“I Can Choose to be a Good Man Even if I Got a Raw Deal”: Neoliberal Heteromasculinity as Manosphere Counter Narrative in r/Stoicism

IF 5.5 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Social Media + Society Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1177/20563051241274677
Marcus Maloney, Callum Jones, Steven Roberts
{"title":"“I Can Choose to be a Good Man Even if I Got a Raw Deal”: Neoliberal Heteromasculinity as Manosphere Counter Narrative in r/Stoicism","authors":"Marcus Maloney, Callum Jones, Steven Roberts","doi":"10.1177/20563051241274677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides findings from our dual-computational/qualitative analysis of r/Stoicism, a large subreddit in which self-presenting boys and men seek Stoic philosophical advice on various life matters. In choosing to investigate this decidedly (hetero)masculinized online space in which users share their anxieties and grievances, we expected to find substantial evidence of “toxic” manosphere-style discourse, while also hoping to uncover counter patterns which, like Maloney et al.’s study of 4chan, complicate assumptions around the discursive practices of boys and men in online spaces such as these. Rather, what we found was a complete absence of toxic discourse, and instead the presence of patterns which complicate the logics underpinning efforts at deradicalization and wider socio-positive masculinity agendas. Thorburn’s work has been important in foregrounding how the “neoliberal emphasis on individualism and a capitalist ‘hustle-culture’” underpin manosphere logics. Here, we see similar, albeit more palatable (to mainstream sensibilities), neoliberal tenets at work across counter logics, and reflect on why economic-structural explanations for boys’ and men’s anxieties are sidelined in such mainstream responses to the manosphere.","PeriodicalId":47920,"journal":{"name":"Social Media + Society","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Media + Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241274677","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article provides findings from our dual-computational/qualitative analysis of r/Stoicism, a large subreddit in which self-presenting boys and men seek Stoic philosophical advice on various life matters. In choosing to investigate this decidedly (hetero)masculinized online space in which users share their anxieties and grievances, we expected to find substantial evidence of “toxic” manosphere-style discourse, while also hoping to uncover counter patterns which, like Maloney et al.’s study of 4chan, complicate assumptions around the discursive practices of boys and men in online spaces such as these. Rather, what we found was a complete absence of toxic discourse, and instead the presence of patterns which complicate the logics underpinning efforts at deradicalization and wider socio-positive masculinity agendas. Thorburn’s work has been important in foregrounding how the “neoliberal emphasis on individualism and a capitalist ‘hustle-culture’” underpin manosphere logics. Here, we see similar, albeit more palatable (to mainstream sensibilities), neoliberal tenets at work across counter logics, and reflect on why economic-structural explanations for boys’ and men’s anxieties are sidelined in such mainstream responses to the manosphere.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"我可以选择做一个好男人,即使我得到了一个不公平的待遇":r/Stoicism 中作为人际圈反叙事的新自由主义异性气质
这篇文章提供了我们对 r/Stoicism 的双重计算/定量分析结果,r/Stoicism 是一个大型的 subreddit,在这里,自我展示的男孩和男人就各种生活问题寻求斯多葛派哲学建议。在选择调查这个用户分享他们的焦虑和不满的明显(异质)男性化的网络空间时,我们希望能发现 "有毒 "男人圈式话语的大量证据,同时也希望能发现与马洛尼(Maloney)等人对 4chan 的研究一样的反模式,使有关男孩和男人在此类网络空间中的话语实践的假设变得复杂。相反,我们发现完全不存在有毒言论,相反,存在的模式使去激进化努力和更广泛的社会积极男性议程的逻辑复杂化。Thorburn 的研究在强调 "新自由主义对个人主义和资本主义'喧嚣文化'的强调 "如何支撑男性圈的逻辑方面发挥了重要作用。在这里,我们看到了类似的,尽管对主流意识而言更容易接受的新自由主义信条在反逻辑中的作用,并思考了为什么在主流对男性圈的回应中,对男孩和男人焦虑的经济结构性解释被搁置一边。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Media + Society
Social Media + Society COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
111
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Media + Society is an open access, peer-reviewed scholarly journal that focuses on the socio-cultural, political, psychological, historical, economic, legal and policy dimensions of social media in societies past, contemporary and future. We publish interdisciplinary work that draws from the social sciences, humanities and computational social sciences, reaches out to the arts and natural sciences, and we endorse mixed methods and methodologies. The journal is open to a diversity of theoretic paradigms and methodologies. The editorial vision of Social Media + Society draws inspiration from research on social media to outline a field of study poised to reflexively grow as social technologies evolve. We foster the open access of sharing of research on the social properties of media, as they manifest themselves through the uses people make of networked platforms past and present, digital and non. The journal presents a collaborative, open, and shared space, dedicated exclusively to the study of social media and their implications for societies. It facilitates state-of-the-art research on cutting-edge trends and allows scholars to focus and track trends specific to this field of study.
期刊最新文献
Can Social Media Engagement Predict Election Results? Bandwagon Effects of Tweets About US Senate Candidates Politicians Under Fire: Citizens’ Incivility Against Political Leaders on Social Media Telehealth “Verzuz” Radical Telehealing: Reimagining Social Media as Virtual Healing Spaces for Black Communities Queerness and Mental Health in India: An Intersectional Approach to Sensitive Social Media Disclosures Understanding the Motivations of Young Adults to Engage in Privacy Protection Behavior While Setting Up Smartphone Apps: A Cross-Country Comparison Between Romania and Germany
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1