1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores the social action of sanctioning an interlocutor’s conduct in public spaces through social media. Using membership categorisation analysis (Hester and Eglin 1997), we examine how, in offline face-to-face disputes filmed by one party, interactants deploy the name ‘Karen’ to sanction someone and threaten the transposition of the recording onto social media to impose accountability to the public at large. Our findings show how sanctioning through categorising an individual as a ‘Karen’ is interactionally achieved through framing conduct as entitled or otherwise problematic, distinguishing production of ‘Karen’ from a delivery that is perceptually unavailable to an interlocutor. We explore how social media functions as a resource to shape the ongoing encounter by orienting to the camera, and thus the online audience, as an external authority.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00104.wal
2023-12-22
2024-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage
    1984 “Transcription notation.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, ix–xvi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Butler, Carly W., Richard Fitzgerald, and Rod Gardner
    2009 “Branching out: Ethnomethodological approaches to communication.” Australian Journal of Communication36(3): 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Eglin, Peter, and Stephen Hester
    1992 “Category, predicate and task: The pragmatics of practical action.” Semiotica88(3–4): 243–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell
    2017The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139025928
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139025928 [Google Scholar]
  5. Francis, David, and Stephen Hester
    2017 “Stephen Hester on the problem of culturalism.” Journal of Pragmatics1181: 56–63. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2022a “Moral emotions, good moral panics, social regulation, and online public shaming.” Language & Communication841: 61–75. 10.1016/j.langcom.2022.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2022b “Karen: Stigmatized social identity and face-threat in the on/offline nexus.” Journal of Pragmatics1881: 140–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  8. Garfinkel, Harold
    1956 “Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies.” The American Journal of Sociology611: 420–424. 10.1086/221800
    https://doi.org/10.1086/221800 [Google Scholar]
  9. 1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibson, Will, and Carles Roca-Cuberes
    2019 “Constructing blame for school exclusion in an online comments forum: Membership categorisation analysis and endogenous category work.” Discourse, Context & Media321, 100331. 10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100331
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100331 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, Erving
    1963Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1967Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. [1959] 1990The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haugh, Michael, and Valeria Sinkeviciute
    2018 “Accusations and interpersonal conflict in televised multi-party interactions amongst speakers of (Argentinian and Peninsular) Spanish.” Journal of Language, Aggression and Conflict6(2): 248–270. 10.1075/jlac.00012.hau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00012.hau [Google Scholar]
  15. Haugh, Michael
    2022 “(Online) public denunciation, public incivilities and offence.” Language & Communication871: 44–59. 10.1016/j.langcom.2022.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heritage, John
    1990 “International accountability: a conversation analytic perspective.” Réseaux. Communication-Technologie-Société8(1): 23–49. 10.3406/reso.1990.3529
    https://doi.org/10.3406/reso.1990.3529 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
    1997Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Housley, William, and Richard Fitzgerald
    2002 “The reconsidered model of membership categorization analysis.” Qualitative Research2(1): 59–83. 10.1177/146879410200200104
    https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200104 [Google Scholar]
  19. Housley, William, Helena Webb, Adam Edwards, Rob Procter, and Marina Jirotka
    2017 “Membership categorisation and antagonistic Twitter formulations.” Discourse & Communication11(6): 567–590. 10.1177/1750481317726932
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317726932 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jones, Nikki, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2012 “‘The camera rolls’: Using third-party video in field research.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science642(1): 109–123. 10.1177/0002716212438205
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212438205 [Google Scholar]
  21. Joyce, Jack B., Bogdana Humă, Hanna-Leena Ristimäki, Fabio Ferraz de Almeida, and Ann Doehring
    2021 “Speaking out against everyday sexism: Gender and epistemics in accusations of ‘mansplaining’.” Feminism & Psychology30(4): 502–529. 10.1177/0959353520979499
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353520979499 [Google Scholar]
  22. Joyce, Jack B., and J. Sterphone
    2022 “Challenging racism in public spaces: Practices for interventions into disputes.” Journal of Pragmatics2011: 43–59. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Joyce, Jack B., and Linda Walz
    2022 “Picking fights with politicians: Categories, partitioning and the achievement of antagonism.” Pragmatics34(4): 562–587. 10.1075/prag.21028.joy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21028.joy [Google Scholar]
  24. Kärkkäinen, Elsie
    2007 “Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity.” Text & Talk26(6): 699–731. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mullins, Eve, and Steve Kirkwood
    2019 “Dams, barriers and beating yourself up: Shame in groupwork for addressing sexual offending.” Journal of Social Work Practice33(4): 369–384. 10.1080/02650533.2019.1594735
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2019.1594735 [Google Scholar]
  26. Negra, Diane, and Julia Leyda
    2021 “Querying ‘Karen’: The rise of the angry white woman.” European Journal of Cultural Studies24(1): 350–357. 10.1177/1367549420947777
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420947777 [Google Scholar]
  27. Norrick, Neal R.
    2004 “Hyperbole, extreme case formulation.” Journal of Pragmatics361: 1727–1739. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Pomerantz, Anita
    1978 “Attributions of responsibility: Blamings.” Sociology12(1): 115–121. 10.1177/003803857801200107
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200107 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1986 “Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.” Human Studies91: 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  30. Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn
    2020 “Shaming interrogatives: Admonishments, the social psychology of emotion, and discursive practices of behaviour modification in family mealtimes.” British Journal of Social Psychology59(2): 347–364. 10.1111/bjso.12346
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12346 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ran, Yongping, and Xu Huang
    2019 “Deontic authority in intervention discourse: Insights from bystander intervention.” Discourse Studies21(5): 540–560. 10.1177/1461445619846705
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619846705 [Google Scholar]
  32. Reynolds, Edward
    2015 “How participants in arguments challenge the normative position of an opponent.” Discourse Studies17(3): 299–316. 10.1177/1461445615571198
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615571198 [Google Scholar]
  33. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2006 “Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair.” Communication Monographs73(2): 137–161. 10.1080/03637750600581206
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750600581206 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2016Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Robles, Jessica S., and Theresa Castor
    2019 “Taking the moral high-ground: Practices for being uncompromisingly principled.” Journal of Pragmatics1411: 116–129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  36. Robles, Jessica S., Stephen M. DiDomenico, Joshua Raclaw, and Jack B. Joyce
    2023 “Reporting mobile device-mediated text to manage action and agency in co-present conversation.” Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality6(1). 10.7146/si.v6i1.137382
    https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137382 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sacks, Harvey
    1995Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
    1968 “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropologist70(6): 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sierra, Sylvia
    2021Millennials Talking Media: Creating Intertextual Identities in Everyday Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190931117.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190931117.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sterphone, J.
    2022 “Complaining by category: Managing social categories and action ascription in wargame interactions.” Language & Communication841: 46–60. 10.1016/j.langcom.2022.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2022.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Therese, Sandrine, and Brian Martin
    2010 “Shame, scientist! Degradation rituals in science.” Prometheus28(2): 97–110. 10.1080/08109028.2010.494866
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2010.494866 [Google Scholar]
  42. Turowetz, Jason J., and Douglas W. Maynard
    2010 “Morality in the social interactional and discursive world of everyday life.” InHandbook of the Sociology of Morality, ed. bySteven Hitlin, and Stephen Vaisey, 503–526. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑6896‑8_27
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8_27 [Google Scholar]
  43. Walz, Linda, and Richard Fitzgerald
    2020 “A stranger in a foreign land: Identity transition in blogs about transnational relocation.” Discourse, Context & Media361: 1–9. 10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100413
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100413 [Google Scholar]
  44. Whitehead, Kevin A.
    2013 “Managing self/other relations in complaint sequences: The use of self-deprecating and affiliative racial categorizations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction46(2): 186–203. 10.1080/08351813.2013.780342
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.780342 [Google Scholar]
  45. Whitehead, Kevin A., Brett Bowman, and Geoffrey Raymond
    2018 “‘Risk factors’ in action: The situated constitution of ‘risk’ in violent interactions.” Psychology of Violence8(3): 329–338. 10.1037/vio0000182
    https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000182 [Google Scholar]
  46. Williams, Apryl
    2020 “Black memes matter: #LivingWhileBlack With Becky and Karen.” Social Media + Society6(4): 1–14. 10.1177/2056305120981047
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120981047 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ip.00104.wal
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error