1887
image of Picking fights with politicians
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In 2016 the UK held a divisive referendum on its membership of the European Union. In the aftermath, difference and division were rife in politics and in everyday life. This article explores how such difference and division play out in and through interaction through examining a citizen ‘picking a fight’ with a politician over how Brexit has been handled. Drawing on membership categorisation analysis we show how antagonism is interactionally accomplished. The analysis focuses on three categorial strategies which interlocutors use to achieve antagonism: establishing omnirelevant devices, categories and their predicates; explicitly challenging category membership; and partitioning a population. Beyond offering insights into moments of social life that are not easily captured, the findings contribute to an empirical conceptualisation of antagonism and illustrate how membership categorisation analysis can shed light on its interactional achievement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21028.joy
2022-04-14
2022-05-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrams, Dominic, and Giovanni A. Travaglino
    2018 “Immigration, Political Trust, and Brexit-Testing an Aversion Amplification Hypothesis.” British Journal of Social Psychology57 (2): 310–326. 10.1111/bjso.12233
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12233 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowman, Jonathan W. P., and Keon West
    2020 “Brexit: The Influence of Motivation to Respond without Prejudice, Willingness to Disagree, and Attitudes to Immigration.” British Journal of Social Psychology60 (1): 222–247. 10.1111/bjso.12383
    https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12383 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bull, Peter, and Will Strawson
    2019 “Can’t Answer? Won’t Answer? An Analysis of Equivocal Responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions.” Parliamentary Affairs73 (2): 429–449. 10.1093/pa/gsz003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz003 [Google Scholar]
  4. Butler, Carly W., Richard Fitzgerald, and Rod Gardner
    2009 “Branching Out: Ethnomethodological Approaches to Communication.” Australian Journal of Communication36 (3): 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clarke, Harold D., Matthew Goodwin, and Paul Whiteley
    2017Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316584408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584408 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clarke, John, and Janet Newman
    2019 “What’s the Subject? Brexit and Politics as Articulation.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology29 (1): 67–77. 10.1002/casp.2376
    https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2376 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clift, Rebecca, and Marco Pino
    2020 “Turning the Tables: Objecting to Conduct in Conflict Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction53 (4): 463–480. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clifton, Jonathan
    2009 “A Membership Categorization Analysis of the Waco Siege: Perpetrator-Victim Identity as a Moral Discrepancy Device for ‘Doing’ Subversion.” Sociological Research Online14 (5): 38–48. 10.5153/sro.2002
    https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coupland, Nikolas
    2003 “Sociolinguistic Authenticities.” Journal of Sociolinguistics7 (3): 417–431. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00233
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00233 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cromdal, Jakob
    2004 “Building Bilingual Oppositions: Code-Switching in Children’s Disputes.” Language in Society33 (1): 33–58. 10.1017/S0047404504031021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404504031021 [Google Scholar]
  11. D’Hondt, Sigurd
    2013 “Analyzing Equivalences in Discourse: Are Discourse Theory and Membership Categorization Analysis Compatible?” Pragmatics23 (3): 421–445. 10.1075/prag.23.3.03hon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.03hon [Google Scholar]
  12. Demasi, Mirko A.
    2019 “Facts as Social Action in Political Debates about the European Union.” Political Psychology40 (1): 3–20. 10.1111/pops.12496
    https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12496 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dersley, Ian, and Anthony Wootton
    2000 “Complaint Sequences within Antagonistic Argument.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33: 375–406. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3304_02 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eglin, Peter, and and Stephen Hester
    1992 “Category, Predicate and Task: The Pragmatics of Practical Action.” Semiotica88 (3–4): 243–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eglin, Peter, and Stephen Hester
    1999 ““You’re All a Bunch of Feminists”: Categorization and the Politics of Terror in the Montreal Massacre.” Human Studies22 (2–4): 253–272. 10.1023/A:1005444602547
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005444602547 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003The Montreal Massacre: A Story of Membership Categorization Analysis. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fitzgerald, Richard, William Housley, and Carly W. Butler
    2009 “Omnirelevance and Interactional Context.” Australian Journal of Communication36 (3): 45–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitzgerald, Richard, and Joanna Thornborrow
    2017 “‘I’m a Scouser’: Membership Categories and Political Geography in the 2016 UK Election Call Phone-in”. Journal of Language and Politics16 (1): 40–58. 10.1075/jlp.16.1.03fit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16.1.03fit [Google Scholar]
  19. Francis, David, and Sally Hester
    2017 “Stephen Hester on the Problem of Culturalism.” Journal of Pragmatics118: 56–63. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-face Behaviour. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hänska-Ahy, Max, and Stefan Bauchowitz
    2017 Tweeting for Brexit: How Social Media Influenced the Referendum. InBrexit, Trump and the Media, ed. byJ. Mair, T. Clark, N. Fowler, R. Snoddy, and R. Tait. 31–35. Suffolk: Abramis Academic Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hardaker, Claire
    2010 “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research6 (2): 215–242. 10.1515/jplr.2010.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hester, Stephen, and Peter Eglin
