Alternative ‘Lives Matter’ formulations in online discussions about Black Lives Matter: Use, support and resistance

IF 2.4 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Discourse & Society Pub Date : 2022-08-26 DOI:10.1177/09579265221118016
Simon L Goodman, Vanessa Tafi, A. Coyle
{"title":"Alternative ‘Lives Matter’ formulations in online discussions about Black Lives Matter: Use, support and resistance","authors":"Simon L Goodman, Vanessa Tafi, A. Coyle","doi":"10.1177/09579265221118016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout its history, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has elicited strong opposition that risks stifling anti-racist progress. This paper examines how support for BLM is argued about and challenged in online settings, focussing on the use of alternative ‘Lives Matter’ hashtags and slogans. BLM and anti-BLM material from 2020 was identified across six online platforms, which generated 1242 data items. Data were subjected to discourse analysis informed by critical discursive psychology. Arguments over the context of racism were a recurrent feature of responses to BLM-supporting posts. The analysis demonstrates the varying ways that alternative ‘Lives Matter’ formulations can be used to display opposition to and undermine BLM. Of these, ‘All Lives Matter’ was used most prominently but also ‘White Lives Matter’ and others. All alternatives to BLM function to obscure or deny the discrimination that Black people face, and so work to maintain the racist status quo.","PeriodicalId":47965,"journal":{"name":"Discourse & Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse & Society","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221118016","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: 2

Abstract

Throughout its history, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has elicited strong opposition that risks stifling anti-racist progress. This paper examines how support for BLM is argued about and challenged in online settings, focussing on the use of alternative ‘Lives Matter’ hashtags and slogans. BLM and anti-BLM material from 2020 was identified across six online platforms, which generated 1242 data items. Data were subjected to discourse analysis informed by critical discursive psychology. Arguments over the context of racism were a recurrent feature of responses to BLM-supporting posts. The analysis demonstrates the varying ways that alternative ‘Lives Matter’ formulations can be used to display opposition to and undermine BLM. Of these, ‘All Lives Matter’ was used most prominently but also ‘White Lives Matter’ and others. All alternatives to BLM function to obscure or deny the discrimination that Black people face, and so work to maintain the racist status quo.
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
关于黑人生命攸关的在线讨论中的另类“生命攸关”表述:使用、支持和抵抗
纵观其历史,“黑人的命也是命”(BLM)运动引发了强烈的反对,这可能会扼杀反种族主义的进步。本文研究了在网络环境中对土地管理局的支持是如何被争论和质疑的,重点是“生命很重要”标签和口号的使用。在六个在线平台上发现了2020年的土地管理局和反土地管理局材料,产生了1242个数据项。在批判性话语心理学的指导下,对数据进行了话语分析。关于种族主义背景的争论是对土地管理局支持性帖子的回应中反复出现的一个特点。该分析表明,“生命攸关”的替代配方可以以不同的方式被用来显示对土地管理局的反对和破坏。其中,“所有生命都很重要”的用法最为突出,但也有“白人的生命很重要”等。土地管理局的所有替代方案都是为了掩盖或否认黑人面临的歧视,从而努力维持种族主义现状。
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Discourse & Society is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal whose major aim is to publish outstanding research at the boundaries of discourse analysis and the social sciences. It focuses on explicit theory formation and analysis of the relationships between the structures of text, talk, language use, verbal interaction or communication, on the one hand, and societal, political or cultural micro- and macrostructures and cognitive social representations, on the other hand. That is, D&S studies society through discourse and discourse through an analysis of its socio-political and cultural functions or implications. Its contributions are based on advanced theory formation and methodologies of several disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.
期刊最新文献
The Islamic State’s use of the Qur’an in its Magazines, Dabiq and Rumiyah Pro-vaccination personal narratives in response to online hesitancy about the HPV vaccine: The challenge of tellability. Racist discourse in a German far-right blog: A corpus-driven approach using word embeddings Antisemitism in contemporary Türkiye: Discourses on Turkish Jews on Twitter You’re a murderer: Critical discourse analysis of conversations around abortions in the Russian talk show
×
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