Skip to main content

Helpful partner or infringing interloper? Examining discursive contestation in the engagements on the EU delegation in the Philippines’ Facebook page

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy volume 19, pages 30–41 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper examines the nature and dynamics of discursive contestation on the EU Delegation to the Philippines’ Facebook page. It hopes to make a significant contribution to the digital diplomacy literature by examining audience engagement on a digital diplomacy platform. This is done through a discourse analysis of comments that were published over a year starting 1 September 2016. The findings indicated that commenters’ articulations coalesced into two views of the EU in the Philippines: (1) as helpful partner, and (2) as interloper infringing on local sovereignty. The presence of two contrasting discourses allowed for the examination of the nature of discursive contestation on the EU’s Facebook page. The study’s findings highlight the importance of context in order to fully appreciate the discourses that are articulated. The social and discursive aspects of context influenced how commenters articulated themselves. Viewed from a broader perspective, the context also created the conditions for the discursive contestation to occur on the EU Delegation’s page. It is hoped that through this paper, digital diplomacy specialists will gain a better appreciation for engagement on social media platforms, and that they appreciate the significance of the concepts of discourse and context in the work that they do.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Almuftah, H., V. Weerakkody, and U. Sivarajah. 2016. E-Diplomacy: A Systematic Literature Review, 131–134. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulieu, A. 2004. Mediating ethnography: Objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the Internet. Social Epistemology 8 (2–3): 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berehulak, D. (2016). They are slaughtering us like animals: Inside President Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal antidrug campaign in the Philippines, our photojournalist documented 57 homicide victims over 35 days. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/07/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-drugskillings.html.

  • Bjola, C. 2015. Introduction: Making Sense of Digital Diplomacy. In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, ed. C. Bjola and M. Holmes, 1–12. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bjola, C., and J. Pamment, eds. 2018. Countering Online Propaganda and Extremism: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, J. 2014. Representations of “trolls” in Mass Media Communication: A Review of Media-Texts and Moral Panics Relating to “Internet trolling.” International Journal of Web Based Communities 10 (1): 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, S. and P. Howard. 2017. Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation. Computational Propaganda Research Project Working Paper 2017.12.

  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B.J., M.S. Isaac, and E.C. Malthouse. 2016. How to Capture Consumer Experiences: A Context-Specific Approach to Measuring Engagement Predicting Consumer Behavior across Qualitatively Different Experiences. Journal of Advertising Research 56 (1): 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. 2008. The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 616: 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. 2009. Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of e-democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5 (1): 9–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • CNN Philippines Staff. 2016. Duterte: “We will not beg” for U.S., EU Assistance. CNN Philippines. Retrieved April 27, 2021 from https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/10/07/Duterte-We-will-not-beg-US-EU-assistance.html.

  • Cohen, Ed. (1993). Talk on the Wilde side. London: Routledge.

  • Collins, N., and K. Bekenova. 2017. Digital Diplomacy: Success at Your Fingertips. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 15 (1): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, D. 2013. Digital Technology. In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, and R.C. Thakur. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cull, N.J. 2010. Public Diplomacy: Seven Lessons for Its Ffuture from Its Past. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, N.J. 2011. Wikileaks, Public Diplomacy 2.0 and the Sstate of Digital Diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 7 (1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, N.J. 2019. Public Diplomacy: Foundations for Global Engagement in the Digital Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Zúñiga, H., M. Barnidge, and A. Scherman. 2017. Social Media Social Capital, Offline Social Capital, and Citizenship: Exploring Asymmetrical Social Capital Effects. Political Communication 34: 44–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dessart, L. 2017. Social Media Engagement: A Model of Antecedents and Relational Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management 33 (5–6): 375–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gangi, P., and M. Wasko. 2016. Social Media Engagement Theory: Exploring the In uence of User Engagement on Social Media Usage. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 28 (2): 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Martino, L. 2019. Conceptualising Public Diplomacy Listening on Social Media. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 16: 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dozier, D.M., H. Shen, K.D. Sweetser, et al. 2016. Demographics and Internet Behaviors as Predictors of Active Publics. Public Relations Review 42: 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, B., and C.R. Bonoan. 2019. Southeast Asia’s Troubling Elections: Duterte Versus the Rule of Law. Journal of Democracy 30 (4): 134–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S. (2006). Deliberative global politics. Malden: Polity Press.

  • Duranti, A., and C. Goodwin. 1992. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estanislao, A. (2017) Duterte to EU: Stop meddling in Philippine affairs. CNN Philippines. Retrieved from https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/03/20/president-rodrigo-duterte-european-union.html.

