Young Genaration and The Digital Face of Othering: Uncivil Politically Value-laden Posts and Polarization

Year 2018, Volume: 8 Issue: 15, 1812 - 1866, 31.08.2018

Serdar Ünal

https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.430747

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Today, with the increase in the popularity of digital social media
environments, the potential for individuals to participate in online social and
political discussions has also increased rapidly. However, modern online
information environments are filled with disagreements arising from arbitrarily
shared politically value-laden posts. The fundamental dynamic of the research
is the question of dissemination of politically value-laden posts which are
mostly uncivil such as provocative, aggressive, insulting, libelous comments or
discourses that have othering effect and its reflection on online and offline
daily relationships among younger individuals. Indeed, it has been aimed at
examining the degree to which politically value-laden online posts of youths,
studying at tertiary level, often that go beyond the limits of civil comments
or discourses contributes to counter-party
alienation and to otherizing process or to the production (or reproduction) of
a general social-political polarization climate. In this framework, an
explanatory, descriptive and interpretive analysis was carried out by
presenting field data collected through quantitative and qualitative methods. Research findings show that
uncivil politically value-laden posts through digital social networks directly
affects the (online and offline) everyday relationships of individuals and
leads to the practice of othering. When
politically value-laden posts become uncivil, these can become a source of
tension and polarity. When
people are confronted with politically motivated conflicts and when they are
exposed to uncivil comments or discourses, they are often more likely to
consider the ideas that confirm their own views, rather than to accept the
existence of different ideas, and have a more extreme or partisan attitude. These extreme views and
attitudes lead to conflict and polarization or reproduce the existing polarization
more and more.

Keywords

Young Generation, Dijital Social Networks, Politically Value-laden Posts and Comments, Incivility, Othering, Polarization

Genç Nesilde Ötekileştirmenin Dijital Yüzü: Nezaket Dışı Siyasal Değer Yüklü Paylaşımlar ve Kutuplaşma

Abstract

Günümüzde dijital sosyal paylaşım
ortamlarının popülaritesindeki artışla birlikte, bireylerin sosyal ve siyasal
konularda çevrimiçi tartışmalarda ya da paylaşımlarda bulunma potansiyeli de
hızla artmıştır. Ancak, modern çevrimiçi bilgi ortamları siyasal değer yüklü gelişigüzel
yapılan paylaşımlardan kaynaklanan anlaşmazlıklarla doludur. Bu süreçte
karşımıza çıkan kışkırtıcı, saldırgan, ötekileştirici nezaket dışı siyasal
değer yüklü paylaşımların yayılması meselesi ve bunun genç bireyler arasındaki
çevrimiçi ve çevrimdışı ilişkilere yansıması araştırmanın temel dinamiğini
oluşturmaktadır. Nitekim, araştırmada yükseköğretim düzeyinde okuyan ağ kuşağı
gençliğinin dijital sosyal ağlardaki çoğu zaman nezaket sınırlarının ötesine
geçen siyasal değer yüklü paylaşımlarının karşı grup yabancılaştırmasına ve
dolayısıyla ötekileştirme sürecine ya da genel bir toplumsal-siyasal kutuplaşma
ikliminin üretilmesine (veya yeniden-üretilmesine) ne derece etki ettiğinin
irdelenmesi hedeflenmiştir. Bu çerçevede, nicel ve nitel yöntemler aracılığıyla
ampirik temelli veriler ortaya konularak, açıklayıcı, betimleyici ve
yorumlayıcı bir analiz gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgulara göre, dijital sosyal
ağlardaki nezaket dışı siyasal değer yüklü paylaşımlar ve yorumlar kişilerarası
(çevrimiçi ve çevrimdışı) gündelik ilişkileri doğrudan etkilemekte ve
ötekileştirme pratiklerine neden olmaktadır. Siyasal değer yüklü paylaşımlar
nezaket dışı bir hal aldığında çatışmanın, gerilimin ve kutuplaşmanın kaynağı
haline gelebilmektedir. Kişiler siyasal içerikli konularda çatıştıklarında ve
nezaket dışı söylemlere maruz kaldıklarında çoğu zaman farklı fikirlerin
varlığına vakıf olmaktan ziyade kendi görüşlerini doğrulayıcı fikirlere
yönelmekte ve daha aşırı veya partizan bir tutuma sahip olabilmektedirler. Bu
aşırı görüş ya da tutumlar ise çatışma ve kutuplaşmayı ortaya çıkarmakta veya
var olan kutuplaşmayı daha fazla körükleyerek yeniden üretmektedir.

Keywords

Genç Nesil, Dijital Sosyal Ağlar, Siyasal Değer Yüklü Paylaşımlar ve Yorumlar, Nezaketsizlik, Ötekileştirme, Kutuplaşma

References

• Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A. ve Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373-387. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009
• Bakshy, E., Messing, S. ve Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348(6329), 1130–1132. https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
• Barnidge, M. (2015). The role of news in promoting political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, (52), 211-218. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.011
• Bevan, J. L., Ang, P. C. ve Fearns, J. B. (2014). Being unfriended on Facebook: An application of expectancy violation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, (33), 171-178. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.029
• Bevan, J. L., Pfyl, J. ve Barclay, B. (2012). Negative emotional and cognitive responses to being unfriended on Facebook: An exploratory study. Computers in Human Behavior, (28), 1458–1464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.008
• Binder, J., Howes, A. ve Sutcliffe, A. (2009). The problem of conflicting social spheres: effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 965-974). ACM.
• Blom, R., Carpenter, S., Bowe, B. J. ve Lange, R. (2014). Frequent contributors within US newspaper comment forums: an examination of their civility and information value. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(10), 1314-1328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764214527094
• Bode, L. (2017). Gateway Political Behaviors: The Frequency and consequences of low-cost political engagement on social media. Social Media+Society, 3(4),1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305117743349
• Bode, L.; Edgerly, S.; Sayre, B.; Vraga, E. K. ve Shah, D. V. (2013) Digital democracy, in E. Scharrer (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, (pp. 505–524), Blackwell.
• Borah, P. (2013). Interactions of news frames and incivility in the political blogosphere: Examining perceptual outcomes. Political Communication, 30(3), 456-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737426
• Brooks, D. J. ve Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00233.x
• Brundidge, J. (2010). Encountering “Difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 680–700. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01509.x
• Chen, M. G. ve Lu, S. (2017). Online political discourse: Exploring differences in effects of civil and uncivil disagreement in news website comments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(1), 108-125. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922
• Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J. ve Lee, J. H. (2016). Influencing myself: Self-reinforcement through online political expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 83-111. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650216644020
• Cicchirillo, V., Hmielowski, J. ve Hutchens, M. (2015). The mainstreaming of verbally aggressive online political behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, And Social Networking, 18(5), 253-259. https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0355
• Coe, K., Kenski, K. ve Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104
• Delli Carpini, M. X., Cook, F. L. ve Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Reviews of Political Science, 7, 315–344. https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
• Esteban, J. ve Schneider, G. (2008). Polarization and conflict: Theoretical and empirical issues. Journal of Peace Research, 45(2), 131-141. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022343307087168
• Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Gearhart, S. ve Zhang, W. (2015). “Was it something I said?” “No, it was something you posted!” A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(4), 208–213. https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0443
• Gervais, B. T. (2015). Incivility online: Affective and behavioral reactions to uncivil political posts in a web-based experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2014.997416
• Grevet, C., Terveen, L. G. ve Gilbert, E. (2014). Managing political differences in social media. (pp.1400-1408). 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Baltimore, MD. https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531676
• Gruzd, A. ve Roy, J. (2014). Investigating political polarization on Twitter: A Canadian perspective. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 28-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI354
• Guerra, P. H. C., Meira Jr, W., Cardie, C. ve Kleinberg, R. (2013). A measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. In ICWSM. pp.215-224.
• Hampton, K. N., Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I. ve Purcell, K. (2014). Social media and the “spiral of silence.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
• Himelboim, I., McCreery, S. ve Smith, M. (2013). Birds of a feather tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross’ ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 40–60. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12001.
• Hmielowski, J. D., Hutchens, M. J. ve Cicchirillo, V. J. (2014). Living in an age of online incivility: Examining the conditional indirect effects of online discussion on political flaming. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1196-1211. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.899609
• Hutchens, M. J., Cicchirillo, V. J. ve Hmielowski, J. D. (2015). How could you think that?!?!: Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1201-1219. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522947
• Hwang, H., Kim, Y. ve Huh, C. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621-633. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.966365
• John, N. A. ve Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2015). “I don't like you any more”: Facebook unfriending by Israelis during the Israel–Gaza conflict of 2014. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 953-974. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12188
• Kelly, J., Fisher, D. ve Smith, M. (2005). Debate, division, and diversity: Political discourse networks in USENET newsgroups. Second Conference on Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice (DIAC 05), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
• Kenski, K., Coe, K. ve Rains, S. A. (2017). Perceptions of uncivil discourse online: An examination of types and predictors. Communication Research, 3, 1-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933
• Kim, Y., Hsu, S.-H. veGil de Zúniga, H. (2013). Influence of social media use on discussion network heterogeneity and civic engagement: The moderating role of personality traits. Journal of Communication, 63(3), 498-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12034.
• Lane, D. S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., Weeks, B. E. ve Kwak, N. (2017). From online disagreement to offline action: How diverse moti-vations for using social media can increase political information sharing and catalyze offline political participation. Social Media + Society, 3(3):1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2056305117716274
• Lee, F. L. (2016). Impact of social media on opinion polarization in varying times. Communication and the Public, 1(1), 56-71. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2057047315617763
• Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C. ve Kim, Y. (2014). Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of communication, 64(4), 702-722. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077
• Lee, C. S., & Ma, L. (2012). News sharing in social media: The effect of gratifications and prior experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 331–339. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.002
• Li, Z., ve Tang, X. (2012). Group polarization: connecting, influence and balance, a simulation study based on hopfield modeling. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.710-721). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Lopez, M. G. ve Ovaska, S. (2013). A look at unsociability on Facebook. 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, London.
• Lu, Y. ve Gall Myrick, J. (2016). Cross-cutting exposure on Facebook and political participation. Journal of Media Psychology, 28(3), 100-110. https://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000203
• Mackie, D. M., Devos, T. ve Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616.
• Madden, M. (2012). Privacy management on social media sites. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Privacy-management-on-social-media.aspx.
• Marwick, A. E. ve boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–133. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
• McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. ve Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, 27, 415–444. https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
• Middaugh, E., Bowyer, B. ve Kahne, J. (2017). Usuk! participatory media and youth experiences with political discourse. Youth & Society, 49(7), 902-922. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16655246
• Morales, A. J., Borondo, J., Losada, J. C. ve Benito, R. M. (2015). Measuring political polarization: Twitter shows the two sides of Venezuela. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 25(3), 1-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4913758
• Muddiman, A. R. (2013). The instability of incivility: How news frames and citizen perceptions shape conflict in American politics (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin.
• Mutz, D. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of “in-your-face” television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621–635. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000305540707044X
• Mutz, D. C. ve Mondak, J. J. (2006). The workplace as a context for cross-cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 140–155. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00376.x.
• Mutz, D. C. ve Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051452
• O’Sullivan, P.B. ve Flanagin, A.J. (2003) Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages. New Media & Society 5(1), 69–94. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444803005001908
• Papacharassi, Z. (2012). Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1989–2006.
• Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. NewMedia & Society, 6(2), 259–283. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
• Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Kiley, J. Ve Matsa, K. E. (2014). Political polarization & media habits. Pew Research Center, 21.
