and relies instead on reference to the physical body.

Within this data set, the word “trigger” is frequently used to describe specific ideas, moments, or experiences that prompt the individual’s need to self-harm. It is a metaphor that refers to the action of triggering a gun to fire, in which one small action sets a larger, more destructive course of events into motion. Based on the word’s implication of action, it falls into my first category of metaphors, “Active Destruction.”

The second category of metaphor inverts the first by shifting from active to passive voice and, in so doing, represents passive destruction and dysfunction. Examples include “there is no end in sight,” “I’m trapped into this,” “I’m consumed by it,” and “I’m broken.” Each phrase represents an inability to act or sense that action is not worthwhile. Passive metaphors describe the individual’s involvement with and actions of self-injury. Instead of indicating active participation in self-harm and the surrounding emotions, these metaphors allow users to represent their experiences as something that is happening to them rather than something they are doing. This passive wording contrasts with metaphors that represent the experience of self-injury

73 as an active assault on one’s body. The examples above liken self-harm to a trap the individual is unable to escape, an ongoing process they cannot stop, or something that has overtaken them.

Similarly, the phrase “I’m broken” likens the user to something that is no longer functional. Thus, the individual represents their perceived difference from social norms, reinforced by the responses of family, friends, and the medical establishment in the form of concern, anger, and psychiatric diagnoses. These responses convey a sense of the self-injurer existing outside of the realm of “normal,” thus leading to the individual’s experience of feeling

“broken.”

Passive metaphors enable users to share their frustrations and feelings of defeat regarding their attempts to stop self-harming or to performing self-harm. Users indicate a sense of responsibility for their actions. When they are unable to uphold their attempts to cease self- harming, passive metaphors are employed to indicate the sense that failure is complicated by the extent to which they are involved in self-injury. The sense of passivity conveys the user’s unwillingness to cease self-injury while casting the ability to cease as something outside of their control. While metaphors in Category One enable the user to characterize and embrace themselves as the active force of self-destruction, the passive metaphors found in Category Two are employed by the user to illustrate their perception of being subject forces outside of their control. Notably, metaphors from each category are found in comments from the same user, suggesting an antithetical perception of the experience of self-injury and its cessation.

Category Three includes metaphors that employ language of strength and power and its inverse, weakness. Thus, the group cross-indicates with antithesis. A majority of metaphors from this category refer to the former, with the most common being discussion of “strength” or supporting others with phrases such as “you’re strong enough” or “you’re stronger than this

74 urge.” Strength is a physical attribute; without sufficient strength, a given task cannot be completed. However, with sufficient strength the individual is able to complete physical tasks. In this set of metaphors, physical strength is likened to the mental ability to resist harmful behavior.

Users remind the speaker that they possess the ability to succeed at their goal, whether it is to stop self-harm altogether or to remain safe through a single urge to harm.

In contrast, a subset of metaphors in this category refer to the strength of the urge/trigger rather than to the user’s strength in resistance. Users describe the desire to self-harm as “building up” and “unleashing itself,” both phrases that draw upon ideas of amassing and losing control of destructive physical power. This usage places the user in a passive position, subject to the outcome of the amassed urge when an overload occurs. This metaphor draws a parallel between physical power and emotion. The figure enables the speaker to convey to readers that they do not have control of their emotions and thus is not adequately in control of their actions of self-harm.

Readers are provoked to respond with support and shared experience, creating interaction and discussion that sustains the community.

Interestingly, Category 3 mimics Categories 1 and 2 using active and passive elements, respectively. Category 1 includes active metaphors for self-injury and Category 2 covers passive metaphors. Category 3 is similarly made up of active and passive metaphors, first those representing the individual as an active resistor of self-harm, and then metaphors that represent the urge as active, placing the individual in a role of passivity. The idea of strength and of likening the will to stop self-injuring to strength casts the subject as an active participant in this task. Language comparing the urge to self-harm as something that “builds up” or “unleashes itself” gives agency to and personifies the urge rather than the individual.

The first three categories of metaphor also employ antithesis: each is made up of two opposing values. Categories 1 and 2 include active and passive metaphors for destruction, while

Category 3 describes metaphors of strength and weakness. The presence of one value and its inverse (active vs. passive, strength vs. weakness) as frequently used metaphors demonstrates the sense of antithesis previously discussed. Unlike my prior discussion, which focused on the antithesis in individual comments, the metaphorical antithesis found across the data set demonstrates that the community itself relies upon antithetical argument to interact.

The fourth category of metaphor refers to physical space. For example, users refer to self- injury as a location they are nearing or moving away from. Metaphors representing space most often depict the individual’s position in relation to their desire for or actions of self-harm.

Phrases such as “I’m getting closer to it” and “move away from needing it” represent self-injury as a location rather than an action. Another example is the statement that the individual

“do[es]n’t want to be back in this place,” in reference to their return to a desire for self-harm.

Spatial metaphors are also used to support ideas of avoiding self-harm and encouraging others to do so. Stating that “you’ve made it this far” and “you can make it even farther” is a means for users to respond to expressions of distress by others. “Far,” in this context, refers to avoidance of self-injury; it encourages others to keep trying and working towards not harming themselves. Another space-related metaphor, “I’m always here for you,” is interesting given its use in relation to a cyber interaction.

The following category, metaphors referring to the physical body, exemplifies how parts of the body and their actions are employed as an element of argument. This section overlaps with the idea of existing and interacting within physical space, often with more specific description of how interactions occur.

Category Five, metaphors referring to the physical body, includes specific parts of the body, their status, and verbiage describing its use. For example, one user expresses support by stating that they have “an ear to listen and a shoulder to lean on.” Similar to several examples in

Category Four, this phrase refers to a literal possibility within physical presence but becomes an impossibility given the online interaction. Other phrases referring to parts of the body overlap with the category of Maxim – for example, “this is an eye opener” and “it wasn’t on my mind” are previously established phrases.

Examples that describe the status of the body often appeal to both pathos and logos to demonstrate the user’s state of mind or the physical state of self-injury or anxiety. “I’m so numb,” for example, describes a physical feeling others have likely experienced and can relate to. Another example relies upon endoxa for meaning the community will understand: “My arm is clean,” while literal in the sense that it is blank, also refers to its lack of self-inflicted wounds.

This example appeals to pathos in its expectation that others will understand the emotional distress of no longer being visibly wounded, given the comment’s appearance in a discussion on the struggles of both liking and disliking the appearance of cuts and scars.

Category Six differs from Category Five despite their shared basis in the physical body.

Category Six consists of physical actions metaphorically undertaken by the body, most often in verb form, rather than reference to the body itself.

6) Physical Action

Metaphors describing physical action are frequently used throughout the data. Such usage often expresses physical action to exemplify a state of mind (“really shocking”) or perceived emotional action or necessity (“stress release;” “head screaming for the hills”). Such material

77 most often appeals to pathos based on shared physical experience and an understand of usage based in endoxa.

“Trigger” is a term used frequently throughout my data set, and it takes up several roles within discussion. In its appearance as a noun (“Seeing blood is my trigger”) and verb (“I was triggered by seeing blood”), this term is significant to discussions and descriptions of cause for specific situations of self-injury. It is important in that it describes more than the desire to self- harm; “trigger” indicates a specific experience that creates an immediate desire or perceived need to self-injure. It is, therefore, a precursor to “urge,” though not all urges are described as beginning with a trigger.

Beyond this data, the metaphor “trigger” refers to experiences that leads an individual to suffer psychological discomfort such as panic attacks, flashbacks, and the impulse to self-harm.

Because of the frequent and widespread use of “trigger” to describe a specific emotional experience, the term has become a topos used in mental health and support communities. It is often used to describe the cause and point of onset for anxiety attacks and other similar distressing experiences that originate in prior struggle. For example, a trauma survivor may have specific words or sounds that cause immediate emotional distress. As a topos, “trigger” can be employed to convey the specific idea of a single experience causing larger emotional distress across many communities and maintain a standard meaning.

7) Metaphorical Maxim

As I discuss in further detail in the following section on maxim, users employ metaphorical maxims such as “the light at the end of the tunnel” and “get a handle on it” to describe their state of mind and the interrelationship of emotion and its following physical action. Using phrases with established meaning enables users to share emotions and experience

78 with the expectation that readers will grasp the meaning at stake. Such phrasing appeals to ethos in that it locates experience in previously established meaning. The user’s appeal to ethos as a member of the community relies upon proper usage of standard phrasing and/or an effective conveyance of emotion.

8) Description

The few descriptive metaphors in the data enable users to explain their state of mind or the quality of an experience. Interestingly, of the eleven metaphors in this category, six are the same word – three “clean” and three an iteration of “shit.” Each of the repeated terms is used differently and expresses a variation on experience and status. It is also notable that “clean” and

“shit,” while not always holding antithetical positions, can be used to express opposing states.

The word “clean” takes up three definitions: “I’ve been clean,” that is, a description of the user’s success at not self-harming; “I have a clean arm,” thus describing an arm with no cuts or scars; and a “clean streak,” referring to the user’s ongoing success at not harming. The first and third examples are similar in usage but differ in that a “clean streak” describes a specific physical mark while “I’ve been clean” refers to a general state of cleanliness.

Each use of “clean” appeals to ethos reliant upon community and addiction endoxa. The meaning refers to the state of not using drugs or alcohol and, in sharing this definition, appeals to ethos and indirectly defines self-harm as an addictive behavior. As the user is able to define their experience, thoughts, or physical being as “clean,” they appeal to either ethos based on success or in seeking assistance.

In opposition to “clean” as a descriptor, the term “shit,” used as “you will have a shitty life;” “what a load of shit;” and “I slept like shit,” draws upon the unpleasant nature of the material at hand. Each usage also qualifies as a maxim. Unlike” clean,” which most often appeals

79 to ethos, “shit” and its varied usages appeal to pathos. Endoxa provides negative context, thus enabling readers to understand the intended meaning.

9) Other

Of the five metaphors that do not fit into the prior categories discussed here, two refer to emotional and socially interactive states, two to physical constructions, and the last to one’s physical state. All examples refer to the physical or emotional experience of self-injury, and notably, one (“loopholes”) is used seven times within one data set and makes up an element of community endoxa.

The terms “back to silence” and “all the drama” respectively refer to the emotional experience of an individual who describes their self-injury and the effect on mental state. As employed, the image conveys a frantic psychological state that is calmed by the act of self-harm.

In context of the conversation, this phrase appeals to pathos as it expresses the effectiveness of self-harm as a means of re-gaining self-control and calm. Conversely, as used here, the idea of

“drama” refers to the stress and negative interactions surrounding self-harm. Used twice in a single data set, users appeal to pathos and draw upon endoxa of Western culture to convey the idea of unnecessarily complex interactions with others.

Metaphors of “lock” and “loopholes” take up two difference elements of emotional experience conveyed with the image of a physical construction. The former description, “lock,” describes a user’s choice of tattoo as a means of “locking” an area they used to cut. The appeal to logos is intended both for the audience, as the tattoo is described, and for the individual, who has chosen the metaphor to maintain self-control.

The term “loopholes” appears only in Data Set 3 and is used seven times throughout the discussion. The word “loophole,” in common usage, defines a means for avoiding aspects of law

80 or rules. As used in this data, it describes the process of rationalizing lesser self-harm and not considering it a failure in counting days “clean” (discussed in Section 8 above). Notably, through the definition and description in its initial use, several individuals employ the phrase to describe their own experiences within working to stop harming while still acknowledging and engaging in the need for ongoing self-harm.

As it is used and re-used within this data set, “loophole” enters community endoxa as a term understood and used in conversation to express rationalization of and the desire to cease self-harming while continuing to engage in this behavior. The desire to cease self-harming and recognition of the difficulty in doing so are common themes, making this term a valuable means of expressing the experience without continually explaining the thought.

As discussed here, metaphor is used frequently and throughout all three data sets in many forms. It enables users to quickly and clearly express state of mind and experience to others, and to best appeal to ethos. Numerous metaphors contribute to community endoxa, allowing users to participate in the community at hand.

The following section discusses maxim and its role as an element of conversation and thus, creation of endoxa. Like metaphor, maxim conveys meaning through a brief term or phrase, enabling participants to share clearly and concisely while sharing a depth of emotion.

Maxim

Maxims are phrases coined to “express common wisdom or widely accepted notions”

(Fahnestock: 2011, p. 94). Like metaphors, they are used to convey specific images that contribute to the reader’s understanding of the speaker’s argument and point of view. Unlike metaphors, maxims are notable in that they are set phrases that have been accorded meaning

81 through repeated use – in other words, they are developed in a culture over time rather than created in the moment. In this section, I describe the use of maxims that are generally found in

American English and maxims that have been developed within the self-injury community.

In this data set, maxims are used to either support others or describe one’s emotional involvement in self-injury. Another category of maxims, discussed below, is community

0specific. The phrases and ideas in this category do not maintain their specific meanings outside of the community of self-injurers, but within that community these ideas are discussed as universal, as I detail in my discussion of endoxa in Chapter 5.

Maxims used to support others include “you’re only human,” “there’s a light at the end of the tunnel,” “we can get through this,” and “my thoughts are with you.” Each relies on a sense of positive reinforcement and, often, personal commiseration and solidarity. Statements such as

“I’m here for you” and “keep your chin up” further reinforce the sense of support and caring. In conversation, these maxims appeal to readers based on their previous experience with the phrase.

Maxims such as “I’m in too deep,” “it’s out of my control,” “I cried my eyes out,” and

“I’m freaking out” are used to convey the user’s inability to cope with their current emotional situation. Similar to the metaphors in Category 4, discussed above, many of these maxims depend on a sense of space to indicate the user’s feelings of being overwhelmed. The statement

“I’m crossing a major line,” used in reference to the user’s desire to see blood, presents cultural acceptance as a space divided into measurable sections. The user’s sense that they is moving into a space that is not socially acceptable is thus represented as a physical location.

Similarly, many of the maxims are significant means of establishing ethos. Phrases such as “I’m clean” and “I’m in control” are means through which users indicate their shared experiences with the community.

Numerous statements within this data employ maxims specific to the self-injury community. Because so many users share and repeat these ideas, the maxims contribute to community endoxa. Phrases used as maxim include variations on “I need to cut to feel like I’m in control,” “it’s a high,” “it satisfies the urge,” and “I feel my pain on the outside.” Each of these ideas conveys a sense of the function self-injury plays for the individual. Though motivations and reasons vary according to the individual, these phrases are employed frequently and are received with a sense of understanding by other members of the community though, as indicated, not necessarily beyond that community.

In this section I have described how maxim can form arguments which establish ethos on self-injury forums. These tropes convey meaning about users’ support for one another and their struggles to both self-injure and to cease self-injuring. The frequency of metaphor and maxim draws upon ideas of physical space and time as a means of relating one’s successes and/or failures in self-injuring or ceasing self-injury.

Rhetorical Questions

In my data set, rhetorical questions are repeated either to the community or to the writer themselves to convey information and describe anxieties. In numerous instances, the user asks a question, thus indicating their lack of conviction or clarity on the topic at hand and that they are seeking others who can share experiences. For example, one user says, “When I feel the urge to cut myself, I now vomit… replacing one action for the other… is this common?” Another user asks “Do anyone else’s scars show more in the shower?” In each comment, users characterize their own experiences as questions in order to seek feedback. In phrasing their experiences as

83 questions rather than statements, each user invites other forum users to discuss their own observations and thus contribute to the forum’s conversation.

Rhetorical questions also locate each user with the community by demonstrating the user’s relevant self-injurious experience. Several users ask, “Is there a point to stopping? Am I the only one who sees it as pointless to stop?” or “What’s the sense in stopping?” The individuals employ this question to convey personal frustration and, in so doing, challenge the forum’s overarching theme of stopping self-harm. These questions often receive support in the form of others’ shared experiences with frustration; yet the responders describe their ability move forward and avoid self-injury. Thus, the response to these challenges is most often a re- statement of the thread’s focus and contributes to the continuance of the online community.

