Advertisement

Hear What I Hear, See What I See: Relating Extremist Rhetoric to the Communities That Notice It

  • Tom ClarkEmail author
  • Paolo Gerbaudo
  • Ika Willis
Chapter

Abstract

The study of rhetoric, throughout its history, has generally focused on production rather than reception. The same applies to studies of extremist political rhetoric. In this context, albeit with some important caveats, social media offers an accessible way to pay closer attention to ‘what people hear’. This chapter will use evidence from Twitter and Facebook to explore what people make of the extremist discourses around them: what they notice, how they understand it, and how they respond to it. It pays particular evidence to examples where communities vilified by extremist rhetoric show an awareness of it and explores the poetics of those responses.

References

  1. Aly, A. (2017). Facebook Post, 10/11/2017. Perth: Facebook.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1993 [1954]). Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Berlant, L. (2008). The Female Complaint: The Unfinished Business of Sentimentality in American Culture. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloom, H. (1973). The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brett, J., & Moran, A. (2006). Ordinary People’s Politics: Australians Talk about Life, Politics and the Future of their Country. Melbourne: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carey, J. (1985). Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, T. (2018). Anxieties of Influence: Recursion and Occlusion in Noel Pearson’s ‘Eulogy’ for Gough Whitlam. Journal of Language, Literature and Culture, 65(2), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crozier, M. (2007). Recursive Governance: Contemporary Political Communication and Public Policy. Political Communication, 24(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dastyari, S. (2017a). Facebook Post, 8/11/2017. Sydney: Facebook.Google Scholar
  12. Dastyari, S. (2017b). One Halal of a Story. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Dreher, T. (2017). Social/Participation/Listening: Keywords for the Social Impact of Community Media. Communication Research and Practice, 3(1), 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ewing, S. (2016, February 25). Australia’s Digital Divide is Narrowing, but Getting Deeper. The Conversation.Google Scholar
  15. Faruqi, M. (2017). Facebook Post, 9/11/2017. Sydney: Facebook.Google Scholar
  16. Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gerbaudo, P. (2016). Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. R. (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Ker Walsh, J. (2016). Do You Hear What I Hear? Reception in Australian Political Discourse and Effects on Engagement with Democracy. Melbourne: Victoria University. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/view/people/Ker_Walsh=3AJean=3A=3A.html.
  21. Klemperer, V. (1957). Language of the Third Reich (2013 ed.). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  22. Luntz, F. (2007). Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  23. Mailloux, S. (1998). Reception Histories: Rhetoric, Pragmatism and American Cultural Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Margetts, H., John, P., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2015). Political Turbulence How Social Media Shape Collective Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martindale, C. (1993). Redeeming the Text: Latin Poetry and the Hermeneutics of Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Reynolds, H. (1981). The Other Side of the Frontier: An Interpretation of the Aboriginal Response to the Invasion and Settlement of Australia. Townsville, QLD: History Department, James Cook University.Google Scholar
  27. Rose, J. (2001). The Intellectual Life of the British Working Class. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Trump, D. (2017). Tweet, 14/3/2017. Washington, DC: Twitter.Google Scholar
  29. Voloshinov, V. N. (1929). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language [Marksizm i Open image in new window] (L. Matejka & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). London: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  30. Walby, S., Armstrong, J., & Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social Theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warner, M. (2002). Publics and Counter Publics. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  32. Willis, I. (2018). Reception. The New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Xenophon, N. (2016). Facebook Post, 15/9/2016. Adelaide: Facebook.Google Scholar
  34. Zeng, D., Chen, H., Lusch, R., & Li, S. H. (2010). Social Media Analytics and Intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 25(6), 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Digital Culture and SocietyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations