What Kind of Cultural Citizenship?Dissent and Antagonism when Discussing Politics in an Online Gay CommunityJakob SvenssonKarlstad University, Karlstad, Swedenjakob.svensson@kau.se

Abstract: Framed in ideas of cultural citizenship and acknowledging the importance of popular cultural sites for political participation, this short paper attends to a study of political discussions in the Swedish LGTB community Qruiser. The research is netnographic through online interviews, participant observations and content analyses. Preliminary results suggest an atmosphere that is rather geared towards conflict and dissent between participants than towards deliberation, opinion formation and consensus. The paper will therefore discuss the results in light of Mouffe's (2005) normative lens of agonism and radical democracy.

Keywords: Agonism, Cultural Citizenship, Political Participation, Radical Democracy, Social Media

1. Introduction

This short paper is theoretically framed in ideas of cultural citizenship as developed by Hermes (2006). Non outspokenly political popular cultural sites, such as fan and net communities, may become sites for political participation (see for example Graham 2009; Svensson 2010; Andersson 2013). Thus, if aiming at understanding the political, it would be wrong to exclusively focus on realms of institutionalized politics.

The research project this paper is based on studying political discussions in the Swedish LGTB (Lesbian, Gay, Trans- and Bisexual) community Qruiser. The research is netnographic through online interviews, participant observations in, and content analyses of, political discussions on Qruiser forums and most popular political clubs during November 2012. Preliminary results suggest an atmosphere that is rather geared towards conflict and dissent between participants than deliberation, opinion formation and consensus. The expressive and conflictual political participation will therefore be discussed in light of Mouffe's (2005) normative lens of agonism and radical democracy.

2. A Cultural Theoretical Perspective

A cultural theoretical perspective implies a focus on processes of meaning-making. Culture can be understood as a set of values and beliefs that inform and motivate our behaviour (Castells 2009: 36), helping us to understand our practices and providing them with meaning. Media and communication platforms are important for such meaning-making (Thompson 2001/1995).

Drawing on the sense-making participant, culture in Hermes' (2006) theorizing of cultural citizenship is connected to the blurring of public and private spheres, reminding us that citizenship is practiced in many different places. Popular culture offers images and symbols that evoke emotion that we use when negotiating civic identities (Dahlgren 2009: 137). It would thus be wrong to confine the political exclusively to the realm of institutionalized politics (Carpentier 2011: 39-40). As political communication researchers, we should also attend to popular culture when trying to understand contemporary citizenship, not the least to online sites in our digital and late modern age (see Svensson 2011). General research on online communities has shown that interaction changes because of the possibility of anonymity, automatic archiving and access to a range of different communities (Kozinets 2011: 100). Still, we know little about the extent and how internet users participate in nonpolitical online groups to discuss politics (Wojcieszak & Mutz 2009: 41). Therefore we need to study how and why popular cultural sites engage citizens in political discussions and how participants make their participation meaningful here.

There have been some studies of popular cultural sites from a political participatory perspective. Graham (2009) found more deliberative qualities in political discussions on docu-soap fan-pages in comparison to discussions on respected journals comment fields. Svensson (2010) studied discussions on ice-hockey fan-pages and found that social capital was produced here. Andersson (2013) studied political discussions in a youth community - based on music preferences and clothing style - and found that users were exposed to opposing political views, something that socialized them into “politically confrontational team players” (my translation: politiskt konfrontativa medspelare).

At least 100 million participate regularly on online communities today (Kozinets 2011: 10). One of these communities is Qruiser, the biggest LGTB community in Sweden. Qruiser is primarily used for flirting, dating and maintaining friendships. But there are also possibilities for political discussions in so-called forums and clubs, even though clubs are mostly used to display preferences on the user's profile page rather than to discuss. Hence, there are many opportunities for Qruiser users to engage in political discussions with each other.

3. Political Discussions on Qruiser

The study of political discussions on Qruiser primarily took place during November 2012. November 1st the community had 109153 active members. According to member statistics 72 percent of these defined themselves as male and 72 percent defined themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. The majority of the members are between 20 and 40 years old with an average age of 33. 72 percent of the members are based in Sweden and only 17 percent defined themselves as in a relationship, underlining Qruiser's dating function.

During November participant observations of political discussions were conducted. All discussion threads started from November 1st to 20th under the tag Politics, Society & the World (my translation: Politik, Samhälle & Världen) were followed and postings downloaded until November 25 th. 76 different threads were started during this period by 31 different nicknames, containing 2853 postings. All thread starters and recurrent posters in these threads were invited to participate in online interviews. Not everyone agreed to participate. I currently conduct interviews with 30 different nicknames as well as reflective field notation documenting observations, feelings and experiences when I participated in discussions as well as now during the analysis phase.