Conclusion

This chapter has described how users of the three self-injury forums employ rhetorical tropes to represent their struggles, create interactions, and represent their bodies in an online space. As I show, metaphor, litotes, metonymy, and emphasis are used to illustrate experience and create action, while antithesis is a means for users to express their complicated and often distressing mental states and desires for self-harm. The tropes enable users to interact and to establish shared meaning, and contribute to effective appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos.

In the following chapter, I examine the use of ethos in the comments, showing how it supports users to represent themselves as members of the group and establishes endoxa regarding self-injury. The repetition of tropes enables users to establish endoxa and to maintain the community.

Analysis – Level II

Based in the figures of argument I identified in conversations from the online forums, this chapter extends the level of analysis by considering how tropes create larger patterns of argument. Each section discusses, using examples from the data, the following tropes: antithesis, emphasis (significatio), metonymy, metaphor, litotes, maxim, and rhetorical questions. I show how the tropes form arguments about the body and the experience of self-injury, arguments which contribute to the development of identity and community formed around self-injury. To these ends, I describe the three forums individually and as communities. Based in my analysis, I examine the elements of identity, body, and community as they are formed separately and as interrelated aspects of online community and endoxa.

Data Set 1

Data Set 1 was collected from a pro-anorexia (pro-ana) website. Users of the forum interact in this digital space to share experience, receive validation and validate others, and seek peer support; in so doing, they attempt to lessen or cease self-harm. Notably, the pro-anorexia discussion is interwoven with the topic of cutting, burning, and/or bruising. Appeals directed to ethos and pathos demonstrate experience with self-harm and depression and persuade others to cease self-harming. As I discuss further below, based in community endoxa, speakers draw antithetical connections between beauty and self-harm to encourage others to avoid self-harm in the short term and, in the long term, work towards replacing and/or ceasing self-injurious behavior.

Antithesis.

In this data set, antithesis performs four major functions, discussed here in order of frequency:

• Antithesis appeals to logos by noting opposing experience;

• Speakers appeal to ethos through comparison between self-injurious acts and the state

of being “normal” or healthy;”

• Antithesis reinforces or refutes endoxa to establish ethos. Speakers compare between

personal experience vs community discussion and expectations to establish ethos;

• Antithesis functions as an appeal to logos by using comparison to the individual’s

experience.

1) Primarily, antithesis appeals to logos by noting opposing experience.

Speakers refer to the ideal body to establish the body’s appeal to ethos as valuable and thus something to be maintained. The comment

“It is not fair that you have been working sooooo hard to reach it and then destroy your

beauty with scars”

refers to another participant’s attempts to cease self-harming and draws upon the endoxa of the pro-ana community which is continually seeking “beauty,” that is, the perception that thinness, attainted through anorexia, is essential to be beautiful. This comment establishes opposition between beauty (no scars) and ugly (scars from self-harm). Opposition draws positive attention to stopping one’s self-injurious behavior through an appeal to logos: it creates a binary relationship that encourages readers to examine the topic logically, based in cultural experience and knowledge. This appeal reminds speakers that their goal is to be beautiful and that self-

86 injury does not contribute to the characteristic image. By drawing attention to the larger issue at hand – the creation of an ideal body through anorexia – this speaker makes a comparison which motivates readers, specifically the poster of the original comment, to see the logic in ceasing self-destructive acts. Notably, several comments within this forum rely on similar comparisons to encourage others to stop cutting.

2) Speakers appeal to ethos through comparison between self-injurious acts and the state

of being “normal” or “healthy.”

Speakers both support self-injury as a unique behavior which contributes to emotional control and use the disparity between “normal” and self-injurious behavior to argue that self- injury should stop. The comparison itself is antithetical and demonstrates the conflicted nature of self-injury. The speaker states

“I have been SH off and on for 10 years. I’ve been clean for a bit but still have thoughts

and urges.”

This comment demonstrates their credibility as someone who can speak about and support ceasing self-harm based on experience in both areas. The opposing statements of being clean vs still struggling appeal to ethos to establish the speaker as a member of the community.

Reference to the speaker’s own experience shows an understanding of the struggle to stop self- harming and supports the argument at hand. This comment also appeals to the ethos of the community as it refers to the difficulty of stopping while also showing that it is possible.

3) Antithesis reinforces or, more commonly, refutes endoxa as an appeal to ethos.

Speakers draw comparisons between personal experience vs community discussion and expectations to appeal to ethos and thus express membership in the community.

“For some reason I like my scarring too, I, somehow, find them...beautiful, like a

drawing.”

“Scars sometimes hold people back from cutting, because they look ugly in their eyes, or

stuff. bad thing? I´ve got a soft spot for scars.”

These comments similarly exemplify a push back against the pro-ana community’s endoxa, which holds that scarring is ugly, damages beauty, and should be avoided. In addition to wording that explicitly challenges prior comments about the aesthetic value of self-harm, both comments juxtapose the opinion that self-harm is beautiful to the idea that is it ugly. Both acknowledge the common point of view that scars are ugly before stating the opinion that scars are aesthetically pleasing.

In this case, antithesis takes the form of opposing aesthetic values of self-harm, that is, the idea that it is either beautiful and to be celebrated, or that it is unattractive and to be avoided.

The strongly worded terms used, “beautiful” and “ugly,” appeal to ethoi from varied experience and world view. They additionally make an argument using an appeal to pathos based on the community’s adherence to a strict standard of beauty.

By speaking against previously stated opinions, these comments establish a space for speakers to speak to experiences that counter the idea that “self-injury is ugly.” The comments appeal to antithesis within the community to enable a wider breadth of discussion.

4) Antithesis appeals to logos by using comparison to the individual’s experience.

Appeals to logos make arguments about ceasing self-harm and offer support to those struggling to maintain cessation. Statements encourage readers to consider prior knowledge – cultural and personal experience – and to therefore accept the statement at hand.

“All of you guys stay strong… Just because you fall down a couple of times doesn't make

you a failure.”

Here, the speaker compares success and failure, expressing the sentiment that it is illogical to think that constant success is either reasonable or necessary. Similarly, other comments compare states of “normal” and not-normal1 to articulate that engagement in self-harm does not exclude the individual from either. Most commonly, speakers demonstrate that there can be space between these states to find one’s own definition.

Emphasis.

In Data Set 1, emphasis is a trope which makes appeals to both ethos and pathos. This characterizes experience; establishes the speaker as a member of the community; and encourages and solicits support from other speakers. A commenter’s emphasis, that is, understatement regarding their experience and wounding often demonstrates lack of investment in personal wellbeing prompts community members to provide interest and support. Emphasis performs the two major functions:

• Emphasis provides ethos by demonstrating severity and experience.

• Emphasis appeals to pathos when speakers describe experiences that prompt similar

emotions in the reader and support the speaker’s experience.

1 The idea of “normal” is generally described at length rather than with single word. 89

1) Emphasis provides ethos by demonstrating severity and experience.

In this data set, emphasis is most often an appeal to ethos and therefore to demonstrate one’s position as a member of the community. Common usages describe the severity of wounds or the dire nature of the speaker’s emotion and/or bodily safety. For example,

“How do you know if you cut too deep and what can you do when you can’t or don't

want to access a hospital?”

Emphasis is evident here, wording that draws attention to severity (“bad,” “worse,” “too deep”) – shows that the speakers are not only actively self-harming but are causing significant bodily damage. The appeal to ethos describes severity and shows readers that the individual is an invested member of the community based on their actions.

“My husband has now hidden my blade”

This statement refers to one speaker’s desire to cut that has led to her husband removing a means of harm. The speaker emphasizes the extent of their need to self-harm by stating that another person has stepped in to keep them safe. An appeal to ethos demonstrates the speaker’s inability to control their need to self-injure. The implication of an extreme situation demonstrates the speaker’s need for support through responses to their comment.

2) Emphasis appeals to pathos when speakers describe experiences that appeal to and

attempt to prompt similar emotions in the reader and, thus, support for the speaker’s

experience.

Throughout the data, emphasis draws attention to experiences of distress and engages in relating to and/or lending support. Notably, numerous comments describe experiences and emotions where the speaker feels out of control. For example,

“I also want to OD as well but I haven’t told anyone about it”

This comment, part of a longer comment describing the individual’s urge to self-injure, employs emphasis within an appeal to prompt readers’ distress over the speaker’s desire to end their life. Overdose (OD) refers to the act of attempting suicide or causing a different type of bodily harm, an action that appeals to pathos. The statement of desire to cause such harm is an example of emphasis, coupled with the indication that no one else is aware of this intention.

Readers are therefore drawn in as listeners to a dangerous secret to which they can lend their support.

Metonymy.

No examples of metonymy were found in Data Set 1.

Metaphor.

In this data, metaphor performs two major functions, both of which appeal to elements of emotion.

• Metaphor is an appeal to pathos.

• Metaphor describes positive and negative emotion.

The first examples appeal to pathos in which speakers employ metaphor to convey the depth of their experience. In the second usage, the writer uses emotional metaphor to explain and show their membership to the community and its shared emotional experiences.

In one of the two usages, pathos contributes to appeals to ethos. That is, emotional appeals contribute to the individual’s standing are part of the community. Thus, speakers solicit support and demonstrate participation in the community.

In the second example, the emotional appeal affects the audience and in so doing implicitly increases the speaker’s ethos.

1) Metaphor is an appeal to pathos.

The appeals to pathos expressed through metaphor enable speakers to explain feelings of intense emotions such as depression, anger, and fear. Other experiences described using metaphor include the inability to relate to those who do not understand the need for self-harm, the need to self-harm, and the difficulty of resisting self-injurious actions.

“The urge is killing me today. Has been strong for a few days but I've managed to hold it

off.”

The speaker quoted created a new comment thread2 that encourages support and assistance in continuing to avoid self-harm. The metaphors chosen – “killing me,” “strong,” and

“hold it off” refer to the struggle to avoid self-harm despite the compulsion to do so. Words and phrases associated with power and strength express the depth of their difficulty by encouraging the reader to associate the experience discussed with prior understanding of these terms. As an argument, the appeal to pathos encourages readers who have had similar struggles to find a way to relate and to describe their own experience. In demonstrating a shared experience, the speaker demonstrates their participation and membership in the community.

2 The creation of a new comment thread refers to the speaker beginning a new discussion with their comment as the basis for conversation. The comment then becomes visible in its own context rather than appearing at the end of another thread. This makes it more likely to be seen and also establishes a place for a new topic. 92

2) Metaphor describes positive and negative emotion.

Throughout this thread, speakers discuss the positive and negative emotions that revolve around self-harm. As an appeal to pathos conveyed via metaphor, speakers express to others that experiences are meaningful and valid. This conversation reinforces endoxa as it locates and expands upon similar experiences of self-harm.

“I'm struggling to not relapse at this point right now too.”

This comment is a response to a speaker who has shared their desire to self-harm despite working to stop. They indicate a shared experience. The word “struggle” refers to stressful and intense efforts to free one’s self from restraint, and as used here refers to the difficulty in resisting self-injuring. The term appeals to ethos based on the possibility that readers may find some shared connection with complicated avoidance of self-harm. The fact that the experience described is echoed throughout the discussion board and shared by others further appeals to ethos as it refers to endoxa and personal experience. The speaker demonstrates their participation in and relation to the community. Endoxa is a point of reference and shared experience even as it is a means to elicit support and understanding based on this shared experience.

Comments with metaphors are also used throughout the discussion.to express positive emotion and support.

“I can offer an ear to listen and a shoulder to lean on.”

The comment responds to the community’s frequently expressed sense of being alone and without support. This speaker offers support for others on the forum using metaphors that reference the body. Reference to the body is significant because the physical body referenced is not present given the digital/virtual nature of the discussion. Thus, the “ear” and “shoulder” referenced above are not present to hear or be leaned upon and are thus metaphorical. These

93 phrases offer attention to others’ needs and support for those who need and wish to seek out someone to interact or relate to. The speaker appeals to ethos and connects with endoxa when it states that they have “been there.”

Litotes.

In Data Set 1, litotes juxtaposes lived experience of self-harm with cultural and social expectation. Typically, speakers minimize and appear to normalize the damaging behavior and severity of wounds by opposing them to “normal” or “healthy” expectations deemed to be unnecessary or unrealistic.

1) Litotes reinforces commitment to community endoxa as it relates to both self-harm

and disordered eating.

Speakers frequently appeal to ethos by referring to and/or describing their wounds, often with focus on severity or frequency. As related to the discussion and endoxa, the speaker demonstrates participation.

“Not hospital bad but worse than normal.”

The speaker describes their current wound based on the dichotomy between “normal” and

“hospital,” the latter indicating more severe damage. In posing the extreme of “hospital” in comparison to their wound, they understate the wound’s importance while also indicating that they have self-harmed. They begin by stating that the wound is not extremely severe. However, the antithetical reference to “hospital,” which would belong to the experience of wounds, conveys understated phrasing. By referring to “hospital” the level of damage and reference to severity is shown to be an understatement. The speaker then goes on to refute the understatement

94 as they employ wording showing that the wound is more than normal. By beginning with an understatement, the speaker hedges their final explanation of the wound. Additionally, the blasé nature of the description, expressed via the brief and incomplete phrasing, appeals to ethos as it conveys the idea that such a serious wound is of no consequence to the individual. Attention drawn to the speaker’s self-damage invites comments offering support and/or validating the wounds and experience.

2) “Just”

The word “just” exemplifies litotes when used to minimize the impact or importance of the phrase which it modifies. The word minimizes and/or understates meaning, most commonly in relation to severity of wounds or the ease/difficulty of ceasing self-harm.

In another comment, a speaker states:

“Just focus on something else it gets easier [sic]”

Using “just” to represent cessation of self-harm as a simple achievement. This sentiment significantly opposes the idea, exemplified through requests for assistance, that self-harm is a difficult, ongoing practice to stop.

Another comment states that the speaker

“Just want[s] to feel the pain and see blood”

Used here in relation to self-harm, as seen in the preceding comment, “just” indicates that the act of or need to cut is neither unusual nor problematic. Speakers therefore normalize and downplay the severity of their desires and actions while also drawing attention to their struggle.

Use of “just” appeals to ethos through reference to the community’s endoxa. The culture of the

95 thread presents the act of self harm as both problematic and acceptable. Comments that frame the speaker’s desire as expected and within “normal” appeal to the credibility of the latter discourse.

Maxim.

Maxims used in Pro-Ana interactions appeal to both ethos and pathos. They employ common usages of language belonging to American English to convey experiential meaning and emotion. Appeals to ethos and pathos remind readers that they are not alone and that their experiences are understood and shared by others in the community. Shared language and its reference to shared cultural experiences also reinforces common grounds.

For example, one speaker comments

“I just have to feel pain to know I’m alive.”

This statement is an emotional appeal that draws upon3 to musical pop culture4. The quote, “yeah you bleed just to know you’re alive” from the Goo Goo Dolls’ 1998 song “Iris” is often rephrased and repeated on self-injury themed websites to explain the experience of self- injury. More specifically, one common description of the function of self-harm is to “feel something,” in reference to the numbness some speakers cite as an element of their depression or distress. “Pain” and the connection made between pain and feeling alive appeals to pathos and the community’s shared state of being in both emotional and thus self-inflicted pain.

Through reference to a known and lived idea and a specific phrase, the speaker establishes ethos as a member of the community and appeals to community endoxa that includes this phrase and experience.

3 It is not possible to know whether the speaker is purposely quoting this song, though the quote is found in self- injury culture. 4 The lyric “yeah you bleed just to know you’re alive” or variations of the sentiment is commonly found in self- injury communities and comments. It is based on Goo Goo Dolls’ 1998 song “Iris.” 96

Rhetorical questions.

Rhetorical questions enable the writer to broach an idea or experience without making a statement or taking a position and offer an implicit focus on the writer’s emotional and/or physical situation at the time. Additionally, the lack of specificity in the question enables the individual to relate their experiences and to expand the conversation as he/she feels comfortable.

The questions appeal to logos as they establish connections between the experiences of speakers.

Rhetorical questions additionally often reinforce or challenge endoxa. As the question encourages readers to consider the writer’s point of view, the “answer” or consideration invites the reader to re-examine their perception of endoxa.

“Is there anyone who can relate to that above?”

This question – referencing appreciation for visual scarring -- encourages the reader to consider their own experience. Given a shared experience, the reader can then find a relation to the community. The appeal to logos prompts the speaker to see a connection between their experience and that of the commenter. This in turn enables readers to feel like part of the group and to therefore find support through shared experience. The ability to find shared experience is valuable for many speakers, who, as their comments often demonstrate, often feel isolated.

The question above is a question that can be answered more clearly than a true rhetorical question. However, it also encourages readers to self-examine without the necessity of responding on the thread. As an argument, it appeals to ethos as it seeks to draw attention to shared experience to draw the experience into the conversation.

Conclusion of Data Set 1.

As I have demonstrated above, speakers in Data Set 1 employ numerous tropes to explain their choices, to find validation for those choices, and to describe the bodily changes and damage they incur. Notably, all tropes either refer to or contribute to the community endoxa (See Chapter

5). As endoxa are formed and used, a basis for community understanding and experience emerges.

Across this data set, the tropes contribute to an understanding of identity, body, and community. They support appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos that in turn provide support for arguments that validate readers, enable them to share their experiences in a meaningful way, and form endoxa. Each of these topics is intertwined, supporting and informing each other -- the presence of the body and its state of being enables establishment of identity, which in turn informs and provides a basis for endoxa. The core of endoxa is, necessarily, the body as it provides a common site of experience and identity.

Identity.

The tropes in Data Set 1 enable speakers to establish the identity of a self-injurer within the community and in relation to endoxa (as discussed below). Drawing on personal experience in the form of description of thoughts and prior wounds, users rely on the tropes examined, and on ethos, pathos, logos in turn, to prove and demonstrate this. The tropes employed enable users to “earn” an identity through this demonstration, and thus to become part of the community. It is notable that there is at no point an instance of “calling out” users who may not demonstrate the identity expected by the community. However, the repeated use of specific categories of example

(wounds, types of struggle) indicates the presence of an expected and reinforced identity.

Body.

The role of the body in this data reinforces the creation of identity in its distinction from the culturally expected body free from self-inflicted wounds. The "normal" or "healthy" body exists in opposition to the body of the speaker and is therefore a source of counterpoint and appeal to ethos. Through the tropes examined above, users appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos in order to demonstrate the state of their bodies, and thus to establish identity.

Most notably users employ antithesis to draw attention to their separation from the

"normal" body, instead describing a body that is wounded and marked. The issue of severity, that is, the level of damage inflicted upon the body, further enables speakers to describe their perceived adherence to identity and the level of their commitment to identity and community.

Appeals to pathos describe damage to the body and the tools and methods used, thus establishing identity and reinforcing endoxa. The role of the body in this data most frequently supports identity creation and, in turn, endoxa. Because the body is the site of self-injury, it is central to the topic of discussion here.

Community/Endoxa.

Community is an essential element of this data, as it provides a basis for comparison and informs a shared set of meaning upon which discussion, and identity, can be based. The creation of endoxa as a result of community, and thus contributing to the formation of community as the group continues to interact. Discussion of the body, the types of wounds inflicted, and perception of the outside culture forms a core for community, enabled most frequently by appeals to ethos and pathos.

A significant element of community within this data is the offering of support from one user to another, or to the group. Often relying on appeals to ethos, particularly the sharing of personal experience, support and validation for emotional need form a central source for the community as a positive resource in addition to a site for sharing emotional and physical pain.

Endoxa, as referred to and drawn upon within this data, enables the community to find shared meaning that in turn informs the practices and interactions of self-injurers offline. As meaning is produced from user interactions, it affects how users understand and engage with self-injury, other self-injurers, and ideas about normalcy. These ideas therefore affect how users behave and treat their bodies offline, notably exemplified by users who describe employing suggestions for ceasing self-harm. The result of community endoxa, then, exists beyond the digital and affects the physical bodies of those who interact in the group.

Data Set 2

Data Set 2 is collected from a forum with the specific role of supporting self-injurers who are attempting to find alternative healthy coping skills. This data includes suggestions and discussion about tactics and methods for ceasing self-injury through realization of the issue, re- directing emotion, and/or finding activities that avoid self-harm. Appeals to pathos and logos argue for the efficacy of varied coping skills, often based on the speaker’s personal experience.

A section of the data/thread consists of speakers posting numbered lists of methods rather than their own specific successes (or failures). Another section is comprised of posts sharing emergency information for numerous countries and regions.

100

Comments push back against the possibility of stopping self-harm and express distress and need to self-harm. But, much of the thread provides information and suggestions for useful and applicable methods to avoid self-injurious actions.

Antithesis.

In this data set, antithesis most often appeals to ethos and pathos. Ethos establishes the speaker’s credibility as mentally ill and/or a self-injurer, thus enabling them to speak from a position of recognized knowledge and experience. Appeals to pathos refer to these experiences to demonstrate a need for and to create emotional support from other speakers. In addition, antithesis supplies information with which the reader makes logical connections between experience and emotion to convince readers that it is possible to cease self-harming. Appeals to logos also offer suggestion as a means of achieving this goal. Each of these appeals encourages readers to participate and to respond to comments, thus moving the conversation forward and forming the community.

As with other aspects of self-injury within this data, the experience of self-injury is often expressed antithetically as a need and behavior. Antithetical language operates as a means of explaining and interacting with readers, but also conveys the nature of the experience itself.

The following four points describe the most common usages of antithesis in Data Set 2.

1) Antithesis refers to the struggle to stop/continue self-injuring.

Data Set 2 focuses on finding tools for avoiding and stopping self-harm. More specifically, antithesis is used to explain experiences of harm and the ability to avoid – both positive and negative -- other speakers. Many speakers express the struggle with simultaneously

101 wanting to stop and wanting to continue, and antithetical language conveys this confused emotional state. This relationship of extremes is represented in other elements of the experience as well, always demonstrating struggle. Explaining personal experiences appeals to ethos as it details the speaker’s investment in self-harm and membership in the community. Such explanations also appeal to pathos as finding an understanding of the struggles of others prompts an emotional response in the reader.

“It’s a way to have control over my body because I can’t control anything else in my life”

This comment juxtaposes control and lack of control. Thus, antithesis appeals to pathos, prompting readers to commiserate and/or offer support based on shared experience. The writer explains the importance of self-harm as a means to cope with stress and pain and uses two extremes of experience to justify the need for harm. The comment additionally appeals to ethos as it shows the speaker’s struggle and thus membership in the community.

2) Antithesis shows level of distress in comparison to a perceived “normal.”

The idea of “normal,” in this case the state of not self-harming and thus conforming to social expectations, is frequently present in the thread. It is often demonstrated through antithesis with “normal” and “not normal” presented as opposing experiences. Notably, “abnormal” is never named outright as such. It is instead described as the act of or need for self-injury. Its opposition to what is named as “normal” provides the comparison and demonstrates the relationship between the two states. Social and cultural knowledge and understanding of community endoxa gives readers the tools to make the connection.

Many comments convey the writer’s idea of “normal” – that is, the state of not engaging in self harm – and their acceptance or rejection of the concept. The absence of “normal” and the

102 compulsion or need to self-harm and explicitly reject “normal” is frequently expressed as distressing based on its reinforcement of feelings of isolation.

“If you teach your brain, through conscious decision making, that when you want to cut,

you can go on with your normal life, then it will become habit”

The author juxtaposes the need to cut (abnormal) with “normal life.” They suggest they are aware of and chose adherence to “normal” as means to work to resist self-harming. Logos appeals to the readers’ understanding of normal and its opposite.

“My doctor seems to ignore what I know, yet I find the facts here in this forum.”

This example uses antithesis to show the relationship between medical authority ignoring and the forum knowing and understanding the writer’s situation. The trope therefore appeals to pathos and to the shared experiences of others who have struggled to find assistance and understanding from a medical audience. It presents “normal” as the shared experiences within the forum, and the medical model found in a doctor’s office as the outside, seemingly useless perspective. The result – the idea of a cohesive, supportive, factual endoxa – pushes against medical authority and supports the ethos of the community within its appeal for the ethos of the individual.

3) Antithesis juxtaposes the physical with the mental nature of the struggle to stop self

harm; such comments argue for or against the methods under consideration.

The experience of self-harm and of feeling the need to self-harm are explained in both physical and psychological terms. Speakers describe the physical urge and psychological outcomes of harming, and simultaneously explain psychological need and benefits.

103

“it's one thing to get you physically distracted but it's a mental battle you’re usually

facing”

The speaker appeals to logos to encourage and convince readers to stop cutting themselves. This comment responds to suggestions for physical distractions from self-harm, such as coloring on one’s skin or going for a run, and states that this is only one part of the issue.

Through the speaker, appeals to pathos encourage readers to consider their own, perhaps similar, experiences; the speaker goes on to state that the mental element also requires work and that distraction is not enough. Reference to the body appeals to ethos, particularly since the body is often seen as a concrete presence, and combined discussion of the mental further supports this appeal as it draws upon personal experience.

This comment argues that both aspects of the struggle must be addressed and offers a suggestion that considers both.

4) Antithesis refers to the body as an appeal to ethos and counter or reinforce endoxa.

Throughout this thread, speakers discuss what can be considered self-injury and what should not; the talk often revolves around visibility and the level of damage done. Many speakers state that any harm done to one’s self should be considered self-harm5, while others maintain that visible wounds are the defining factor. The antithetical relationship between visible and non- visible damage to the body is examined as an appeal to ethos.

“it’s because it can't be seen physically on your body that there is the question of is it.”

This comment addresses visible vs. not-visible bodily damage as a basis to appeal to ethos. In other words, the speaker notes that visible wounds are an appeal to ethos while non-

5 Examples discussed include repeated punching one’s self without leaving marks and intentional non-fatal overdose. 104 visible self-injurious actions leave a question of whether an appeal to ethos is appropriate or possible. The speaker indicates that contribution to or participation in endoxa is complicated or made impossible without visibility. They do not make a specific claim but appeal to logos to prompt questions of whether visibility is essential.

Emphasis.

In Data Set 2, emphasis overwhelmingly appeals to ethos, showing how speakers relate to and are invested in mental illness and self-injury. Comments offer three ways to form argument:

Emphasis as an appeal to ethos based on mental illness, as a focus on the severity of the speaker’s self-harm, and as a contribution to endoxa. This trope functions as a way for speakers to focus on and demonstrate their wounds and their participation in the community.

1) Emphasis is used as an appeal to ethos to demonstrate the extent of the speaker’s

mental illness. Many speakers include a list of diagnoses, behaviors, and prescriptions

in the signature6 of their comment.

Two examples of signatures:

“Dx: StPD, BPD, PPD, Delusional D”7

and

“Bipolar II -Diagnosed Spring '10

Lithium 900mg

Pristiq 100mg

Welbutrin XL 150 mg”

6 A signature automatically appears at the end of each comment. 7 Each disorder appears in a different color. 105

Rather than outright stating that they are mentally ill by describing personal experience or symptoms, both speakers appeal to ethos based on psychiatric and pharmacological discourse and treatment. Community members’ basic knowledge of psychiatric diagnoses is expected given the nature of the thread and speakers’ own experiences with therapy and medication.

Posters thus assume readers’ understanding of the significance of relevant phrases and experiences. Speakers convey meaning through generic diagnoses in addition to or in replacement of detailing experience. By demonstrating knowledge of and engagement in these experiences, the individual appeals to ethos and affords the individual a position of knowledge and experience within the discussion.

2) Focus on severity.

Like sharing diagnoses to show the speaker’s experience, expressing and describing of the severity of acts of self-harm also appeals to ethos. To describe specific wounds or methods for causing harm demonstrates knowledge and investment in the mentality and behavior at stake.

The offhand fashion in which speakers often convey this information gives a sense of their normalization of and investment in self-harm.

“I use razors for actual cutting, btw.”

The casual phrase “btw8” mitigates the serious nature of the comment. Notably, the speakers mention “razors” is based in endoxa. Razor blades are often depicted as a method of self-harm and due to their ability to cause significant damage without much effort, act as an appeal to ethos through their reference. As indicted, many self-injurers who do not use razor

8 “By the way,” as often denoted online. 106 blades associate them with the experiences shared within endoxa.9 Their mention and emphasis in this comment thus appeals to ethos.

“This is not at all a big bruise. But it's rather red. And before there was a bruise there,

there was another bruise under the new one...”

Here, both comments refer to an act of self-injury – cutting and bruising respectively – but instead of playing the meaning up, rely on the implicit meaning of the action or method to demonstrate meaning. The repeated use of “bruise” and the chronological explanation gives the reader a specific sense of the wound. This appeal to ethos is based in the speaker’s sustained physical damage.

3) Contributes to endoxa.

As exemplified by the three comments discussed above, emphasis illustrates experience and struggle without lengthy or detailed explanation. Common knowledge of and interaction with endoxa enables understanding of meaning conveyed with emphasis – for example, the widely-understood idea of a razor as a tool for self-harm simplifies argument.

Endoxa is the source for comments which emerge, but also contribute to the source for developing new ways to express values. As speakers reinforce and re-inform the expectations and image of self-harm based on their own experiences, endoxa is reinforced and shifts accordingly. Here, ideas of bruises as significant self-harm and of razors as an image of severity are maintained.

9 Razor blades are commonly shown in media as a method for self-harm. 107

Metonymy.

Metonymy is not frequently used in conversation, but its presence refers to commonly used objects, as discussed above in relation to emphasis, to indicate the act of self-injury.

“I left the room where my blades were”

Metonymy references “blades” – most likely razor blades or knives -- to connote self- injury. The physical location of the tool—the room -- is used to describe the location and thus act of self-injury. If the writer is not near blades, they are not self-harming. Additionally, an appeal to ethos demonstrates the speaker’s attempt to stop self-harming as they left the vicinity, without which they are unable to injure.

Metaphor.

Metaphor conveys speakers’ experiences as self-injurer and as supporter of others.

Support is most often conveyed through positive statements and suggestions to cease that are based in personal experience. This trope enables speakers to share their thoughts and to support others. Metaphor appeals most commonly to ethos and pathos, and both establish speakers as practitioners of self-harm and supporters of others. As I discuss in detail below, metaphor takes up three major functions: expressions of support, assistance with understanding experiences of self-harm, and the use of the word “trigger” to explain a sustained, often emotional, need to self- injure.

108

1) Metaphor expresses support to self and others.

The metaphors shown here fall into two categories: spatial presence and physical strength. Each is used to offer positive and motivational feedback to others and to the self, respectively.

“My thoughts are with you”

This comment offers support to a speaker who is struggling with the need to self-harm.

Metaphor – the idea of the writer’s support as present with the recipient, appeals to pathos and encourages the recipient to find support in the idea that the writer is offering their thoughts. With this support, the recipient may find the ability to resist self-harm. Additionally, the writer’s own experience with the struggle at hand adds a sense of understanding and personal knowledge that the task can be done.

“I am stronger than the urges”

Here, the speaker appeals to ethos, based in the ability to resist an urge that others will recognize as an emotional and physical struggle. This understanding, based in both endoxa and individual experience, establishes the credibility of the writer. The use of “stronger” to metaphorically convey the difficulty of ability to resist offers a positive sense of the speaker’s struggle.

2) Metaphors help others to understand the speaker’s experience of self-harming.

This use of metaphor enables readers to grasp the level of difficulty the writer is experiencing. The words indicate intense experience drawn on images of mortality and suffering.

“I've really been struggling the last few weeks with cutting. It's been a real battle.”

109

The words “struggle” and “battle” each refer to kinds of difficult interaction. “Battle” conveys interacting with an entity outside the self, or an idea in opposition of the speaker’s desires or perceived acceptable actions. The metaphor furthers the appeal to ethos as it demonstrates the speaker’s active resistance to the difficulty and therefore their dedication to the noted issue. The term “struggle” appeals to pathos as it refers to and establishes emotion, thus encouraging readers to support the speaker.

“but it's killing me inside”

In this comment, the writer uses a reference to death to indicate the level at which they struggle. The appeal to pathos relies upon cultural and personal understanding of death as a negative concept and adds the active element of this death being unwanted and currently occurring.

