“No More Apologies”: Violence as a Trigger for Public Controversy over Islam in the Digital Public Sphere

Johanna Sumiala, Anu A. Harju
{"title":"“No More Apologies”: Violence as a Trigger for Public Controversy over Islam in the Digital Public Sphere","authors":"Johanna Sumiala, Anu A. Harju","doi":"10.1163/21659214-00801007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates how violence associated with religion, here namely Islam, functions as a trigger for public controversy in the Turku stabbings that took place in Finland in 2017. We begin by outlining the Lyotard-Habermas debate on controversy and compound this with current research on the digital public sphere. We combine cartography of controversy with digital media ethnography as methods of collecting data and discourse analysis for analysing the material. We investigate how the controversy triggered by violence is constructed around Islam in the public sphere of Twitter. We identify three discursive strategies connecting violence and Islam in the debates around the Turku stabbings: scapegoating, essentialisation, and racialisation. These respectively illustrate debates regarding blame for terrorism, the nature of Islam, and racialisation of terrorist violence and the Muslim Other. To conclude, we reflect on the ways in which the digital public sphere impacts Habermasian consensus- and Lyotardian dissensus-oriented argumentation.","PeriodicalId":29881,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Religion Media and Digital Culture","volume":"190 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Religion Media and Digital Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21659214-00801007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

This article investigates how violence associated with religion, here namely Islam, functions as a trigger for public controversy in the Turku stabbings that took place in Finland in 2017. We begin by outlining the Lyotard-Habermas debate on controversy and compound this with current research on the digital public sphere. We combine cartography of controversy with digital media ethnography as methods of collecting data and discourse analysis for analysing the material. We investigate how the controversy triggered by violence is constructed around Islam in the public sphere of Twitter. We identify three discursive strategies connecting violence and Islam in the debates around the Turku stabbings: scapegoating, essentialisation, and racialisation. These respectively illustrate debates regarding blame for terrorism, the nature of Islam, and racialisation of terrorist violence and the Muslim Other. To conclude, we reflect on the ways in which the digital public sphere impacts Habermasian consensus- and Lyotardian dissensus-oriented argumentation.
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
“不再道歉”:暴力在数字公共领域引发公众对伊斯兰教的争论
本文调查了2017年芬兰发生的图尔库刺杀案中,与宗教有关的暴力(这里指伊斯兰教)是如何引发公众争议的。我们首先概述利奥塔和哈贝马斯关于争议的辩论,并将其与当前对数字公共领域的研究相结合。我们将争议地图学与数字媒体人种学结合起来,作为收集数据和分析材料的话语分析的方法。我们调查了暴力引发的争议是如何在Twitter的公共领域围绕伊斯兰构建的。在围绕图尔库刺杀事件的辩论中,我们确定了三种将暴力与伊斯兰联系起来的话语策略:替罪羊、本质化和种族化。这些分别说明了关于恐怖主义的责任、伊斯兰教的本质、恐怖主义暴力的种族化和穆斯林他者的辩论。最后,我们反思了数字公共领域如何影响哈贝马斯式的共识和利奥塔德式的以分歧为导向的论证。
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
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
#ChristianCheck: TikTok and the Construction of Generation Z Faith “To Me, Religion is like Paul Rudd”. Popularising Secularities and Nonreligion in Contemporary US Seriality TikTok Cultures in the United States, edited by Trevor Boffone What Style Guides Tell Secular Journalists about Muslims and Islam Media and the Formation of Secular/Religious Networks
×
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