    1997aCulture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1997b “Membership Categorization Analysis: An Introduction.” InCulture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. byStephen Hester, and Peter Eglin. 1–23. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofstetter, Emily, and Elizabeth H. Stokoe
    2015 “Offers of Assistance in Politician-Constituent Interaction.” Discourse Studies17 (6): 724–751. 10.1177/1461445615602376
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602376 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2018 “Getting Service at the Constituency Office: Analyzing Citizens’ Encounters with their Member of Parliament.” Text & Talk38 (5): 551–573. 10.1515/text‑2018‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0014 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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]
  28. Housley, William
    2002 “Moral Discrepancy and ‘Fudging the Issue’ in a Radio News Interview.” Sociology36 (1): 5–21. 10.1177/0038038502036001001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038502036001001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Housley, William, and Richard Fitzgerald
    2003 “Moral Discrepancy and Political Discourse: Accountability and the Allocation of Blame in a Political News Interview.” Sociological Research Online8 (2): 18–26. 10.5153/sro.795
    https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.795 [Google Scholar]
  30. Housley, William, Helena Webb, Adam Edwards, Rob Procter, and Marina Jirotka
    2017 “Digitizing Sacks? Approaching Social Media as Data.” Qualitative Research17 (6): 627–644. 10.1177/1468794117715063
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117715063 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jayyusi, Lena
    1984Categorization and the Moral Order. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Joyce, Jack B., and Linda Walz
    2021 Picking Fights with Politicians Dataset.   10.21251/527b6b95‑f6c1‑45cc‑8292‑806cdc904130
    https://doi.org/10.21251/527b6b95-f6c1-45cc-8292-806cdc904130 [Google Scholar]
  34. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2018 “Social Media in/and the Politics of the European Union: Politico-Organizational Communication, Institutional Cultures and Self-Inflicted Elitism.” Journal of Language and Politics17 (2): 243–266. 10.1075/jlp.18001.krz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18001.krz [Google Scholar]
  35. Leudar, Ivan, Victoria Marsland, and Jirí Nekvapil
    2004 “On Membership Categorization: ‘Us’, ‘Them’, and ‘Doing Violence’ in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society15 (2–3): 243–266. 10.1177/0957926504041019
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041019 [Google Scholar]
  36. Meredith, Joanne, and Emma Richardson
    2019 “The Use of the Political Categories of Brexiter and Remainer in Online Comments about the EU referendum.” Community and Applied Social Psychology29 (1): 43–55. 10.1002/casp.2384
    https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2384 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nishizaka, Aug
    2021 “Partitioning a Population in Agreement and Disagreement.” Journal of Pragmatics172: 225–238. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.015 [Google Scholar]
  38. O’Driscoll, Jim, and Leslie Jeffries
    2019 “Introduction: The Origins of The Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language in Conflict, ed. byM. Evans, L. Jeffries, and J. O’Driscoll. 1–9. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429058011‑18
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058011-18 [Google Scholar]
  39. Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
    2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relationships: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society35 (5): 677–705. 10.1017/S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  40. Reynolds, Edward
    2011 “Enticing a Challengeable in Arguments: Sequence, Epistemics and Preference Organisation.” Pragmatics21 (3): 411–430. 10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.06rey [Google Scholar]
  41. 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]
  42. Robles, Jessica S.
    2011 “Doing Disagreement in the House of Lords: ‘Talking around the Issue’ as a Context-Appropriate Argumentative Strategy.” Discourse & Communication5 (2): 147–168. 10.1177/1750481310395452
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310395452 [Google Scholar]
  43. Robles, Jessica S., and Theresa Castor
    2019 “Taking the Moral High Ground: Practices for Being Uncompromisingly Principled.” Journal of Pragmatics141: 115–129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, Harvey
    1984 “On Doing “Being Ordinary”.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage. 413–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 1995Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stokoe, Elizabeth H.
    2003 “Mothers, Single Women and Sluts: Gender, Morality and Membership Categorization in Neighbour Disputes.” Feminism and Psychology13 (3): 317–344. 10.1177/0959353503013003006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353503013003006 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tainio, Liisa
    2003 “‘When Shall We Go for a Ride?’ A Case of the Sexual Harassment of a Young Girl.” Discourse & Society14 (2): 173–190. 10.1177/0957926503014002754
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926503014002754 [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Schepen, Nynke
    2019 “Political Transparency Matters: Citizens Challenging Officials via ‘Have You Planned X’-Type Questions.” Discourse & Society30 (5): 521–535. 10.1177/0957926519855784
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519855784 [Google Scholar]
  49. Walz, Linda, and Richard Fitzgerald
    2020 “A Stranger in a Foreign Land: Identity Transition in Blogs about Transnational Relocation.” Discourse, Context & Media36: 1–9. 10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100413
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100413 [Google Scholar]
  50. Widdicombe, Sue, and Robin Wooffitt
    1990 “‘Being’ versus ‘Doing’ Punk: On Achieving Authenticity as a Member.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology9 (4): 257–277. 10.1177/0261927X9094003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9094003 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21028.joy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21028.joy
Loading

Data & Media 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