  • Frith, H., and K. Gleeson. 2004. Clothing and Embodiment: Men Managing Body Image and Appearance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 5: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J. 2017. Critical Discourse Studies in Context. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. J. Flowerdew and J.E. Richardson, 165–178. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzke, A.S., A. Bechmann, M. Zimmer, E. Charles and The Association of Internet Researchers. 2020. Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0.

  • Gibson, R., and M. Cantijoch. 2013. Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline? The Journal of Politics 75: 701–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, B. 2011. American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6 (3): 351–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., and W. Versteeg. 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning 7 (3): 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollebeek, L. 2011. Exploring Customer Brand Engagement: Definition and Themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19 (7): 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. 2015. Digital Diplomacy and International Change Management. In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, ed. C. Bjola and M. Holmes, 13–32. London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, R. (2016) The Killing Time: Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War on Drugs. Time. Retrieved from https://time.com/4462352/rodrigo-duterte-drug-wardrugs-philippines-killing/.

  • Johnston, K.A. 2018. Toward a Theory of Social Engagement. In The Handbook of Communication Engagement, ed. K.A. Johnston and M. Taylor. New York: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsto, K.A., and M. Taylor. 2018. Engagement as Communication: Pathways, Possibilities, and Future Directions. In The Handbook of Communication Engagement, ed. K.A. Johnston and M. Taylor. New York: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, C., and K. Aggestam. 1999. Trends in Diplomatic Signalling. In Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, ed. J. Melissen. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamchek, J.S., and E.M. Sanchez. 2021. Friends and Foes: Human Rights, the Philippine Left and Duterte, 2016–2017. Asian Studies Review 45 (1): 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M.L. 2016. Social Media Engagement: What Motivates User Participation and Consumption on YouTube? Computers in Human Behavior 66: 236–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatib, L., W. Dutton, and M. Thelwall. 2012. Public Diplomacy 2.0: A Case Study of the US Digital Outreach Team. Middle East Journal 66 (3): 453–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozinets, R.V., P.Y. Dolbec, and A. Earley. 2013. Netnographic Analysis: Understanding Culture Through Social Media Data. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, ed. U. Flick. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurosawa, X., and A. Reshetnikov. 2018. Neutrollization: Industrialized Trolling as a Pro-Kremlin Strategy of Desecuritization. Security Dialogue 49 (5): 345–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, V.A., and G.L. Smolyan. 1968. Algebra konflikta (The Algebra of Conflict). Moscow: Znaniye Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield, C.E., J.O. Kavanage, and I. Jones. 2018. Social Media and the Politics of Gender, Reace and Identity: The Case of Serena Williams. European Journal of Sport and Society 15 (2): 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahtani, S. and R. Cabato. 2019. Why Crafty Internet Trolls in the Philippines May Be Coming to a Website Near You. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/why-crafty-internet-trolls-in-the-philippines-may-be-coming-to-a-website-near-you/2019/07/25/c5d42ee2-5c53-11e9-98d4-844088d135f2_story.html.

  • Manor, I., and R. Crilly. 2018. Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War and Conflict 11 (4): 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melissen, J. 2013. Public Diplomacy. In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, and R.C. Thakur. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, A. 2005. The EU as a Soft Power: The Force of Persuasion. In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. J. Melissen, 124–144. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. 2016. Sept 22, 2016 – Speech of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte at the Inauguration of the Filinvest Development Corporation’s Misamis Power Plant. Retried from https://pcoo.gov.ph/sept-22-2016-speech-of-president-rodrigo-roa-duterte-at-the-inauguration-of-the-filinvest-development-corporations-misamis-power-plant.

  • Official Journal of the European Union. 2016. European Parliament resolution of 15 September 2016 on the Philippines (2016/2880(RSP). Retried from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/59d99b6b-6ed6-11e8-9483-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

  • Oglesby, D.M. 2013. Diplomatic Language. In The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, ed. A.F. Cooper, J. Heine, and R.C. Thakur. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, C. 2019. Political economy of international policy on the transfer of environmentally sound technologies in global climate change regime. New political economy 24 (1): 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, C. 2020. Discursive Contestation on Technological Innovation and the Institutional Design of the UNFCCC in the New Climate Change Regime. New Political Economy 25 (4): 660–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pamment, J. 2016a. British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and the Digital Revolution. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pamment, J. 2016b. Digital Diplomacy as Transmedia Engagement: Aligning Theories of Participatory Culture with International Advocacy Campaigns. New Media and Society 18 (9): 2046–2062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., D. Chung, and H.W. Park. 2019. Analytical Framework for Evaluating Digital Diplomacy Using Network Analysis and Topic Modeling: Comparing South Korea and Japan. Information Processing and Management 56: 1468–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A., K. Storbacka, and P. Frow. 2008. Managing the Co-creation of Value. Journal of Marketing Science 36 (1): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G., E. Sevin, and S. Bruya. 2011. Grassroots 2.0: Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age. Comunicação Pública 6: 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L., and M. Jørgensen. 2002. Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Posetti, J., D. Maynard, K. Bontcheva, D.K. Hapal, and D. Salcedo. 2021. Maria Ressa: Fighting an Onslaught of Online Violence, International Center for Journalists. Retrieved May 17, 2021 from https://www.icfj.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Maria%20Ressa-%20Fighting%20an%20Onslaught%20of%20Online%20Violence_0.pdf.