3) “Trigger” conveys experience and contributes to endoxa.

“I changed from planning it to it just happening when something bad happens, so now

it’d be like a trigger”

“The biggest trigger that makes me think of it now is boredom.”

As indicated, the term “trigger” references pulling the trigger of a gun. The example comments express the sentiment of situations that hold power in making the speaker feel or act in a self-destructive way.

The appeal to pathos – that is, the idea of experiencing such sudden, powerful and unbridled emotion – pushes others to understand and appreciate the difficulty and depth of emotion involved in the moment. The appeal to logos relies upon others’ experience and understanding of the power of a firearm and its application to emotion.

110

Notably, the word “trigger” offers explanation of the powerful and sudden nature for needing self-harm. The term and its reference to experience draws upon endoxa, and its continual use reinforces the metaphor as a valid and accurate expression of emotion. Given its frequent usage, “trigger” is a core term for the common language shared by self-injurers and enables them to share experience and emotion. “Trigger” is also a term used widely outside this specific community, often to express sudden and extreme upsetting emotions. Therefore, the term is meaningful to others outside the community though it maintains its own nuance of meaning within community endoxa.

Litotes.

Understatement allows speakers to share experiences by expressing self-injurious acts and thoughts as of little consequence. By referring nonchalantly to damage, speakers establish themselves as dedicated self-injurers who are often not planning to cease some form of self- harm.

Speakers also employ understatement to undermine their own experiences, thus conveying low self-esteem.

1) Litotes establishes ethos related to severity and struggle.

“I used to cut myself pretty badly, but now I just drag some tweezers across my

stomach.”

This writer refers to two methods of self-harm and frames the first as more extreme and the second, newer behavior as less damaging. The more extreme example is mitigated by use of

“pretty” – rather than stating that they used to cut badly, the phrase is lessened in impact. This

111 appeals to ethos and demonstrates the speaker’s experiences with severe cutting. Thus, the speaker establishes credibility as a self-injurer while also showing their credibility in no longer causing this level of damage.

The second section of the comment uses the word “just.” As in Data Set 1, “just” functions as a hedge, particularly in describing wounds and the act of wounding. As an appeal to ethos, “just” enables speakers to express their actions as only part of an experience rather than comprising the entirety of their actions or identity. Thus, ethos is gained from the combination of experiences with self-harm and the act of moving on from this experience.

2) Litotes undermines self re: low self-esteem

“I feel like I shouldn’t bother anyone with it, because it’s not self harm, stupid I know but

still”

Discussion of what “counts” as self-harm is a theme in Data Set 2, and litotes is often an element of speakers’ thoughts on their own actions. In this comment, the speaker describes the feeling that the actions themselves should be understated since they do not reach an expected standard of self-harm.

This example appeals to pathos as it challenges what participants may intend or interpret in their own self-injurious action. Self-injury and the personalized nature of its meaning is tied to emotion as it is experienced and as the individual attempts to adjust and temper it. Therefore, the example also appeals to ethos as it encourages and/or forces readers to examine their own credibility as it may be viewed by others.

The comment also appeals to endoxa in its juxtaposition of speaker experience with their impression of common experience. That is, the speaker feels that their experience and efforts do

112 not reach a perceived standard of self-harm and are therefore insignificant and unworthy of attention or support.

Rhetorical questions.

This trope is used throughout Data Set 2 to organize information on self-harm as well as to encourage readers to self-examine and find relation to the comment at hand.

1) Rhetorical questions are used as headers for several discussion threads.

Frequently, the rhetorical questions are encouragement for speakers to consider relevant experience and to respond or read accordingly. The first comment in the data set, and of the thread itself, is a lengthy informational copy/paste from a medical site about self-injury. This information therefore appeals to ethos as it is based upon medical information. The material is divided into sections, several of which are headed with rhetorical questions that inform the reader of the subsequent topic. Given their involvement with self-harm, many of these questions draw upon issues which readers have experienced or considered.

“Why do they do it?”

“How can a self-injuring person stop this behavior?”

In addition to informing the reader of the topic, the questions provoke thoughts on self- injury. For an individual unfamiliar with self-injury, the questions prompt interest and a desire to understand. For self-injurers, the questions may elicit interest in methods for coping and further understanding the behavior as an insider.

In the thread, speakers draw from their own experience rather than explicitly interacting with the provided professional discourse. That is, users do not respond to the posted information

113 that described self-injury from a psychological and medical standpoint, and that offers contacts for support. They make up for this interaction by providing their own definitions and descriptions, and late in the thread, offering contact information for numerous countries. The rhetorical questions that appear at the beginning are therefore ignored as they are directed to the community but are re-phrased and otherwise exemplified as the thread unfolds.

2) Push readers to self-examine.

Rhetorical questions are posed from one speaker to another, often in response to an initial comment expressing distress or referencing the act of self-harm. In this context, the questions are directed to readers or the initial commenter and ask him/her to evaluate their experience to find some understanding of experience and/or emotion.

“For you, do you think it is because of the addictiveness of it, or because there are

particular things that haven't yet been resolved?”

This question responds to a speaker who has mentioned their struggle with ceasing self- harm. As posed, it encourages the speaker to consider their potential experience(s) in ceasing self-harm. Rather than supporting the argument of the questioner, it appeals to ethos in relation to the speaker’s experience. The speaker is then supported in examining their own experiences.

This question is notable in that it can be answered but requires thought and self-consideration rather than having an immediate answer.

3) Allow speakers to present opinions without making blanket or possibly offensive

statements.

114

Opinionated statements posed as questions enable writers to convey their point of view while avoiding offense. In the following comment, this speaker avoids a directive statement while still conveying their feeling that seeing a psychologist is a positive step.

“Maybe go to a different doctor, more specifically, a psychologist?”

This comment breaks with the standard element endoxa that questions the need for and authority of the medical community. The question also establishes its meaning without expecting or requiring an answer – the answer arrives based on the reader’s private thoughts, which are not shared with the group.

Conclusion of Data Set 2.

In Data Set 2, the focus of discussion is largely on identity and body rather than community, though the formation and evidence of endoxa is still present throughout. Like Data

Set 1, appeals to ethos contribute to the formation of identity. In a notable difference from Data

Sets 1 and 3, speakers provide contact information for suicide and mental health hotlines throughout the world. Thus, though the immediate community in the thread does not forge the stronger ties found in the other data sets, users make connections to a wider community of positive resources.

Identity.

The tropes in Data Set 2, like those in Data Set 1, often appeal to ethos and draw from the relationship between “normal” and “abnormal.” Users identify and qualify themselves as mentally ill and/or self-injurers. In so doing, the meaning of “self-injurer” and “mentally ill”

115 takes on an identity distinct to the community10. By providing specific information about actions and diagnoses, many users form an identity that qualifies them as members of the community.

Also present in the community is identity based upon offering support and sharing personal struggles and how they were overcome. In addition to the providing of contact information, several users appeal to ethos by specifying their difficulties and tactics for dealing with the urge to harm. Often relying upon antithesis and metaphor, users establish a position of knowledge and support for others. This particular identity carries the thread and contributes to endoxa, notably in reference to moving beyond self-harm and seeking health and safety.

Body.

The role of the body in Data Set 2 mirrors the elements of identity discussed above. It has two major outcomes: body as appeal to ethos based on wounds and disorder, and body as evidence of ability to move beyond self-harm. The latter example arises from description of methods for controlling and calming the body, offered both as general information and as specifics used by the speaker.

In both cases, examples of control over the body are omnipresent. Again in an appeal to ethos and occasionally pathos, users describe their need to control the body either as a means of controlling emotion or controlling urges to harm.

A notable point, mentioned several times throughout and drawing on endoxa, is the idea that without evidence upon the body, pain is not taken seriously and is easily disregarded. Thus, the individual does not receive validation or assistance from the outside community. Therefore, the body is described as an essential element in providing proof of emotional need.

10 It shares elements with other forms of self-injurious identity, but focuses closely on specific diagnoses and actions. 116

Community.

As mentioned above, the community in Data Set 2 takes a different form from those in

Data Sets 1 and 3. Rather than forming a tight-knit community that responds specifically to one another as individuals, many of the comments instead address the community as a whole.

Appeals to logos encourage readers to offer suggestions for ceasing self-harm. In so doing, participation is encouraged, leading to the formation of endoxa and, in turn, community. The generalized roles of self-injurer and former/recovering self-injurer form cores around which various experience can be shared.

Data Set 3

Data Set 3 consists of interactions in an often personalized and friendly tone that frequently referring to endoxa. That is, the interactions between users have developed into what might be seen are online friendships rather strictly experience-based discussion. Personal interactions between individual speakers that move beyond discussions of self-injury are more common than in Data Sets 1 and 2. Unlike Data Sets 1 and 2, some speakers refer to one another by name and offer contact information such as MSN Messenger screen names for off-forum conversation and support. The result is a community that has, in part, developed direct and personalized support rather than the more generalized suggestions and support found in Data

Sets 1 and 2. Suggestions for positive coping skills are also an element of Data Set 3, but make up a smaller percentage of the total comments than exemplified in Data Set 2.

The increase in empathetic interpersonal communication shown through sharing names and support exemplifies an online community based on a wider breadth of lived experience than a specific discussion of self-injury. Users discuss family relations, school expectations, and

117 interactions with offline peers. Data Set 1 includes similar reference to life beyond self-injury, without the closeness of names and connections akin to friendship. Data Set 3 therefore draws upon and contributes to an endoxa informed by friendship in addition to self-injury.

The tropes I discuss below demonstrate how speakers employ language and argument to share both positive and negative experiences, to offer support, and to express intricacies of engaging in self-harm.

Antithesis.

In Data Set 3, antithesis often expresses the emotional conflict speakers experience between the acts of cutting and the need or desire to cease self-injurious behavior. Through these descriptions, speakers often appeal to pathos and logos and encourage others to discuss or interact with the topic and emotion at hand. Antithesis connects with endoxa by reinforcing community ideals and expressing viewpoints and experiences that push back against endoxa.

In Data Sets 1 and 2, antithesis is notably description of experience. Many speakers express polarized desires to both cut and not cut, and their language expresses this frame of mind as it takes up the argument at hand.

Antithesis in Data Set 3 functions in four ways: appeal to logos to explain or seek support for self-injury; appeal to pathos; to express confusion and conflict about self-injury; and as contribution to or rejection of endoxa. Appeals to ethos are found throughout and act to afford credibility to the individuals sharing and supporting others.

1) Antithesis appeals to logos as a frame for self-injury or support for ceasing self-

injury.

118

Speakers describe self-harm as a logical outcome of experience or series of events, using antithetical phrasing to illustrate the varied elements at hand.

“Some days my scars remind me why I want to stop, but others just trigger me to want to

continue. Does this happen to anyone else? Have I lost it?”

This comment draws attention to the struggle between continuing and stopping self-harm.

In addition, the information shared appeals to logos by displaying the connection between seeing and being affected. Logos is supported by a commonly shared experience of significantly divided ideas. The combination of endoxa and the appeal to logos invites comments and support for the speaker’s struggle and divided thoughts.

2) Antithesis appeals to pathos.

Appeals to pathos are present throughout all three data sets, based largely on speakers’ emotional distress and thus distressed acts of self-injury. By describing emotional and physically damaging experiences, the speaker both encourages support from others and demonstrates how these experiences relate to those of other speakers (endoxa).

“I guess I feel "proud" to say that I haven't gone "x" amount of days...but then I feel like

shit when I mess up.”

The individual explains they is, on the one hand, attempting to stop self-harming and counting their days “clean;” on the other hand, is proud to continue doing so. Accordingly, they regret breaking their commitment to stop. This comment exemplifies the antithetical states common to this discussion.

The words “proud” and “shit” are descriptions of the speaker’s emotions, and appeal to readers’ shared experiences and therefore their empathy for the struggle described. Many

119 speakers express similar experiences of such widely varied desires and are thus likely to understand and offer understanding. This comment also shares emotion to explain the ethos connected to self-harm and the difficulty in stopping.

3) Antithesis shows the individual’s confusion and/or conflict in cutting and/or ceasing

cutting.

The state of discussing the antithetical relationship between cutting and ceasing cutting appears throughout use of antithesis. I discuss it explicitly here because it functions as an essential construct in discussion and, most notably, as an appeal to pathos.

“It's just a teeny scratch. I know it seems bad, and I'm probably just fooling myself, but

sometimes I can't see what's so horrible about it.”

This comment juxtaposes the understanding that self-injury is “bad” with the perception of the behavior as an insignificant problem. The speaker employs negative language – “bad,”

“horrible” – to express perceived issues with the act of self-injury, potentially based on societal endoxa. They position themselves against this point of view, indicating the lived belief that it is not a negative behavior despite the negative choice of language. Acknowledgement of both positions indicates conflict that invites comment, reinforcement, and shared experience from others.

4) Antithesis contributes to endoxa and draws attention to the speaker’s felt adherence or

differentiation from endoxa.

Throughout the data, and as I discuss in Chapter 5, endoxa is based upon experiences shared and revisited. Antithesis contributes to endoxa by explaining and establishing common

120 limits of the experience of self-harm and the state of being self-harmed. Many speakers draw upon and share beliefs with community opinions and terminology, while others reject and/or share experiences counter to those previously explained. Others, as discussed in Point 2 above, reject the larger social endoxa in favor of their own experience.

“Like my biggest purple one I got stitches, and it was gnarly. The white ones were pretty

much just scratches.”

In this description of scarring, one comment in a thread of discussion on scars, the speaker contributes – perhaps unknowingly – to community knowledge of the physical appearance of cutting. The two ends of the wound spectrum as this speaker has described – purple (more recent) and white -- appeals to ethos based in the possession of the two types of scarring. As discussed, speakers attach meaning and importance to the appearance of scarring.

This comment is supported by the continuing comment thread. Speakers explain and describe their own bodies and specific acts of self-harm, thus demonstrating the importance of wounds as appeals to ethos.

“some people focus on the self-injury, when really, what they need to focus on is WHY

we would ever even consider harming ourselves in the first place.”

In this case, the writer rejects one common perception of self-injury and states that instead of focusing on the acts of self-harm, speakers should focus on the core issues behind the behavior. By presenting two ends of the spectrum, the comment presents a counter-position to previous comments. The appeal to logos refers to the community position vs. the position advocated by the individual.

121

Emphasis.

Emphasis draws attention to the experience and severity of self-harm. In Data Set 3, emphasis is most frequently used as an appeal to ethos, both to demonstrate the speaker’s enaction of self-injurious behavior and participation in the community. Emotional language, particularly expressing the speaker’s level of distress, appeals to pathos and draws attention to the speaker’s need for support and/or validation. Emphasis takes up two major functions in this data: Appeals to ethos and appeals to pathos using comments about specific wounds or the need to self-harm, and reference to the body, particularly wounds and scarring.

1) Emphasis appeals to ethos or pathos based on severity of wounds and distress.

Speakers describe their thoughts and current emotional state. Speakers are therefore able to demonstrate credibility as a self-injurer, given the details and evidence of involvement.

Participation in the community is therefore shown.

“Some days I can tell that it's going to be a rough, so I wait until I can't wait any more.”

This speaker describes the identification of the urge to self-harm. The word “rough” coupled with the idea of not being able to resist, demonstrates emphasis and appeal to both ethos and pathos. The appeal to ethos operates in two ways: the speaker’s willingness to try and not self-harm – demonstrating a positive outlook – and in their inability to maintain safety. The latter, an antithetical experience, shows the speaker’s continued participation in the negative experience of self-harm.

In the second example, an appeal to pathos is informed by and contributes to endoxa as it refers to common experience. The idea of struggle (“rough”) and description of the inability to avoid self-harm (“can’t wait anymore”) describes interaction with the self. This interaction is

122 shared by others, as evidenced by comments throughout the thread. Speakers may respond with support or similar experience and thus give the speaker validation.

“My arm is hurting like mad, the sleeve of my T-shirt is stained, and I don't care. I

deserve it.”

