’How dare you!’ – accusations and counter-accusations in discussions on Facebook about Greta Thunberg’s speech in the UN on September 23, 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52610/rhs.v25i82.11Keywords:
Accusations, kategoria, apologies, Greta Thunberg, Facebook, climate change discourse, blame, responsibilityAbstract
The contribution analyzes accusations related to Greta Thunberg’s speech in the UN on September 2019, posted on public Facebook pages in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The accusations we analyze are of three types: 1. Accusations that amplify and mirror Thunberg’s accusations, 2. Accusations against Thunberg, her followers, and supporters, and 3. Accusations against people who are bullying Thunberg and her followers online. None of the accusations is the first move in an apologetic discourse. We argue that the rhetorical functions of accusations that are not met with an apology have two important characteristics: 1. they attribute responsibility to the accused by expressing a reactive attitude towards his or her action, 2. they express a judgement that the action is blameworthy. We use these perspectives to analyze the accusations related to Thunberg’s speech on the public Facebook pages and characterize the rhetorical functions of the three types of accusations.
References
Andersen, I. V. (2020) Instead of the deliberative debate: How the principle of expression plays out in the news-generated Facebook discussion (PhD-avhandling). Universitetet i Bergen.
Benoit, W. L. (1994). Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies. New York: State University of New York Press.
Castor, T. (2015). “Accusatory Discourse”. I K. Tracey, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (Red.)., The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi052
Fritz, G. (2005). “On Aswering Accusations in Controversies”. I M. Dascal, F.H. Eemeren, E. Rigotti, S. Tatti & A. Rocci (red.), Proceedings of SComS: Agrumentation in Dialogic Interaction. s. 151-162
Scanlon, T. (2008). Moral Dimension. Permissibility, Meaning, Blame. Cambridge Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674043145
Strawson, P. F. (1962/1993). “Freedom and Resentment” Opptrykk i J.M. Fisher & M. Ravizza (Red.) Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (s. 45-66). Itacha and London: Cornell University Press.
Post, S. (2019). “Polarizing Communication as Media Effects on Antagonists. Understanding Communication in Conflict in Digital Media Communities”. Communication Theory, 29, s. 213-235. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty022
Ryan, H. R. (1982). “Kategoria and Apologia: On their Rhetorical Criticism as a Speech Set”. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68(3), s. 256-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638209383611
Stein, K. (2008). “Apologia, Antapologia, and the 1960 Soviet U-2 Incident”. Communication Studies, 59(1), s. 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970701849362
Watson, G. (1993). “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil” I J.M. Fisher & M. Ravizza (Red.) Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (s. 45-66). Itacha and London: Cornell University Press, s. 119-150.
Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge U P. New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807039
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Rhetorica Scandinavica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