• Peña, J. ve Brody, N. (2014). Intentions to hide and unfriend Facebook connections based on perceptions of sender attractiveness and status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 143-150. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.004
• Rainie, L. ve Smith, A. (2012) Social networking sites and politics, Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 12.
• Rains, S. A., Kenski, K., Coe, K., ve Harwood, J. (2017). Incivility and political identity on the internet: Intergroup factors as predictors of incivility in discussions of news online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(4), 163-178. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12191
• Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 121-138. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365
• Rowe, I. (2013). Online political discussions tend to be less civil when theparticipants are anonymous. LSE American Politics and Policy (USAPP) Blog.http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2013/09/28/online-political-discussions-civility/
• Roy, J. (2012). Social media’s democratic paradox: Lessons from Cana-da. European Journal of ePractice, 16, 5–15.
• Rösner, L., Winter, S. ve Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461-470. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022
• Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, K., ve Masip, P. (2011). Public sphere 2.0? The democratic qualities of citizen debates in online newspapers. International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 463–487. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1940161211415849
• Santana, A. D. (2014). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.813194
• Schwarz, O. ve Shani, G. (2016). Culture in mediated interaction: Political defriending on Facebook and the limits of networked individualism. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 4(3), 385-421. https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41290-016-0006-6
• Shandwick, W. (2013). Civility in America 2013. www.webershandwick.com
• Sibona, C. (2014). Unfriending on Facebook: Context collapse and unfriending behaviors. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6758811
• Sibona, C. (2013). Facebook fallout: Future contact avoidance after being unfriended on facebook. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3272-3281). IEEE.
• Sibona, C. ve Walczak, S. (2011). Unfriending on facebook: Friend request and online/offline behavior analysis. 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 44, 1–10.
• Skoric, M. M., Zhu, Q. ve Lin, J. H. T. (2018). What predicts selective avoidance on social media? A study of political unfriending in Hong Kong and Taiwan. American Behavioral Scientist, p.1-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764218764251
• Smith, P., Phillips, T. L. ve King, R. D. (2010). Incivility: The rude stranger in everyday life (1st ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Sobieraj, S. ve Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360
• Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x
• Sunstein, C. (2009). Going to extremes. UK: Oxford University Press.
• Sunstein, C. (2008). The law of group polarization. In J. S. Fishkin & P. Laslett (Eds.), Debating deliberative democracy (pp. 80-101). Cam-bridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni. Press.
• Taber, C. S. ve Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.
• Thorson, K. (2014). Facing an uncertain reception: young citizens and political interaction on Facebook. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 203–216. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.862563
• Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., ... ve Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Hewlett Foundation.
• Upadhyay, S.R. (2010). Identity and impoliteness in computer-mediated reader responses. Journal of Politeness Research 6(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.006
• Ünal, S. (2017) Kişilerarası gönüllü dijital gözetim ve gençlik: Gündelik ilişkilere yansımaları bağlamında siyasal ve dinsel kimliklerin ifşası, itobiad, 6(5): 2546-2573, ISSN: 2147-1185.
• Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J. ve Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology, 29(2), 247–273. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00625.x
• Winter, S., Metzger, M. J. ve Flanagin, A. J. (2016). Selective use of news cues: A multiple- motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication, 66(4), 669-693. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12241
• Wojcieszak, M. ve Price, V. (2010). Bridging the divide or intensifying the conflict? How disagreement affects strong predilections about sexual minorities. Political Psychology, 31(3), 315–339. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00753.x.
• Yang, J., Barnidge, M., ve Rojas, H. (2017). The politics of “Unfriending”: User filtration in response to political disagreement on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 22-29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.079
• Yardi, S. ve boyd, D. (2010). Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(5), 316–327. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011
• Zimmerman, A. G. ve Ybarra, G. J. (2016). Online aggression: The influences of anonymity and social modeling. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(2), 181-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000038