This comment refers to a specific act of self-harm and its accompanying emotions. As similarly expressed in the preceding comment, use of emphasis appeals separately to both ethos and pathos. Three separate elements here – arm hurting, sleeve stained, and deserving the wound

– demonstrate the act of self-harm, the visible suggestion of wounds, and the emotional outcome.

Examples one and two appeal to ethos, based in description of severity. Readers will understand the implications of such statements – that self-injury took place and the speaker is experiencing emotional struggle – and therefore respond with support and/or sharing experience.

The third example expresses the speaker’s sense of self-blame and deserving of pain. The phrase “I deserve it” particularly refers to a deeper set of emotions that speakers and other readers11 may understand, given similar comments throughout the data. The appeal to pathos encourages others to validate the writer’s emotions, to share similar experience, and/or to offer support.

2) Emphasis refers to the body, most notably scarring and coloration.

The body is an essential element to the conversation given that it is the location for self- harm. Scarring and the appearance of wounds are discussed in detail in both positive and negative terms. Reference to scars is a use of emphasis since scars indicate prior acts of self- harm. Therefore, the reference appeals to ethos and denotes the individual as a self-harmer.

11 The statement “I deserve it” is understood in Western culture as a means of self-denigration. 123

“It bothers me however that the big scar on my arm turns dark purple when it's cold out.

It's... ew. :love:12”

By describing scars to demonstrate severity of wounding, emphasis enables an appeal to ethos and therefore membership in the community. In this example, the speaker chooses terms that indicate severity while not stating it clearly as such. “Big,” “arm” and “dark purple” denote location, size, and severity and refer to the prior discussion that purple scars are generally from larger and/or deeper cuts. Emphasis is based on the ongoing conversation regarding speakers’ perceptions of their scars. In this comment, the speaker closes by indicating their dislike for these wounds.

Metonymy.

Metonymy is found once in this data and, as seen in Data Set 2, uses the term “blade” to refer to the act of self harm.

“I cried my eyes out, then returned to that *******13 blade.”

Rather than saying “I cut myself,” the speaker references the tool for self-harm. In so doing, they also appeal to ethos based on endoxa and the significance of razor blades, discussed in more detail above in Data Set 2. Because razor blades are iconic tools of self-harm14, readers will likely understand the speaker’s participation in self-injury. By referring to the instrument rather than the action, the speaker also appeals to pathos based on others’ emotional attachment to tools for self-harm.

12 :love: is the textual stand-in for what would appear as an emoji within the thread. 13 The speaker has edited themselves here. 14 As discussed above, razor blades are commonly shown in media as a tool for self-harm. 124

Metaphor.

The metaphors found in Data Set 3 enable speakers to convey emotional experiences, particularly the sense of losing control of emotion and behavior. Speakers employ metaphor to describe their struggles, particularly with the desire to self-harm. Metaphor also draws attention to the difference between the self-injury community and outside culture, thus informing endoxa.

In this data set, metaphor functions in four ways: reference to negative experience and loss of control, appeals to ethos and pathos to demonstrate struggle, creation and reference to endoxa based in logos, and repeated use of the term “trigger.”

1) Metaphor refers to and demonstrates negative experience, particularly loss of

emotional and/or physical control.

Metaphor appeals to ethos and pathos to argue that the individual’s experience is valid and worthy of validation. Speakers state their experiences in order to establish credibility and to request support based on emotion.

“You haven't lost it.”

In this comment, the poster responds to a prior comment expressing loss of control. The metaphor “lost it,” in opposition to the idea of having one’s faculties together, indicates that the speaker is unable to function in a way that they feel is correct or socially acceptable. Although the comment lacks context, the larger argument of the ongoing discussion appeals to logos. An appeal to ethos encourages the reader to embrace their credibility in the belief that others are supportive of their position.

125

2) Metaphor appeals separately to ethos and pathos as it demonstrates struggle.

With this use of metaphor, posters demonstrate their struggle using terminology that refers to destruction and damage. This appeals to ethos as it conveys the legitimacy of emotion and experience. An appeal to pathos references extreme emotions experienced by the speaker.

“Maybe everything that has been building up just unleashed itself in a gigantic trigger

today? That happens to me sometimes....”

This comment refers to a prior comment in which the speaker conveys stress. In response, the poster of this comment appeals to pathos as they employ several metaphors: “building up,”

“unleashed,” and “trigger.” The former two terms refer to emotion that is released in an uncontrollable fashion. Therefore, the poster appeals to pathos as they validate this experience based on their own past emotions. The appeal to ethos, based on depth of emotion, establishes credibility from experience and pain.

A second example demonstrates the participant’s push back against a forceful therapist, and therefore rejection of standard medical treatment. They state,

“He… told my husband if he sees more cuts to take me to the hospital… they could keep

me for weeks/months. What a load of shit!!”

The metaphor, “What a load of shit,” appeals to pathos as it expresses the anger and frustration of the speaker, while also appealing to ethos as they present themselves as wanting to be in control of their own situation. Comparing the situation to an unpleasant physical mass conveys to readers the anger experienced. Unlike many other examples, the appeal to ethos here may not be effective, considering the surrounding examples of distress and damage.

126

3) Metaphor exemplifies the difference between community and outside culture.

Data Set 3 refers to endoxa in two forms: reference to the self-injury community, and to wider social and cultural endoxa and the disparity between the two. Speakers express both positive and negative emotions at this disparity as they discuss their position between the two.

“Have you ever thought about SI from an outsider’s point of view?”

The metaphor “outsider” refers to someone who does not belong. In this case, “outsider” refers to someone who is not a member of the community and is therefore not aware of its endoxa. Here, speakers discuss the perception of self-injury from outside the community and question the logic of their actions. Therefore, this metaphor provokes an examination of the logic of self-injury.

4) “Trigger”

The word “trigger” is used repeatedly throughout all three data sets to describe the experience of a specific event causing the desire to self-harm. As discussed above, “trigger” compares the action of initiating the firing of a gun with an experience that abruptly initiates emotions leading to the individual’s desire to self-injure.

“I know I haven't been posting lately, I haven't cut in over two weeks. Considering that

the holidays are usually some of the worst moments of the year for me, I have been doing

really well, very few triggers. And sometimes I think that I may never cut again... But I

look at the place on my wrist where I cut, and it's all healing up, other than a big scar that

looks like it could be a burn mark, (that's what I usually tell people, that I burned it on the

oven), and I feel like I should be opening it up again. I don't know why...I am happy to

127

not be so triggered. But when I am triggered and don't cut... I am so confused by all of

it.”

In this comment, the speaker describes an experience of avoiding triggers and the ensuing confusion about its emotional effect. They explain that the visible remainder and thus reminder of the wound creates a desire to cut again. Use of the metaphor appeals to pathos as it conveys antithetical, confusing emotion and potentially reminds others of their own experiences, thus prompting them to relate and validate the speaker’s experience.

Litotes.

Through understating emotional experience, speakers appeal to ethos and pathos and through reference to physical elements of self-injury, contribute to endoxa. By understating the act of self-harm, the speaker establishes themselves as someone who has accepted self-injury as a part of their life and taken on the identity of a self-injurer. With the acceptance and discussion of identity, speakers both draw upon and contribute to endoxa. Litotes establishes this identity, the basis for being “normal.”

Use of litotes in Data Set 3 takes up two significant functions: An appeal to ethos that contributes to endoxa and a means of drawing attention to the difference between self-harmer and “normal.”

1) Litotes appeals to ethos as it refers to the physical nature of self-harm. Speakers

contribute to endoxa.

128

This comment speaks directly to endoxa, that is, to establish knowledge and experience for a given community. Wounds are implied, occasionally with further reference to their severity.

Readers will understand this implication based on endoxa, thus appealing to ethos.

“Eh...long sleeves baby! ;)”

In this comment, litotes consists of three elements: the “eh” at the beginning, conveying a sense of disregard, use of “baby,” further intensifying a sense of casualness, and the use of an emoticon that shows a happy wink. Reference to “long sleeves” draws upon endoxa and refers to the need to conceal wounds on the arms. In this case, endoxa is engaged as speakers will make the connection between requiring arm coverage and the presence of wounds.

The three statements involve acceptance of and pride in wounds and the identity of a self- injurer. It reinforces the community value that a socially rejected and pathologized behavior can be embraced.

2) Draws attention to the disparity between experience of self-harm and “normal”

experience.

Litotes draws attention to a self-injurious identity by noting the disparity between community acceptance and rejection of self-injury, and thoughts in the culture at large. By understating the speaker’s perception of this disparity, they indicate their uncertainty about identity. An appeal to ethos accords importance to the identity, explicitly based upon endoxa.

“I find myself wanting scars there15, like since I'm a 'cutter' then I should have scars

there. Maybe I'm just insane.”

15 The speaker refers to the wrist, another image supported by entertainment media. 129

This comment connects to the identity of the self-injurer by assuming that this identity involves scarring. The closing phrase, “maybe I’m just insane,” is an example of litotes despite its phrasing. The speaker undermines their own perception of identity by equating it with insanity. It appeals to endoxa because the shared experience might mean that ALL community is

“insane,” which shifts the meaning and experience of being an individual in this position.

Notably, this comment uses the body as an appeal to ethos. The speaker indicates their belief that visible wounds in a specific space – the arm – accords him/her the identity of a self- injurer. They therefore express unease with not having these specific wounds.

Maxim.

In this data, maxim appeals to pathos and ethos in that share experience and offer support. Use of common phrases from American English16 enable readers to understand experiences from the SI community through the endoxa of a wider American society. That is, the representation of shared experience expressed through standardized phrasing is a means of conveying ideas that others of the same culture can understand. Overwhelmingly, maxims and idioms appeal to pathos to express emotion and to seek validation.

“...i'm afraid of losing control”

As discussed above, the sentiment of “losing control” is shared by numerous members of the community. Therefore, it is a phrase that garners support and defines shared experience. In a general sense, “losing control” refers to one’s inability to no longer maintain a situation. In this case, speakers refer to psychological distress and the physical need to self-harm.

“i haven't got the energy to care.”

16 It is likely that not all users are American, but the maxims identified fall into this category. 130

The statement “don’t have energy” refers to the speaker’s sense that a standard level of caring cannot be maintained. Its use here appeals to logos based on the logical connection that lack of energy equals lack of ability to move or otherwise function. As a second example, it appeals to ethos in its indication that the speaker is struggling.

Rhetorical questions.

In Data Set 3, rhetorical questions help speakers to express opinions and provoke thought without indicating the desire or requirement to do so. As a function of argument, they encourage readers to consider the point of view of the writer or, conversely, their perception of the difference of opinion.

Rhetorical questions have two distinct tasks: Reference to and reinforcement of endoxa based on general allusion to endoxa, and establishment of ethos and/or pathos based on indirect requests for validation or sharing of experience.

1) Endoxa and reinforcing endoxa through oblique reference to the subject.

Rhetorical questions are way for speakers to refer to endoxa, more specifically, to their adherence to the meaning established. By forming questions based on shared experience, speakers appeal to ethos and establish themselves as knowledgeable and/or dedicated to the identity of self-injurer.

“I found myself staring at the (far too few- why is it I want them to look like my legs?) on

my arm for about an hour.”

The question posed here – “why do I want [my arms] to look like my legs?” – refers to the idea that, as found in endoxa, arms are a meaningful and common location for self-injury. As

131 described in my discussion of litotes above, endoxa indicates that arms take up meaning and identify the self-injurer. Here, the speaker refers to this in a question that further demonstrates their desire to fulfill this identity.

2) Rhetorical questions are based on shared experiences. Speakers share their emotions

and invite community interaction while posing questions that cannot be directly

answered.

“Like.I know they mean well..but how the FUCK do they know that? Did anybody

predict I'd start SI in the first place? No. So how can they predict I'll be ok?”

Through direct language and use of expletive, this speaker expresses anger. In fact, this comment includes three individual questions, none of which can be answered by the readers.

Expression of anger is an appeal to pathos that draws the attention of speakers. The questions posed seek reinforcement and positive response, if not response to the questions themselves.

An appeal to ethos – in this case drawing attention to the lack of credibility afforded to the “they” to whom this speaker refers – further invites support and validation for the individual, their experience, and their emotions. Many self-injurers, and thus speakers of this forum, have experienced misunderstanding and unwanted interactions based on self-harm. Therefore, understanding of and support for an individual struggling with this situation is likely.

“If I'm never told I can get through this and fight this, will I think I will actually ever

stop? Probably not, because I feel there's no reason to try to stop, because no one thinks

that I can.”

132

In the example above, this speaker poses a question that cannot be answered by anyone in the community. Instead, the question appeals to ethos based on the shared identity of the self- injurer. The struggle to stop or not stop self-harming is a shared experience.

The appeal to pathos found in the sense of distress and lack of self-understanding further appeals to shared experience. Desire to stop self-harming is a major source of discussion, as are the fear and hope experienced. Based on the emotional content, readers are prompted to offer support based on their own knowledge and emotion.

Conclusion of Data Set 3

In Data Set 3, the tropes employed enable speakers to convey emotion, interact with endoxa, and find support and validation from other participants. As in Data Sets 1 and 2, identity, body, and community form a core of experience and conversation, enabling interaction and thus the formation of endoxa. Reference to these topics afford speakers the means to create and participate in conversations that benefit and/or inform them. Unlike Data Sets 1 and 2, distinctions between identity, body, and community are less clear. Often, comments regarding these categories interrelate more closely than in prior data. Most notably, as discussed below, the categories of identity and body interact.

Identity.

Given the focus of this discussion on working to overcome the need to self-harm, conversation expressing struggle between the identity of self-injurer and of an individual working for or in recovery is present throughout. Interrelating with community, speakers define themselves against definitions of self-harm held by the community: the role of community and

133 endoxa is central to the discussion and exploration of identity. These beliefs further interact with the outside community’s negative perception of self-harm and speakers define themselves in relation to this outside belief of self-harm as a dangerous and unhealthy action. Through conversation of identity and the struggle to not only identify oneself in relation to endoxa of outside and inside community, users work to find a basis for “normal” as they attempt to physically overcome their struggles.

Body.

As identity interrelates closely with community, so body supports and defines identity.

As represented in this data, the body is most often present through explicit description of wounds and scars, and how they support the identity of a self-injurer. As noted above, this identity is further complicated by perception of endoxa, both within the self-injury community, and in community beyond. Appeals to ethos based in explanation of wounds and scarring enables the speaker to demonstrate their presence in the community. Further, these descriptions define the visible definition of self-harm within the community – notably including purposeful bruising in addition to cutting.

Community.

As is evident through discussion of identity and body, community is a central source of meaning within Data Set 3. Comments and descriptions of self-harm and, conversely, the struggle and success of not self-harming rely upon shared experiences. Users describe their attempts at using tactics to avoid harm suggested by others, thereby directly interacting with and providing feedback on efficacy. The shared experience of both having self-harmed and working

134 to not self-harm – yet not always succeeding – provides a basis for the supportive interactions exemplified here. Additionally, users push back against community ideals and ideas, providing an environment that does not simply accept the status quo, within and outside of the immediate community. The result is a dynamic and constantly evolving endoxa that draws upon varied experience and discussion.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have identified the figures used in the data. I have examined the usage of seven tropes -- antithesis, emphasis, metonymy, metaphor, litotes, maxim, and rhetorical questions – to demonstrate how speakers employ language to convey meaning, elicit support and validation, and form and maintain community, both on and offline.

Based in my examination of theses tropes, I have identified three major areas of interest:

Identity, body, and community. Each of these elements, singly and as interrelated entities, provide meaning and structure for the communities examined. As users share their experiences, often based on damage to the body and the struggle to cease self-harm, they form and express identities along the lines of and counter to community endoxa.

In Chapter 5, I will discuss my findings in further detail, with particular attention to how identity, body, and community interact to form meaning that affects both online and offline behaviors and ideas.

135

Discussion

Each section of this chapter – Identity, Body, and Community1 -- considers the results of analyses from Chapters 3 and 4 and explains how they exemplify larger ideas and patterns of community across the three data sets. In sum, this chapter will describe how the use of rhetorical tropes is a basis for the self-injury community (and thus, for many online communities) as it proceeds as a space for meaning-making and interaction. In the communities I examined, endoxa consist of two major elements: Identity and body. My third section, Community, shows how these elements contribute to and create an ongoing, active community. As I show here, through the interactions of participants and their community-specific use of language, these three areas are defined and applied to discussion and serve to support and maintain the community.

Chapters 3 and 4 conducted an analysis of the data with focus on seven rhetorical tropes.

More specifically, Chapter 3 offered a first level analysis and examined how each trope is exemplified throughout the data. Chapter 4 took a closer look at individual comments and provided specific examples of how the tropes are used to make arguments. Now, Chapter 5 provides a final discussion and explanation of my analysis of the user comments on three online forums discussing self-injurious behaviors. Based on the analyses in Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5 discusses how these tropes form arguments which appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos and speak to community values about body, identity, and interaction. I further demonstrate how these arguments emerge from the tropes and draw from and contribute to community endoxa. As

1 “Community” in this chapter has two iterations: “Big C” Community, referring to the concept of community as it is produced through interaction, and “little c” community, referring to the literal online community in which the interactions take place. 136 described in Chapter 4, endoxa, or commonly shared wisdom or values, shape the community by means of specific topoi, or themes of argument. These lines of argument about body, identity, and Community become the sources on which participants draw to indicate their presence in the community.

After discussing these appeals, I address how these findings inform my research questions and how they offer insight into elements of Community and Community creation. I discuss how these arguments shape the communities I have studied and how these arguments implicitly indicate who does and does not belong in these groups; I also consider what the arguments about identity, body, and endoxa indicate about this group of people. Finally, I address how my findings inform my research questions and thereby offer insights into elements of interaction and Community creation.

• In what ways is ethos generated and utilized in these online spaces?

• What is the role of the physical body in these interactions? How is it relayed in

language?

• How is Community formed and sustained, and what role does language regarding

self-injury play in relation to these communities?

• How is ethos manifested in language?

Throughout this chapter, I refer to “community” in two distinct ways: “Big C”

Community refers to the meaning produced from interactions that contribute to endoxa and the continual meaning-making that occurs as the community interacts over time. The second, “small c” community, refers to the community itself, that is, the conversations and discussions that are

136 the material from which larger meaning is taken. “Small c” community here does not solely refer to the online communities analyzed, as the endoxa extends beyond these specific groups.

To begin, I describe the overarching element of endoxa. Endoxa is a basis for Community and is made up of topoi to which participants refer in order to share information and maintain consistent meaning for interactions. Endoxa includes shared ideas, common experiences, and tropes drawn from participant interactions as well as those found in a wider community – in this case, topoi that exist both within and beyond the individual online community in which it operates. Endoxa enables the community to maintain a shared meaning that is produced and shifts over time as new ideas and experiences are brought into the online conversation. Shared meanings are negotiated by the interactions and experiences of the community– they are never a set of rules or a single interpretation of experience, but a variety of commonly held ideas that reinforce and support one another. Endoxa is essential to the cohesion and continuity of a given community and works as individuals share their own experiences with other individuals in that community. This material may become part of the discussion as it is compared and/or contrasted to the experiences of others, based on appeals to ethos and the individual relation to ideas presented.

Identity

Identity is the first topic which emerges from the tropes to shape a key component of the community’s endoxa. I begin with a discussion of the most frequent identity endoxa represented by the lines of argument, most frequently either the identity of an individual who self-injures and/or of an individual who seeks to cease self-injuring.

137

Through use of the tropes examined, participants create identities that refer to the shared experience of self-injury, therefore drawing from and reinforcing shared endoxa. The identity of the self-injurer is established through the continual expression of similar experiences, creating a situation in which the “self-injurer” takes on a specific form as represented through a set of topoi. For example, as I discuss further below, the common image of self-injury as occurring on the forearm in parallel cuts is referred to in conversation and has shaped how some individuals choose to harm their bodies. Though community members do not reject participants who do not express these ideas or demonstrate their own similar choices, these members do often provide more description of their wounds in order to convey the level of information that the topos is able to take up quickly.

Appeals to ethos are an essential element of the rhetorical process in action on the forums examined; identities developed and upheld in endoxa are a basis for these appeals. As users identify identities as parts of endoxa, they may relate similar experiences. As I have described above, examples include sharing descriptions of triggers and their resulting harm to convey experience with identity of a self-injurer; or triggers and the process of resisting harm to express the identity of someone working to cease self-harm. The sharing of personal experience enables users to relate to one another and to situations in which self-injury is deemed useful or necessary.

Choice of tropes, as examined in Chapters 3 and 4, provides structure to interactions and to the sharing of material. For example, the repeated use of “this is killing me” or “I’m drowning” places individuals in similar emotional and metaphorical spaces.

The identities of the self-injurer, discussed below, are a location for appeals to ethos. For example, speakers consistently establish their credibility by describing wounds, for example, noting the color of their scarring. Thereby, the speakers establish themselves as members of the group

138 and share the experience of needing to and seeing their wounds (as further related to the topoi of body, below).

In addition to ethos, speakers establish their identity as part of the community through appeals to the emotions of the other members of the self-harm community. More specifically, as some do so by explicating their mental health diagnoses, the individual represents experiences within an established set of values and practices that exists beyond the community. In this case, the topic of identity gains in value as endoxa through establishing a link to, and credibility from, the medical community. Most notably, appeals to pathos draw upon the emotional pain enmeshed in the experience of self-injury and mental health. Not unlike the appeals to scars mentioned above, identity emerges in the shared experience of and interactions surrounding the processes of therapy, psychiatry, and medication. Some participants share their diagnoses (such as Major Depressive Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder), each of which constitutes its own collection of topoi and endoxa. Participants who choose to share these details construct an identity based on personal experience yet reliant upon the association others may have with these labels.

Further notable in these comments are the appeals to pathos in the process of ceasing and supporting the cessation of self-harm. The topic of ceasing self-harm takes up an antithetical point in relation to the act of self-harming which is the major focus of the discussion. Each of these two significant appeals to identity is based on shared meaning of what it means to self- harm and what it means to want to stop self-harm. Participants share their own struggles to offer support to those currently in need, largely by means of antithesis which appeals to past precedent as a way of resolving the apparent contradiction between wanting to and not wanting to stop harming. For example, an individual may share a trigger and explain their prior reaction

139 involving self-harm and follow with a description of their current methods to avoid harming despite facing the same situation. Members of the community may understand this experience with respect to their own identities as self-harmer and their conflicted feelings about occupying this space.

Body

The second topic which emerges from topic to shape community endoxa is the body. The digital space is noted by participants to be one space in which they can discuss and describe the appearance and significance of their wounds, albeit textually. Despite its lesser presence in the online space, the topic of the body is a major element of community endoxa given that it is, after all, the topic that brings participants to the digital space. The shared experience of self-harm and recognition of its negative perception in the public eye gives the body a continual presence in conversation. Each mention of self-harm or the desire to do so refers on some level to the body and shapes endoxa, which the members share.

Notably, my analysis of the material revealed a lesser presence of topos about and description of the literal physical body and existing wounds and scars than expected. That is, though the body was the source of wounds, the discussion revolved around who could or did see the wounds and the resulting information that was conveyed. Instead, as evident in the discussion of identity in the previous section, users discussed their desires to wound or harm, shared resources and suggestions for avoiding self-harm, and described experiences of being a self- injurer. Many indicated that they did so privately, avoiding friends, family and the wider scope of society and stated that the online community constituted their source of support.

140

The resulting topos is one of secrecy and of the body as an outlet that has the potential to give more information than the individual may want to share. The topos of concealing the body and its wounds and thus experience is an element of what is shared within the self-injury community. The act of self-injury and visible wounds and scars were described as needing to be hidden, particularly from parents and teachers. Several participants discussed the need to wear long sleeves and pants in order to avoid visibility, attention from and interaction with others who might ask questions or pass judgement on the wounds or mental state that precipitated them.

The topic of the body emerges from lines of argument which appeals to ethos. These appeals are essential elements of establishing a certain sense of body as a source belonging to the group. With appeals to ethos, participants use the condition of their body to demonstrate themselves as knowledgeable speakers within the community. Each participant has a body, giving them a basic source of understanding from which to compare and understand others’ examples and experience. Each participant also offers a personal understanding of what it means to need or want to cut, and for some, what it means to try and resist that need.

The second role of the body that appears involves its function in resisting self-harm. As discussed throughout this work, communities are divided between discussion of active self-harm and the desire to cease self-harm. The latter relies upon multiple topoi, particularly those in the form of lists of suggestions readers can follow. Lists are made up of varied suggestions2 including those involving the visual and felt body, echoing the shared experience of self-harm and making up another topos. Suggestions such as drawing on one’s self in red marker or going for a run attempt to fulfill the seen/felt input that self-harm might provide while avoiding harm and/or providing positive physical action.

2 Discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. 141

Appeals to ethos are common in these discussions and make up a positive framework for those seeking support for ceasing self-harm. Participants share their struggles and sometimes successes, exemplifying difficulties and achievements to those who are working to stop.

Community

The topoi from identity and body form the basic core of Community, though they do not comprise the entirety of conversation. Basic topics about what the body represents to the individual and the individual’s perception of how it is understood by non self-injurers give rise to endoxa representing a body that Community rests upon. Similarly, endoxa of identity creates a basic understanding of what it means to be a self-injurer or someone seeking to cease self-harm that often forms the type of information and experience shared.

The endoxa associated with Community are represented and produced in three interrelated levels: Macro, micro, and individual. The three levels of community interact to produce and reinforce endoxa, thus providing a framework for self-injurers to interact and present meaning for their behaviors and interactions with the world.

At the individual level, participants employ tropes to share experience and refer to topoi which can be related to micro-community discussion (relating to one another, often pathos and ethos). The individual is the basic element of community with the role of bringing material into discussion, thereby contributing to the existence of the micro-community. As they take in meaning, combine it with their own experiences, and decide how to respond or post, the individual is participating in the endoxa-making process though they are unable to decide it for the group. Individual reference to endoxa draws on pre-existing community culture and new information can be included and repeated to become part of endoxa as well.

142

Micro-community refers to specific communities such as those represented by Data Sets

1, 2, and 3. Each is made up of multiple individuals who interact and discuss a variety of topics, with the focus being self-injury in any capacity, including ceasing self-harm.

Micro-community discussion, of which the forums I analyzed are an example, can then affect how a user thinks and thus acts. Rhetorical tropes and appeals play the role of conveying and encapsulating meaning in a way that enables understanding in interaction. A notable example is the metaphor “trigger,” which refers to a thought, image, or experience that causes the individual to experience a need to self-harm. Appeals to ethos are of immediate importance, given that credible appeals will affect how individuals perceive and, in turn, enact self-harm and its discourse. Endoxa is produced most readily here, as individuals interact on a personal level, sharing experience and discussing the experiences of others. Micro-community also extends to offline interaction, whether formally organized such as group therapy or support groups, or informal discussions.

The macro self-injury community is the entire culture of self-injury, including those who self-injure, those who are aware of others’ experiences and, notably, media depicting and describing self-harm. Many forum participants relate being affected by the actions of other individuals and by media representation of self-harm3. Endoxa such as the value placed on particular types of wounds, experiences, and methods of coping are often represented in this larger community. As discussed, this includes the representation of wounds as a series of parallel lines, leading to this being a common depiction and therefore layout of harm. Common terminology and visibility arise from these sources, providing information for individuals and a framework for interactions at the micro level.

3 Searching for examples of films on IMDB in September 2020 finds 197 hits for film alone. See a brief list of examples in Appendix C. 143

Macro-level community then returns to affect the individual and thus the micro- community. The information consumed has the potential to affect the individual’s actions and understandings of self-harm, noted particularly in the description of “triggers,” which may then affect discussions in online spaces. Another example is the common placement of self-harm on the wrists in multiple parallel lines, as frequently shown in film and television. Individuals have many ways of harming, but as suggested by my data, these images affect behavior.

Notably, the macro community includes material exemplifying push-back against the medical model of disease, due to lived experience of a disorder differing from its pathology.

Within the self-injury community, language and endoxa are most often formed outside of medical experiences described within the forum. Therefore, the outcome is a culture that, at times, rejects medical authority and ideas, though many participants are accepting of medication and therapy.

The outcome of this multi-level community system, over time, is a widely spread community gathered largely online in discussion with tropes, endoxa, and behaviors that affect the “real world” as the physical actions of the “real world” in turn affects how and what participants share online. Each individual community of a given size maintains its own endoxa which may overlap significantly with that of other groups; within this research, I found that the vocabulary was very similar though the specific use of tropes varied.

This section has demonstrated how Identity and Body, as major topoi within self-injury communities, contribute to the creation of individual online communities as well as Community of a larger scope.

144

Research Questions

In what ways is ethos generated and utilized in these online spaces?

In my analysis of the data, I have found that ethos is generated in two major ways: First, it is generated thorough statements and interactions which demonstrate experience and understanding of self-injury, such as descriptions of triggers, wounds, or the experiences that lead the individual to desire harm. Similarly, participants who offer support and share their processes of ceasing self-harm appeal to ethos as they model the possibilities for change.

Secondarily, ethos exists at a community level in the comments and shared experiences of the members that express the legitimacy of the act of self-harm and of the struggles experiences and argue that it is an issue to be acknowledged.

For both the individual and the community, appeals to ethos provide personal evidence of the issue. Given that the identity of “self-injurer” is made up of a relatively small group of individuals and communities, ethos is essential in order to demonstrate one’s role as a member of the group. Appeals to ethos, made up of statements about self-harm and, conversely, about ceasing to harm, create a space in which participants form a common language and basis for experience. That is, the appeals and the responses to them elicit responses that contribute to endoxa. Thus, ethos directly informs and maintains endoxa and the continual shifting of the community as individuals join and depart.

How is ethos manifested in language?

In this data, ethos is manifested through appeals made up of descriptions that indicate the speaker is both knowledgeable about and has experience with self-injury. Rhetorical tropes – particularly antithesis – illustrate experience and support appeals and their corresponding

145 responses. The back-and-forth engagement of appeals to ethos not only contributes to endoxa but exemplifies the importance of tropes to this process. For example, particular users employ antithesis and refute endoxa as an appeal to ethos. This process questions endoxa and may result in its shift or may reinforce it as other participants reject the attempted change. Possibly, the antithetical statement appeals to ethos and establishes identity for the participant based on their rejection of endoxa. In short, various tropes create appeals to ethos that establish identity and contribute to endoxa.

What is the role of the physical body in these interactions? How is it relayed in

language?

As indicated above, I found significantly less discussion and description of the body than expected at the beginning of the project. Despite an absence of reference to the physical body as such, all reference to and discussion of self-injury indirectly refers to the body, given that it is necessarily the site of harm.

The existing discussion is represented as an appeal to ethos. Participants mention and describe wounds and scars in order to locate themselves in a community that shares these physical experiences. The few references to the body come at these points, noting location on an arm or a leg. Commonly, users describe their wounds and scars in terms of color and size, providing a visual description that can be compared to the experiences of others. Descriptions take on the role of an appeal to ethos as multiple users offer outsiders an idea of the behavior at stake.

While descriptions of wounds offer a reframing of the role of the body, the result is less an attempt to normalize for an outside audience and more to express the level of distress that

146 drives the behavior. Alternatively, discussion of ceasing self-harm appeals to ethos as it demonstrates the ability for self-injurers to reframe the role of the physical body.

How is Community formed and sustained, and what role does language regarding

self-injury play in relation to this community?

In the three communities I examined, Community relies on the use of lines of reasoning which speak to the topics of identity and body. Reference to these aspects of endoxa enables both the maintenance and ongoing nature of the community as interaction and discussion occurs over time. Ideas presented, discussed, and returned to in conversation become part of collective meaning. An important element of this continuance of meaning is reference to and discussion of personal interaction with outside media. As users bring their impressions of media, such as movies and television, to the space, it takes on meaning for participants in the community who may not have been part of the initial discussion.

Given the textual nature of forum interaction, language is the basis for meaning.