  • Ranada, P. 2016. Duterte Gives Middle Finger to EU Lawmakers Again, Rappler. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.rappler.com/nation/duterte-curses-european-union.

  • Ressa, M. 2016. Propaganda War: Weaponizing the Iinterne’, Rappler. Retrieved May 17, 2021 from https://www.rappler.com/nation/propaganda-war-weaponizing-internet.

  • Reuters Staff. 2016. ‘After Middle-Finger Salute, Philippines' Duterte Asks EU “Why Insult Me?”’, Reuters. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-eu-idUSKCN11R1GL.

  • Smith, M. 2019. ‘Archives: Facebook Finds “Coordinated and Inauthentic Behavior” In the Philippines; Suspends a Set of Pro-Government Pages Ahead of May Elections’, Graphika Team. Retrieved April 17, 2021 from https://medium.com/graphika-team/archives-facebook-finds-coordinated-and-inauthentic-behavior-in-the-philippines-suspends-a-set-d02f41f527df.

  • Strangio, S. (2020). In UN Speech, Duterte Stiffens Philippines’ Stance on the South China Sea. The Diplomat. Retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/in-unspeech-duterte-stiffens-philippines-stance-on-the-south-china-sea/.

  • Thompson, M.R. 2016. Bloodied Democracy: Duterte and the Death of Liberal Reformism in the Philippines. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 35 (3): 39–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Time Staff. 2016. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte Launches Profanity-Laden Tirade at the E.U., Time. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://time.com/4502332/rodrigo-duterte-eu-profanity-philippines-drugs.

  • Vadura, K. 2015. ‘The EU as “norm entrepreneur” in the Asian Region: Exploring the Digital Diplomacy Aspect of the Human Rights Toolbox. Asia Europe Journal 13 (3): 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T.A. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 95–120. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T.A. 2005. Contextual knowledge management in discourse production: A CDA perspective. In A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis, ed. R. Wodak and P. Chilton, 71–100. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Voorveld, H.A.M., G. van Noort, D.G. Muntinga, and F. Bronner. 2018. Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Differentiating Role of Platform Type. Journal of Advertising 47 (1): 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vromen, A. 2016. Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement: The Challenge from Online Campaigning and Advocacy Organisations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, A. 2017. Philippines Rejects European Development Money as China Fills the Funding Gap, Deutsche Welle. Retrieved April 28, 2021 from https://www.dw.com/en/philippines-rejects-european-development-money-as-china-fills-the-funding-gap/a-38883206.

  • Wellman, B., A. Quan Hasse, J. Witte, and K. Hampton. 2001. Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation, andcommunity commitment. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (3): 436–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. 2017. Rodrigo Duterte’s Army of Online Trolls. New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/138952/rodrigo‐dutertes‐army‐online-trolls.

  • Wodak, R. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xenos, M.A., T. Macafee, and A. Pole. 2017. Understanding variations in user response to social media campaigns: A study of Facebook posts in the 2010 US elections. New Media & Society 19 (6): 826–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Q., N. Yu, and Y. Song. 2018. User Engagement in Public Discourse on Genetically Modified Organisms: The Role of Opinion Leaders on Social Media. Science Communication 40: 691–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yepsen, E.A. 2012. Practicing Successful Twitter Public Diplomacy: A Model and Case Study of US Efforts in Venezuela. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center on Public Diplomacy.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ateneo de Manila University, Room 307, Leong Hall, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

    Manuel Enverga III

Authors
  1. Manuel Enverga III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Enverga III.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Enverga III, M. Helpful partner or infringing interloper? Examining discursive contestation in the engagements on the EU delegation in the Philippines’ Facebook page. Place Brand Public Dipl 19, 30–41 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00216-4

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41254-021-00216-4

Keywords

  • Digital diplomacy
  • EU-Philippine relations
  • Discourse