Resonating with Andersson's (2013) study, the political discussions on Qruiser's forum were very confrontational, perhaps due to the opposing political views represented and perhaps also due to the possibilities of anonymity. In interviews participants talked about the discussions as a competition, not against team-players (as in Andersson's study) but against opponents. Hence, instead of seeking consensus – to understand each other – participants sought conflict. As it seemed, they actively tried to misinterpret each other's postings in order to attack, and use unflattering labels on each other. Participants have revealed that they are rather motivated to debate in general, improve their debate skills and impress an imagined audience of lurkers, than to understand or learn from other participants and seek some kind of agreement on how to understand an issue. This is how they made their participation meaningful. One illustrative example was when posting a question on how to understand the concept of anti-Semitism in a thread on the Israel/Palestine conflict. I was the labeled as leftist and anti-Jew, questioning anti-Semitism - something I did not do in the posting. Among other things I was also accused of being particularly ignorant for an academic. This was a disturbing experience, something which made me dislike the general tone of the discussions as well as certain participants. In a way I could understand the harsh tone, since I myself sometimes felt an urge to “bust” or attack participants I felt had treated me unfairly. A preliminary conclusion is thus that conflict was the defining character of the political discussions on Qruiser.

4. Discussion – Political Discussions as agonistic or antagonistic?

To understand these preliminary results, this paper makes use of the perspective of radical democracy as outlined by Laclau & Mouffe (1985) and Mouffe (2005). This perspective is contested especially by deliberative democrats (see for example Dryzek 2000). However the results above clearly show that deliberation was not at stake on Qruiser, but rather conflict. Conflict is a central concept in radical democracy and important for understanding political participation. A common understanding of the political refers to the organization of human co-existence (see for example Dewey 1927; Arendt 1998/1958). Political participation from a radical democratic perspective thus has to do with conflicts over resources and between interests in the organization of society. According to Mouffe (2005), we should not be mislead to believe that consensus on this division ever could be fully achieved. Furthermore, participation - being based in processes of identification - will always entail the identification of an Other in contrast to an Us (Laclau & Mouffe 1985: 136). However, by outlining a normative concept of agonism - in contrast to antagonism - Mouffe (2005) seeks to establish the Other, not as an enemy to be destroyed, but as an adversary to be acknowledged. In this way the perspective of radical democracy offers us a norm to measure the preliminary findings against. The question then becomes if the Other was conceived of as enemy or an adversary in political discussions on the Qruiser forum?

In contrast to Andersson's (2013) study of a youth community - who concluded that political discussions were conflictual, yet agonistic and friendly - the discussions on Qruiser were rather antagonistic. The positioning of

the Other was to a surprisingly large extent done using the the discourse of left and right and then associating opinions from the extreme versions of these positions to the Other. By associating to the Other extremist characteristics and opinions, the Other could also be treated as someone not worthy of acknowledgement. For example if positioned as belonging to the left – you could also be accused for defending the regime in North Korea - and someone who defends the North Korean regime cannot be taken seriously and should thus shut up. Similarly participants positioned belonging to the right often had to answer for the behaviour of neo-Nazi groups et cetera.

The question I ask myself is thus what kind of cultural citizenship is thriving here? While it is easy to become horrified by the conflictual and antagonistic character of the civic participation on Qruiser's forum for political discussions, preliminary interview results reveal a conception of the forum as a locus for training debate skills, a place where the absence of political correctness is liberating, providing an outlet for political frustration. The interviewed participants seem to have a general political interest and their participation spans from letting off steam on Qruiser to more deliberative style of participation in recognized political associations. Hence, we can not judge the sophistication of participants civic practices by only attending to Qruiser forum discussions. And while many participants dismissed Others as not worth to listen to, there was an imagined audience of lurkers that seemed to be important for making participating on Qruiser forum discussions meaningful. A preliminary conclusion then, while antagonistic and rude, the Qruiser forum also provided a training ground for debate skills and an outlet for political frustration, things that are also important for a vital democracy.

References

Andersson, E. (2013) Det politiska rummet. Villkor för situationspolitisk socialisation i en nätgemenskap av och för ungdomar, Dissertation in Pedagogy. Örebro, Örebro University. forthcomingArendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition. 2nd Edition, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. First published 1958Carpentier, N. (2011) Media and Participation. A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle, Bristol: Intellect.Castells, M. (2009) Communication Power, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Dahlgren, P. (2009) Media and Political Engagement, Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. New York, Cambridge University Press.Dewey, J. S. (1927)The Public and its Problems, Athens, Ohio University Press.Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Graham, T. S. (2009) What’s Wife Swap Got to Do with It? Talking POlitics in the Net-Based Public Sphere, PhD Dissertation. Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam.Hermes, J. (2006) “Hidden Debates: Rethinking the Relationship Between Popular Culture and The Public Sphere”, Javnost-The Public. Vol. 13, No. 4.Kozinets, R. V. (2011) Netnografi, Lund, Studentlitteratur.Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Struggle, 2001st edition, Verso, New York.Mouffe, C. (2005) On the Political, London, Routledge.Svensson, A. (2010) “Young Men, ICTs and Sports. Fan Cultures and Civic Cultures”, In T. Olsson, & P. Dahlgren (Eds.), Young People ICTs and Democracy. Theories, Policies, Identities and Websites, Göteborg, Nordicom.Svensson, J. (2011) “The Expressive Turn of Citizenship Digital Late Modernity”. JeDem – eJournal of eDemocracy, Vol 3, No. 1.Thompson, J. B. (2001) Medierna & moderniteten, Göteborg, Daidalos. First published 1995.Wojcieszak, M. & Mutz, D (2009) “Online groups and Political Discourse. Do online Spaces facilitate Exposure to pOlitical Disagreement?“, Journal of Communication. No. 59