Language, too, is based in endoxa – As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, tropes and appeals shown to convey individual experience are occasionally repeated, shared, and thus entered into endoxa.

As indicated by the answers to my research questions, endoxa is the basis for both consistent and continually shifting meaning that inform the individual interactions that make up each community. Additionally, shared tropes and their meanings give structure to the conversation about self-harm and the role of the body as a source for coping and the conveyance of information. Language provides context and enables users to speak knowledgably, both about self-harm and about the need for and process of ceasing self-harm. Each of these areas of

147 discussion relies upon appeals to ethos, providing credibility to the speaker, and informing distinct areas of endoxa.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have described the findings of my analyses, focused particularly on how the topoi of Identity and Body make up sources of meaning and discourse that produce endoxa and, in turn, become community – or, alternatively, community that discusses Identity and Body and produces endoxa.

In Chapter 6, I will conclude the dissertation by giving an overview of my data and findings, discussing the limitations of this work, and describing some of the future projects that arise from my findings and interests in the project.

148

Conclusions

This project began as an effort to understand how language is used in online self-injury forums to describe and convey meaning about the body. To that end, I have shown how the use of specific rhetorical tropes and wording establishes an ethos for the individual and the community and creates and perpetuates endoxa, enabling the community to exist and develop over time. Moreover, I have demonstrated how the physical body, both through the physical act of self-injury and its description in words, is a source of ethos for both the individual and the community and how it takes on a central role in the formation of endoxa.

In Chapter 1, I began by describing the genesis of my research project and listing the research questions that I pursue throughout the dissertation. I also provide a review of relevant literature that grounds my understanding of the topic and has thus informed my approach in this project.

Drawing from this work, Chapter 2 details how my research questions developed from an initial idea through shifts encountered with the impact of other research, to the present question that my study addresses. I discuss the ethical considerations and choices I made in undertaking a project that analyzes and represents the words and thoughts of others in an ethically complicated situation. I describe my methods of data collection and analysis, and my choices in coding.

Using the methods described in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 identifies and describes the use of seven types of rhetorical trope: antithesis, emphasis (significatio), litotes, metonymy, metaphor, maxim, and rhetorical questions. I further discuss appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos as they are used as part of and in relation to the seven tropes examined. This discussion establishes a basic

149 understanding of the language employed in participant interactions to share experience and information. The tropes and appeals discussed form a basis for endoxa and the process of community.

Following identification and discussion of the language basis for individual and community interaction, Chapter 4 examines larger patterns of argument constructed from the tropes and appeals found in Chapter 3. Using examples from Data Sets 1, 2 and 3, I discuss the role of three elements, Identity, Body, and Community, as spaces for the creation and use of and contribution to endoxa.

Based on the coding I described, Chapter 5 provides my interpretation of the data.

In sum, my study can now respond to my research questions in the following ways. In

Section 1, I address my questions of What is the role of the physical body in these online interactions? How is the body expressed in language? As I describe, the body itself is a basis for meaning and ethos. Self-injury, as an embodied act, provides grounds for discussion and its associated ethos extends into the representation of this act in words. Section 2 responds to the question of How is community formed and sustained, and what role does language regarding self-injury play in relation to this creation? I address the creation and maintenance of community around the topic of self-injury and discusses the role of language and words within this process. Section 3 considers the question of How is language imbued with ethos? In response, I describe the creation of community endoxa and topoi that, when used over time, attain ethos through use alone.

Now, in Chapter 6 I discuss the limitations of this study and its implications for the fields of writing and rhetoric, particularly in an online setting. In addition, I describe the contributions

149 this research offers to several fields of study and consider research projects that may build on this project.

Limitations

My limitations fall into three categories: Limitations on data collection, on coding and analysis, and the limitations that face the researcher as a result of personal bias. First, this study has been limited by examining previously existing forum conversations; specifically, I pursued this study without direct and current interaction with forum users and without offering them the opportunity to explain themselves or their comments. Although in one sense, this allows the online conversation to speak for “itself” and to reflect the moment of “speech,” it also means the study lacked the input of its participants. It would be valuable to have the input of individuals regarding the construction and intention of the online comments and the role and description of self-injury as a part of this discussion and community.

Another limitation this project encounters involves the use of terminology and the discussion of experiences that generalize across the materials I examined. In representing forum comments, I speak for self-injurers as a group in a way that may not reflect the thoughts and experiences of each person. For example, I often use the term “self-injurer” to describe participants, though this may not be a term with which each individual identifies, particularly in discussion of ceasing self-harm. One unfortunate and inevitable outcome is the erasure of individual experience, although my intention is to provide a concise and anonymized understanding of self-injury. As I discuss below in the section on future research, a valuable contribution or addition to a similar project would engage more closely with the individuals and allow them a larger role in the examination and representation of meaning in research.

150

The lack of availability of self-injury forums also presents a limitation: there is no pro self-injury site represented within my data. As discussed in Chapter 2, the strong sentiment against forums that glorify or advocate self-damaging behavior has resulted in a majority of pro self-injury sites using password-protection to limit access to known and vetted individuals.

Without the input of those who fully embrace the continuance of behavior, my data only represents part of the community. Although pro-SI sites make up a small percentage of self- injury forums online, they offer a unique point of view that would benefit an understanding of the use of language in these forums.

When considering the role of word choice as an element of the community and creation of endoxa, I did not rigorously examine the relationship between specific language use and its acceptance on the forum. Though a relationship between the user’s word choice and the responses received was evident, further analysis is required to provide a more thorough representation of the interaction between word choice, ethos, and endoxa.

I have conducted a rhetorical analysis that almost wholly focuses on ethos, to the detriment of other rhetorical functions. Therefore, this project does not address either pathos or logos at length, though each is present throughout the data. This may be less a limitation than a call for continued examination of the rhetorical functions of online self-injury communities.

Finally, as the researcher, I come to this project with my own biases. As a former self- injurer, I have developed my own impressions and considerations of the thought processes and actions that accompany the act of self-harm. Therefore, my approach and analysis are deeply informed by these experiences and may not readily take into account or understand other points of view. As the examination of my ethical approach in Chapter 2 describes, I worked to be

151 reflective of my bias. However, my analysis and coding are inextricably entwined with my own experiences, and this point of view is likely privileged through my interpretation of the data.

Contributions and Further Study

Online identity and community.

As noted in the literature review, my dissertation draws from and expands on work that describes the creation and continuance of online identity and community. In my analysis of how self-injury forum users describe their bodies and actions in words for an online audience, I have offered specific examples of how individuals represent themselves online and use words and tropes to establish meaning and identity both for themselves and for the group in which they participate. Most notably, I have demonstrated the role that the physical body plays as a source of ethos for individuals and, in turn, the communities in which they interact. The role of the body in an online forum suggests that despite interaction in a “body-less” space, the body nonetheless retains deep significant to ethos and to community endoxa. Researchers interested in the construction of identity and the importance of presence or absence of the body to online interactions will be interested in this project as its findings inform notions of body, identity construction and the interactions and formation of online community.

Within this work, scholars interested in online interactions will find insights about how individual interactions rely on language, and how this contributes to community endoxa. It exemplifies and examines a process of creating and referring to endoxa as it operates as a reference for specific meaning. From this, a shared identity is defined and used as reference and a basis for ethos. Therefore, the relationship between word choice, rhetorical tropes, and endoxa may provide material for discussion and further study.

152

This dissertation further uses its findings on individual ethos to examine and explain the formation of community and, in relation, community endoxa. I have shown how individual interactions, often based in socially rejected experiences of the body, contribute to shared meaning and a basis for community to exist and evolve.

My findings on ethos as an element of creating identity both on and offline, and of creating community contribute to further questioning of the ways rhetorical methods are employed in the process of finding and establishing respect for the individual in the specifically online environment. Similarly, the importance of ethos to the creation of endoxa and thus of sustainable community contributes to an understanding of online interactions not solely as a process of extending one’s self, but as a process of assimilation and participation in which body, identity, and credibility play as essential role.

Working from my findings on ethos as an element of language and the use of chosen rhetorical tropes in the course of establishing meaning in a community, I present the following questions for consideration and further study. What is the expected time span for new users to adopt a lexicon based on endoxa? What is the process of moving from new user to member (if, indeed, one exists), and what role do words and rhetorical tropes play in this process? How/Is endoxa internalized across communities, or employed in a particular situation only1?

Similarly, within online communities, who sets the lexicon? How is it created? What and whose conversations do they arise from, and how do they change over time? To what extent are they based on the interactions of the larger self-injury community, existing on and offline? A long-term study of an active online community may show shifts in language use that reinforce or construct endoxa. Further, the roles of power in relation to language may be considered: Is there

1 For example, when a new user joins a community, how long does it take them to learn and utilize language that reflects group endoxa? How closely does this relate to acceptance within the community? 153 power to create lexicon? How does one attain such power, and is language the major focus?

Returning to rhetoric, what is the role of ethos in this situation?

Language online.

This project extends the central role of text in the online environment, given that

“interactions often take place and are remembered in text” (Brophy 2010). My study indicates that not only do online interactions occur in text, but that text is an essential source of ethos and, thus, acceptance into the community at hand. Words must be used to communicate, but the choice of words relates to the user’s acceptance and position within the community. More important to the existence of the community, word choice and its repetition provides a source of cohesive meaning for the group.

Accordingly, I have demonstrated the essential role endoxa plays as a source of ethos for the both the individual and the group. Through the creation and maintenance of a common language supported by the experiences shared in conversation, each community establishes a basis for membership and expertise.

The understanding of language as an ethos-imbued element of interaction that further contributes to participation and acceptance in online communities is a location for further study.

Body and argument.

Apart from Internet and textual representations, my work adds to scholarship establishing the body as a site of power and, in the words of Judith Butler, “an active process of embodying certain cultural and historical possibilities, a complicated process of appropriation” (1988, p.

521). Understanding self-injury as a means of interaction with social taboos and expectations

154 offers a distinct perspective on self-harm that indicates the role of the body as an element of social interaction. The screening of the literal physical body by the digital medium adds a layer of social and textual meaning based not solely on the appearance and presence of the physical, but on its textual representation.

This project has demonstrated how individuals use their bodies as a source of ethos, and that in online communities, the establishment of ethos is reliant upon community endoxa. The potential for the culturally-identified body to be utilized as a source of persuasion suggests that the body’s tacit ethos has the potential to provide meaning that is both intentional and unintentional.

With consideration of the role of the body as a source of meaning and ethos, one major topic for further study is the question of how the body is used as an argument in situations beyond self-injury. Engagement with participants, rather than examination of their previous words, would be a valuable tool. Some considerations might include how the body, and representations of the body, form a basis for persuasion and argument.

Rhetoric.

My dissertation offers a new understanding of ethos, both in relation to the body and to the visual as it is described in words. Rather than limiting credibility to the credentials of the speaker, I have shown that it also arises from their actions and, notably, their interactions with and representations of the body. Merely possessing a body gives the individual ethos as a human and provides a basis for common experience. Therefore, the condition of the body also provides the viewer with information about the credibility of the body’s owner. Rather than focusing on

155 expertise or knowledge in a cerebral sense, the body may be seen as inescapable evidence of expertise and knowledge of physical pain, illness, or conversely, well-being.

Additionally, my analysis of topoi makes a significant contribution to the theory and practice of using “places” as a means of understanding and crafting human discourse. More specifically, my efforts, which have demonstrated yet another way in which informal reasoning patterns shape and are shaped by cultural values, supports current understanding of how we construct norms in a digital space. The fact that the topoi at hand have the potential to shift in meaning while often still maintaining a basic topic as the environment shifts offers a unique perspective for further study, particularly in online spaces where meaning is constantly in flux.

Areas for Further Study

Moving forward, the results of my project offer several lines of further inquiry. For example, I would like to continue my work on the analysis of trope/appeals in Chapter 4. Moving on from the examples of tropes I have already identified and examined I will consider the relationships between the initial post and its responses. In these exchanges, the choice of tropes varies according to the situation; my aim is to investigate these calls and responses for evidence of patterns. Does a comment in which the individual indicates they are struggling with self-harm elicit specific types of comments with any consistency? Moreover, does a post sharing a description of a wound receive a very different type of response. These individuals and group patterns may add to my inquiry into how language shapes and reflects endoxa of online communities.

Beyond this project, my plans include examining the implications of tacit ethos, particularly as it shifts from the physical to representations of the physical. I am interested in

156 photography and performance art that display and perform damaged bodies. These performances do not represent self-injury as the method of coping represented in this project, but rather injury for the sake of public performance2 -- whether conducted by the individual or previously occurring and shown to the audience at a later date. At present, my plan is to consider such performance in light of cultural notions of disgust and unease with these bodies and the actions inflicted upon them. In representing the damaged body, artists make a statement that relies upon the physical form shared by people. As a result, the artist’s choices reflect cultural values. I seek to further understand the embodied argumentative element at play in these images.

Conclusion

This dissertation has analyzed unique interpersonal discussion in an online setting, forums with focuses on self-injury and experiences as a self-injurer. Throughout my analysis, I have found that conversation based on identity as a self-injurer (or working to cease self- injuring) and on the body as a site of injury and a space for meaning leads to the construction of community endoxa. Based on this ongoing, always shifting conversation and production of meaning, the role of the self-injurer/healing seeker is loosely defined and taken up by multiple communities as participants interact within varied groups.

Moving beyond the written language, my work has examined its insight about mass media and personal spaces with consequences for those who participate in online communication. The drastic increase in self-injury can be directly correlated to the rise of this type of media; clearly such conversations, both personal and at a wider scope, have significant

2 This takes two forms – one exemplified by the July 1863 images of an escaped slave, known as “Whipped Peter,” (real name Gordon), with extreme scarring caused by whippings received in slavery. The second considers performance art such as that performed by Marina Abramović in her 1975 piece Lips of Thomas. 157 consequences. Communities, particularly online communities, are essential for interactions regarding unaccepted social behaviors, but do not operate in a vacuum. This dissertation has shown that the construction of online community does not always mean that the community exists solely in one space online or online at all, but that it can continue to produce and shift endoxa over other spaces as well.

158

References

Ahmed, S. and Stacey, J. (Eds.). (2001). Thinking through the skin. Routledge.

Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. (2nd ed.) (George A.

Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford UP.

Baym, N. (1998). “The emergence of on-line community.” Jones, S. (Ed.), Cybersociety

2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated community and technology. (35-68). Sage

Publications, Inc.

Baym, N. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity.

Berkenkotter, C. (2008). Patient Tales: Case Histories and the Uses of Narrative in

Psychiatry. University of South Carolina Press.

Blair, K., Gajjala, R. and Tulley, C. (Eds.). (2009). Webbing cyberfeminist

practice: Communities, pedagogies, and social action. Hampton Press.

Boero, N. (2012). “Pro-anorexia communities and online interaction: Bringing the pro-

ana body online.” Body and Society, 18.2, 27-57.

Bogdan, R. (1996). “The social construction of freaks.” Rosemary Garland Thomson (Ed.),

Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the extraordinary body, 23-37. New York University

Press.

Broad, K.L. and Joos, K. (2004). “Online inquiry of public selves: Methodological

considerations.” Qualitative Inquiry, 10.6, 923-946.

Brophy, J.E. (2010). “Developing a corporeal cyberfeminism: Beyond Cyberutopia.”

New Media and Society, 12.6, 929-945.

Butler, J. (1988). “Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in

phenomenology and feminist theory.” Theatre Journal, 40.4, 519-531.

159

Campbell, A. (2006). “The search for authenticity: An exploration of an online

skinhead newsgroup.” New Media and Society, 8.2, 269-294.

Cintron, R. (1997). Angels’ town: Chero ways, gang life, and the rhetorics of everyday.

Beacon Press.

Coupland, J., and Gwyn, R. (Eds.) (2003). Discourse, the body, and identity.

Palgrave.

Davis, K. (1997). “Embody-ing theory: Beyond modernist and postmodernist readings of

the body.” Kathy Davis (Ed.), Embodied practices: Feminist perspectives on the body, 1-

23. Sage.

Davis, K. (2012). “Tensions of identity in a networked era: Young people’s perspectives

on the risks and rewards of online self-expression.” New Media and Society, 14.4, 634-

651.

