Abstract:Internet memes play an important role in the reproduction, reinforcement and circulation of social stereotypes, including those about people who live in poverty. In this paper we investigate the relationship between Internet memes and stereotypes about poverty by examining a set of memes that make claims about one particular aspect of poverty in highincome countries -receipt of social assistance in the form of welfare cheques, medical coverage and food. We apply critical discourse analysis to a set of widely circulated poverty memes to identify how notions of individual responsibility and deservedness surface in these messages. Whereas the memes in our sample consist of both visual and textual elements, we found that the text was decidedly more important for reproducing stereotypes linked to the abstract neoliberal values of individual responsibility and participation in market economy. Keywords
Background Social media can be powerful tools for rallying support for a social cause, political mobilization, and social commentary. They can also greatly contribute to incendiary discourses and social stereotypes—often through memes. This article explores the case of one American, known by the moniker of “Sweet Brown,” whose interview about a local fire made her an overnight celebrity in 2012.Analysis A frame analysis of her portrayals in legacy and social media is conducted, and reveals that social media platforms facilitate and even encourage a reductionist approach to messaging.Conclusion and implications Sweet Brown’s appearance, which conjures gender, race, and socio-economic class, became a powerful tool for circulating stereotypes. The interplay between legacy and social media can serve to reproduce stereotypes and marginalization, as is evident in the case of Sweet Brown.Contexte Les médias sociaux peuvent être un outil puissant servant à gagner des appuis pour des causes sociales, la mobilisation politique et des commentaires sociaux. Cependant, ils peuvent aussi véhiculer des propos incendiaires et des stéréotypes sociaux, souvent au moyen de mèmes. Cet article explore le cas d’une Américaine surnommée Sweet Brown, qu’une interview sur un incendie local a subitement rendue célèbre en 2012.Analyse L’article comporte une analyse de cadre sur la manière dont les médias traditionnels et sociaux ont dépeint Sweet Brown. Cette analyse suggère que les médias sociaux facilitent et même encouragent une approche réductionniste.Conclusion et implications L’apparence de Sweet Brown, qui évoque le genre, la race et la classe socioéconomique, est devenue un outil puissant pour faire circuler des stéréotypes. Son cas montre que l’interaction entre médias traditionnels et médias sociaux peut contribuer à la reproduction de stéréotypes et à la marginalisation.
Background This article examines the discourse around the digital surveillance of those living on social assistance by analyzing two digital “anti-fraud” tracking tools: Ontario’s Social Assistance Management System and Australia’s BasicsCard system.Analysis Digital surveillance and big data analytical processes embedded in the utilization of digital “anti-fraud” tracking tools tend to operate outside of democratic processes, outpace ethical considerations, and even create and reinforce social divisions and inequality.Conclusion and implications Despite the claim that these software programs make about saving taxpayers’ money and assisting those in need more effectively, these digital tools adversely affect the people they are supposed to help and, worse, stigmatize and criminalize those who live in poverty.Contexte Cet article examine le discours entourant la surveillance numérique des assistés sociaux en analysant deux outils prétendument antifraudes : le Système automatisé de gestion de l’aide sociale en Ontario et le système BasicsCard en Australie.Analyse L’utilisation d’outils numériques « antifraudes » entraîne une surveillance numéri-que et des processus d’analyse de mégadonnées qui tendent à entraver les processus démocratiques et les considérations éthiques, jusqu’à créer et renforcer des divisions et des inégalités sociales.Conclusion et implications On prétendra que ces logiciels allègent le fardeau fiscal des contribuables et permettent d’offrir une aide plus efficace à ceux et celles qui en ont réellement besoin. En réalité, ces outils numériques ont un effet néfaste sur ceux et celles qu’ils sont censés aider et, pire, ils stigmatisent et criminalisent les pauvres.
Background In 2014, a Twitter discussion of seal hunting, using the hashtag #sealfie, spurred a digital conflict between two rights movements—Indigenous rights in Canada and animal rights. This digital controversy touches on race, class, and geography.Analysis The hashtag’s life on Twitter obscures the two movements’ shared challenges: the undeniably neoliberal context consisting of ongoing economic struggles in northern and remote communities, and the continued loss of wildlife habitat.Conclusions and implications The authors analyze the #sealfie Twitter content generated between 2014 and 2017, exploring the tensions between the claims of the Indigenous rights and animal rights movements. They probe the failure of Twitter, and more generally social media, to generate a climate of genuine debate, and they consider how such digital platforms can serve as echo chambers for stereotypes and discriminatory discourse. Contexte En 2014, une discussion sur Twitter utilisant le mot-clic #sealfie a entraîné un conflit en ligne entre deux mouvements, l’un sur les droits autochtones au Canada et l’autre sur les droits des animaux. Cette controverse internet traita de race, classe et géographie.Analyse La présence de #sealfie sur Twitter occulta les défis partagés par les deux mouvements : le contexte indubitablement néolibéral de difficultés économiques persistantes dans les communautés nordiques et reculées et la perte continue d’habitat faunique.Conclusions et implications Les auteures analysent le contenu associé à #sealfie sur Twitter entre 2014 et 2017, explorant ainsi les tensions entre le mouvement autochtone et celui pour les animaux. Elles examinent l’échec de la part de Twitter, et des médias sociaux en général, de créer un contexte propice à de véritables débats. Elles considèrent en outre comment de telles plateformes numériques peuvent servir de caisse de résonance pour les stéréotypes et les propos discriminatoires.
Elliott's collection brings communication studies to the core of food studies, and this makes it a long-overdue book. While not all authors are communication scholars, the range of topics covered in the book are representative of how enmeshed the study of food and the study of human communication are. The title of the book alludes to a Canadian focus and many of the contributions deal with Canadian identities in relation to food. The subtitle, Food Promotion, Consumption, and Controversy, prepares the reader for the collection that largely deals with issues around consumption of food and food media, and its place in the economic system that underpins it. Though the quality of its seventeen chapters is somewhat uneven-with some appearing undercooked, and others baked to perfection-the collection as a whole makes for an interesting read.Chapter 1, "Communicating Food Quality" by Charlene Elliott and Wayne McCready, offers appetizing ideas about how place of origin is deployed as a marketing strategy to promote quality goods. The authors depict product placement as a mechanism to communicate a sense of distinction and superiority in high-end foods. Elliott and McCready successfully build on this argument by unveiling how food and place form a co-constitutive union. That said, food and its
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.