1887
Volume 14, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the interactional norms of a manosphere discussion forum known as , and asks whether it can be conceptualised as a self-help group. 2104 posts and comments from regular users and high-status users in the community were analysed qualitatively to determine how the community is characterised by certain speech acts, and how these speech acts correspond to face-enhancement and face-threat as well as to certain impression management strategies.

Since personal disclosure, advice-giving, and face-enhancement are key characteristics of , it could be argued that shares some functional characteristics with self-help communities. However, much of the advice given is unsolicited, a disproportionately high rate of face-enhancement is directed towards high-status users, and speech acts such as elaborating, and some advice-giving and personal disclosure seem to be used for self-promotion purposes. Furthermore, the prevalence of unhedged face-threats sets apart from traditional supportive communities.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21075.kre
2023-04-11
2024-03-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, Benedict
    1983Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman, Irwin and Dalmas Taylor
    1973Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowman-Grieve, Lorraine
    2009 “Exploring “Stormfront”: A Virtual Community of the Radical Right.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism32(11): 989–1007. 10.1080/10576100903259951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10576100903259951 [Google Scholar]
  4. Coates, Jennifer
    2003Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470755617
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755617 [Google Scholar]
  5. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2011Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511975752
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dayter, Daria, and Sofia Rüdiger
    2016 “Reporting from the Field: the Narrative Reconstruction of Experience in Pick-Up Artist Online Communities.” Open Linguistics2(1): 337–351. 10.1515/opli‑2016‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dishy, Aaron
    2018 “Swallowing Misandry: A Survey of the Discursive Strategies of r/TheRedPill on Reddit.” MA diss., Toronto University.
  8. Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    1992 “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-Based Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology21(1): 461–490. 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [Google Scholar]
  9. franzke, aline shakti, Anja Bechmann, Michael Zimmer, Charles Ess, and the Association of Internet Researchers
    2020Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Available athttps://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Flynn, Mark, and Alexandru Stana
    2012 “Social Support in a Men’s Online Eating Disorder Forum.” International Journal of Men’s Health11(2): 150–169. 10.3149/jmh.1102.150
    https://doi.org/10.3149/jmh.1102.150 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gough, Brendan
    2016 “Men’s Depression Talk Online: a Qualitative Analysis of Accountability and Authenticity in Help Seeking and Support Formulations.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity17(1): 156–164. 10.1037/a0039456
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039456 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hanna, Esmée, and Brendan Gough
    2018 “Searching for Help Online: an Analysis of Peer-to-Peer Posts on a Male-Only Infertility Forum.” Journal of Health Psychology23(7): 917–928. 10.1177/1359105316644038
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105316644038 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hendriks, Eric
    2012 “Ascetic Hedonism: Self and Sexual Conquest in the Seduction Community.” Cultural Analysis11(1): 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, Frazer, and Veronika Koller
    2020 “Incels, In-groups, and Ideologies: the Representation of Gendered Social Actors in a Sexuality-Based Online Community.” Journal of Language and Sexuality9(2): 153–180. 10.1075/jls.19014.her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.19014.her [Google Scholar]
  16. Holmes, Janet
    1988 “Paying Compliments: a Sex-Preferential Politeness Strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics12(1): 445–465. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90005‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90005-7 [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, Edward, and Thane Pittman
    1982 “Towards a General Theory of Strategic Self-Presentation.” InPsychological Perspectives on the Self, ed. byJerry M. Suls, 2321–2362). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Krendel, Alexandra
    2020 The men and women, guys and girls of the ‘manosphere’: A corpus-assisted discourse approach. Discourse & Society31(6): 607–630. 10.1177/0957926520939690
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520939690 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lave, Jean, and Étienne Wenger
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lawson, Robert, and Mark McGlashan
    2017 “You Need to Become Prime Dick”: a Corpus-Based Analysis of Self-Help Discourses and Gender Constructions in Online Seduction Communities. 116th annual American Anthropological Association meeting, Washington D.C, 30th November 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Locher, Miriam
    2006Advice Online: Advice-giving in an American Internet Health Column. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.149
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.149 [Google Scholar]
  22. Locher, Miriam, and Richard Watts
    2005 “Politeness Theory and Relational Work.” Journal of Politeness Research1(1): 9–33. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Marwick, Alice and Robyn Caplan
    2018 “Drinking Male Tears: Language, the Manosphere, and Networked Harassment.” Feminist Media Studies18(4): 543–559. 10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568 [Google Scholar]
  24. McLean, Scott, and Laurie Vermeylen
    2019 “From Getting Ahead to Getting Back on One’s Feet: Performing Masculinity as a Self-Help Reader.” Men and Masculinities22(4): 716–737. 10.1177/1097184X17724188
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17724188 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mountford, JB.
    2018 “Topic Modeling the Red Pill.” Social Sciences7(3): 1–16. 10.3390/socsci7030042
    https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7030042 [Google Scholar]
  26. O’Brien, Rosaleen, Kate Hunt, and Graham Hart
    2005 “‘It’s Caveman Stuff, but That is to a Certain Extent How Guys Still Operate’: Men’s Accounts of Masculinity and Help-Seeking.” Social Science and Medicine61(3): 503–516. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Neill, Rachel
    2016 “Homosociality and Heterosex: Patterns of Intimacy and Relationality among Men in the London ‘Seduction Community’.” InA. Cornwall, F. G. Karioris & N. Lindisfarne (Eds.), Masculinities Under Neoliberalism. (pp.261–276). London: Zed Books. 10.5040/9781350221307.ch‑017
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350221307.ch-017 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rüdiger, Sofia, and Daria Dayter
    2020 “Manbragging Online: Self-Praise on Pick-Up Artists’ Forums.” Journal of Pragmatics161(1): 16–27. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.012 [Google Scholar]
  29. Searle, John
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5(1): 1–23. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  31. Tannen, Deborah
    1990You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York: Morrow.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Trosborg, Anna
    1995Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110885286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Valkenburgh, Shaun
    2021 “Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere.” Men and Masculinities24(1): 84–103. 10.1177/1097184X18816118
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18816118 [Google Scholar]
  34. Wenger, Étienne
    1998Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wright, Scott, Verity Trott, and Callum Jones
    2020 “‘The Pussy Ain’t Worth it, Bro’: Assessing the Structure and Discourse of MGTOW.” Information, Communication & Society23(6): 908–925. 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21075.kre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21075.kre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): impression management; manosphere; masculinity; relational work; self-help; speech acts
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