Dibbel, J. (1993, December 23). “A rape in cyberspace: How an evil clown, a haitian

trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society.” The

Village Voice.

Downer, C. et al. (2009). “Who’s really a cyberfeminist? Women write back: The

rhetoric of pro-ana sites.” Kristine Blair, Radhika Gajjala, and Christine Tulley (Eds.),

Webbing cyberfeminist practice: Communities, pedagogies, and social action, 85-106.

Hampton Press.

Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion.

Oxford University Press.

Favazza, A.R. (2011). Bodies under siege: Self-mutilation, nonsuicidal self-injury, and

160

body modification in culture and psychiatry (3rd ed.). The Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Favazza, A.R. (2009). “A cultural understanding of nonsuicidal self-injury.”

Matthew K. Nock (ed.), Understanding nonsuicidal self-injury: Origins, assessment, and

treatment (19-35). American Psychological Association.

Garland Thomson, R. (Ed.). (1996). Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the

extraordinary body. New York University Press.

Garland Thomson, R. (1996). “Introduction: From wonder to terror – A genealogy of freak

discourse in modernity.” Rosemary Garland Thomson (Ed.), Freakery: Cultural

spectacles of the extraordinary body, 1-22, New York University Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. J. Aronsen.

Grabill, J.T. and Pigg, S. (2012). “Messy rhetoric: Identity performance as rhetorical

agency in online public forums.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42.2, 99-119.

Grosz, El. (1996). “Intolerable ambiguity: Freaks as/at the limit.” Rosemary Garland Thomson

(Ed.), Freakery: Cultural spectacles of the extraordinary body, 55-66. New York

University Press.

Grosz, E. (1994). Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Indiana University Press.

Haas, A. (2009). “Wired wombs: A rhetorical analysis of online infertility support

communities.” Kristine Blair, Radhika Gajjala and Christine Tulley. (Eds.), Webbing

cyberfeminist practice: Communities, pedagogies, and social action. 61-84. Hampton

Press.

161

Hewitt, K. (1997). Mutilating the body: Identity in blood and ink. Bowling Green State

University Press.

Himber, J. (1994). “Blood rituals: Self-cutting in female psychiatric inpatients.”

Psychotherapy, 31.4, 620-631.

Horvitz, A. (2002). Creating mental illness. University of Chicago Press.

Huh, S. and Williams, D. (2010). “Dude looks like a lady: Gender swapping in

an online game.” W.S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Online Worlds: Convergences of the Real and

the Virtual (161-174). Springer-Verlag.

Hyland, K. (2012). “Individuality or conformity?: Identity in personal and university

academic homepages.” Computers and Composition, 29.4, 309-322.

Inckle, K. (2007). Writing on the body? Thinking through gendered embodiment and

marked flesh. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Inckle, K. (2010). “Telling tales? Using ethnographic fictions to speak embodied

‘truth’.” Qualitative Research, 10.1, 27-47.

Jacobus, M., with Keller, E.F. and Shuttleworth, S. (1990). Body/Politics:

Women and the discourses of science. Routledge.

Chapter 3: Shuttleworth, S. “Female circulation: Medical discourse and

popular advertising in the mid-Victorian era.” 47-68.

Jeffrys, M. (2002). “The visible cripple (Scars and other disfiguring displays included).”

Sharon L. Snyder et al. (Eds.), Disability Studies: Enabling the Humanities (31-39).

MLA.

Jones, Steven (Ed.). (1997). Virtual culture: Identity and communication in cybersociety.

Sage Publications.

162

Jones, S. (Ed.). (1998). Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated community and

technology. Sage Publications, Inc.

Kolko, B. and Reid, E. (1998). “Dissolution and fragmentation: Problems in on-line

communities.” Steven Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting computer-mediated

community and technology. Sage Publications, Inc.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The University of

Chicago Press.

Laukkanen, M. (2007). “Young queers online: The limits and possibilities of non-

heterosexual self-representation in online conversations”. Kate O'Riordan and David J.

Phillips (Eds.), Queer online: Media technology and sexuality (81-100). Peter Lang.

Lebduska, L. (2009). “The body matters of digitized contexts”. Composition(s) in the new

liberal arts. (Eds.) Joanna Castner Post and James A. Inman. Hampton Press, 2009. 185-

208. Print.

Matei, S. A. (2005). “A sounding board for the self: Virtual community as

ideology.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35.4, 345-365.

McKenna, K.Y.A. and Bargh, J.A. (1998). “Coming out in the age of the Internet:

Identity “demarginalization” through virtual group participation.” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75.3, 681-694.

Messer, J.M. and Fremouw, W.J. (2008). “A critical review of explanatory

models for self-mutilating behaviors in adolescents.” Clinical Psychology Review, 28,

162-178.

Miller, C. (2003). "Writing in a culture of simulation: ethos online". M. Nystrand and J.

163

Duffy (Eds.), Towards a rhetoric of everyday life: New directions in research on writing,

text, and discourse (58-83). University of Wisconsin Press.

Moskow, M. and Katz, S.B.. “Composing identity and community in

cyberspace: A ‘rhetorical ethnography’ of writing on Jewish discussion groups in the

United States and Germany.” Andrea Greenbaum and Deborah Holdstein (Eds.),

Judaic Perspectives in Rhetoric and Composition Studies (85-110). Hampton Press.

Nakamura, L. (1995). “Race in/for cyberspace: Identity tourism and racial passing on

the Internet.” Charles Stivale (Ed.), Works and Days, (181-193). 13.1&2.

Nock, M.K. (Ed.). (2009). Understanding Nonsuicidal self-injury: Origins, assessment,

and treatment. American Psychological Association.

Plante, L.G. (2007). Bleeding to ease the pain: Cutting, self-injury, and the adolescent

search for self. Praeger.

Porter, J. (2009). “Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric.” Computers and Composition, 26, 207-224. Prendergast, C. (2003). “On the rhetorics of mental disability.” Martin Nystrand and John

Duffy (Eds.), Towards a rhetoric of everyday life (189-206). University of Wisconsin.

Qian, H., & Scott, C. R. (2007). “Anonymity and self-disclosure on weblogs.” Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 12.4, 1428-1451.

Sandahl, C. and Auslander, P. (Eds.). (2005). Bodies in commotion: Disability and

performance. University of Michigan Press.

Segal, J. (2005). Health and the rhetoric of medicine. Southern Illinois University Press.

Shaw, D. F. (1998). “Gay men and computer communication: A discourse of sex and

identity in Cyberspace.” Steven Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture: Identity and communication

in Cybersociety, 133-145. Sage Publications.

164

Siebers, T. (2002). “Tender organs, narcissism, and identity politics.” S.L. Snyder et al.

(Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (40-55). MLA.

Smith, M., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1998). Communities in cyberspace. Routledge.

Stone, A.R. (1995). The war of desire at the end of the mechanical age. MIT Press.

Thomas, A. (2007). Youth online: Identity and literacy in the digital age. Peter Lang.

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. Simon and Schuster.

Van Gelder, L. (1985, October). “The strange case of the electronic lover.” Ms. October

1985.

Whitlock, J., Powers, J.L., and Eckenrode, J. (2006). “The virtual cutting edge: The

Internet and adolescent self-injury.” Developmental Psychology, 42, 1-11.

Williams, B. (2008). “What South Park character are you? Popular culture, literacy, and online

performances of identity.” Computers and Composition, 25.1, 24-39.

Wilson, J.C. and Lewiecki-Wilson, C. (Eds.). (2001). Embodied rhetorics: Disability in

language and culture. Southern Illinois University Press.

165

Appendix A Metaphors in the Data

1) Active destruction and violence

Killing me Fighting with this Beat this Struggling Gunning for Attacking myself I’d kill to feel Break through Fighting/fight (4 instances) Battle (5 instances) It’s killing me inside Hit with a strong urge Carving myself up like a turkey I’m not the only one broken (2 instances) I lost the war Breathing burns When the urge strikes Cut out cutting I struggle Generate a good burn Sharp shock Fight/ing (6 instances) Tear myself to shreds/apart (3 instances) Flare up I can’t cut out cutting The damage done I don’t fall Like I will break (2 instances) Urge getting stronger (2 instances) I’m struggling (4 instances) Consumed by it Killing me (2 instances) Kill this clean streak You can beat this (2 instances) Unleashed itself Carved a hole Like a hit in the face My sister pressuring me

166

2) Passive destruction and/or physical experience

Turn weakness into lighter weight I am a whale Took a lot out of me It’s getting to me A soft spot for scars Finding things really hard Darkest times I felt weak Caught in the moment As if nothing ever existed Bogged down Give/Gave in (2 instances) What drives us I’m trapped Slipping up Lost it (3 instances) Getting too hard Hard as hell (2 instances) Fill you with feeling Lose myself/lost (2 instances) Push me to stop Survive my holiday Feeling exposed I felt deattached [sic] I am slipping I’m twisted (2 instances) Squeeze some time It’s all fucked Flashbacks are hell Feeling zombie-ish [sic] (2 instances) I’m void of feeling (2 instances) Watered down version of me Non-existent person Nervous as hell It was a waste Having a rough time (4 instances) Miniscule things It’s painfully obvious Life is bound to get messy again Will I ever be free

167

3) Strength, power, and weakness

Hold it off Hold back Stay strong (4 instances) Strong/er (4 instances) Stronger than the urges Urge come back strongly (2 instances) I’m stronger than I look/you’re strong (8 instances) Going strong It strengthens my resolve

4) Physical space

Aiming for Emotions are all over the place I can’t stand looking Cutting was my way out In the back of my mind To make it short Look down on you Stay on track Fall down Get through tonight We’ll get through this I’ll never get over Reach out Sucks me in Pain slips away Mounting tension Coming to terms My thoughts are with you Contain your urges Building yourself up A huge secret Directed towards Harming is a huge thing Get that one down When you come around Getting this out Gone through Somewhere along the way Longest I’ve gone I’ve been so close to doing it Thread has been up

168

Everything leads back to it Get away (2 instances) Get through the day Getting closer to it Got this far Is it worth going back Close to crying Getting over SI Get past it Been through more shit I’ve gotten to the point So long without cutting Number seems so huge Building up (3 instances) Everything comes out Settle down Get over this Move away from needing 180 degrees different Made it this far/farther (2 instances) Haven’t been on Keep this up Such a long time (2 instances) Go longer between cuts Returned to that blade A week so far

5) Physical body

Ear to listen Shoulder to lean on make my brain stop hating my wrists keep your mind off it wasn’t on my mind I can focus more Run from it I’m tired of running I’m so numb draw a butterfly on the place you want to cut and name it after a person you care about and you can’t cut the butterfly cause then it will die, [ACTION IS METAPHORICAL THOUGH LANGUAGE IS NOT] I’ve been clean (3 instances) Seeing the experience in full light Heart-wrenching scene Mind goes black

169

Seeing quite a lot of me Never look at the days You opened my eyes A part of me is missing Lost my mind An eye opener What’s going on in my head Focus [on the self-injury] (2 instances) I’m surviving (2 instances) Family = suffocating In a sick way Look back and say I don’t see the point

6) Physical action

Head screaming for the hills First thread I’ve visited Friction is causing a headache Thread get stickied (2 instances, notably on two forums. 1 This refers to a post being “stuck” at the top of the front page and not moving along chronologically as normal. The result is that it is visible for a long period of time to everyone who enters the thread.) Staggering Puts a punctuation mark Drive the person away Hold your interest Get a better grip Pushing her buttons Let loose Project myself Vent my emotions Brains are shaped by experience I don’t get wound up Slight release Carry on cutting Move onto another idea Stress release Calculated (2 instances) Enlist Trigger (6 instances) Trigger/ing (38 instances) Screw [that] up (2 instances) Need to chill Work around Protecting ourselves

170

I don’t count it Really shocking to me/shocked (3 instances) Give in Can all go hang Hang on/in (2 instances) Survive without it Slipping it into conversation Made my day It hasn’t sunk in I miss the rush Connect The hardest days Floating around Thought seems to disappear Right along with you Push stuff off How long I can go Jump to that It’s a step (2 instances) Feel empty (2 instances) Floating in my head I totally collapsed Sure to come soon It still counts Sense of release (2 instances) Send me off I adjusted Starting to wear off Get a hold on you Closed off world

7) Metaphorical maxim

Get a handle on it Light at the end of the tunnel (2 instances) A black hole in the pit of my stomach My other half If my memory serves me That is bull crap Nobody’s business Sleep my life away Point of view

171

8) Descriptive

I’ve been clean Sloppy parenting Brains are most plastic Will have shitty lives A clean arm I’m some little delicate china doll Gently and gradually What a load of shit Slept like shit A shit mood Clean streak (2 instances)

9) Other

Back to silence Loopholes (7 instances) Outsider’s [sic] All the drama (2 instances) Tattoo as a lock

172

Appendix B Cross-Posts Found in the Data as a Whole

Missing categories were not represented.

Per 73 posts themed “Alternative:” Ana - 2 Experience - 3 Help me - 1 Self-injury – 3 Stopping – 1 Supportive – 6 Thread - 2 Time - 4 Trigger/Urge - 7 Visual - 7 Why - 4

Per 12 posts themed “Ana/ED:” Alternatives - 2 Experience – 3 Stopping – 1 Supportive – 3 Visual – 1

Per 44 posts themed “Experience:” Alternatives – 2 Ana – 2 Meta – 1 Self-injury – 2 Stopping – 2 Supportive – 1 Time – 2 Trigger/Urge – 3 Visual – 5 Why – 5

Per 59 posts themed “General/Thread:” Alternatives – 2 Meta – 2 Self-injury – 1 Stopping - 1 Supportive - 1 Trigger – 2 Why – 1

173

Per 10 posts themed “Help Me:” Alternatives - 1 Stopping - 1 Time - 1 Visual - 3

Per 35 posts themed “Self-Injury/Methods:” Alternatives – 3 Ana - 1 Experience – 2 General - 1 Meta - 2 Time – 2 Trigger - 2 Visual – 6 Why - 2

Per 43 posts themed “SI Meta:” Alternatives - 1 Experience - 2 Self-Injury – 4 Stopping - 1 Supportive - 1 Thread - 2 Time - 1 Visual - 2 Why - 2

Per 23 posts themed “Stopping SI:” Alternatives - 1 Ana - 1 Experience - 2 General - 1 Meta - 1 Supportive – 2 Time – 6 Trigger – 1 Visual – 5 Why - 2

Per 43 posts themed “Supportive:” Alternatives - 6 Ana - 2 Experience - 1 Meta - 1 Stopping - 3

174

Time - 3 Trigger/Urge - 2 Visual - 2 Why - 1

Per 37 posts themed “Time:” Alternatives - 4 Experience - 1 Meta –1 Self-injury – 2 Stopping – 6 Supportive - 3 Trigger/Urge -- 6 Visual - 5 Why - 3

Per 32 posts themed “Trigger/Urge:” Alternatives – 7 Experience – 3 Self-Injury – Stopping – 2 Supportive -- 1 Thread – 2 Time –5 Trigger/Urge – 1 Visual – 5 Why – 1

Per 40 posts themed “Visual:” Alternatives -- 5 Ana – 1 Experience – 1 Help Me – 4 Meta – 2 Self-injury – 3 Stopping – 4 Thread – 2 Time – 5 Trigger – 1 Why – 6

Per 30 posts themed “Why:” Self-injury 3 Time 1 Alternatives 2 Visual 2

175

Supportive Stopping 1 Experience 4 Meta 1 Thread Trigger

176

Appendix C Self-Injury in Pop Culture Media: A Brief List

Television 7th Heaven (3.3) Beverly Hills, 90210 (8.28) Buffy the Vampire Slayer (5.13, 7.1) Criminal Minds (3.1) Degrassi: The Next Generation (3.8, 10.16) E.R. (8.7) Family Guy (4.15)

The HBO series Sharp Objects, 2018

Film 28 Days (2000) Black Swan (2010) Dans Ma Peau (2002) Girl, Interrupted (1999) Prozac Nation (2003) Sid and Nancy (1986) Thirteen (2003)

177