On resonance: a study of culture-dependent reinterpretations of extremist violence in Israeli media discourse

Abstract

When and why do communities accept novel ideas as intuitively convincing? In this study, we make use of the socio-cultural fragmentation of Israeli society to expose the discursive processes shaping the culture-dependent resonance of ideas. Specifically, we trace how Israeli president Reuven Rivlin’s interpretation of two lethal attacks by Jewish extremists on a Palestinian family and the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade was received across Israel’s ultra-orthodox, settler, LGBT, and Palestinian communities, as well as the mainstream right, center, and left. In a comparative analysis of media coverage catering to these groups, we distinguish six discursive responses to proposed ideas, which depend on their perception as plausible and appropriate given prior community beliefs. Our findings suggest a distinction between two possible meanings of resonance: Some ideas ‘click’ and are seamlessly appropriated in passing by a community, while others ‘strike a chord’ and raise a salient and emotional public debate.

Resonancia cultural y consonancia informativa como elementos favorecedores de la simbiosis discursiva entre activismo y periodismo en protestas educativas

“…Por tanto, la resonancia no debiera entenderse más que como un efecto elaborado sobre el discurso durante el proceso de producción periodística, siendo precisa la intervención del profesional de la información en busca de un determinado enfoque. En este sentido, los periodistas pueden ser considerados catalizadores del proceso de resonancia cultural, pues contribuyen a ello mediante un esfuerzo deliberado (Baden y David, 2018).…”

Discursive legitimation strategies: The evolving legitimation of war in Israeli public diplomacy

“…However, before a foreign ministry can influence its target audience’s perceptions and opinions by convincing them of the legitimacy of a war, its legitimations must ‘resonate’ with them: they must be widely accepted as intuitively convincing and relevant and become part of the societally shared interpretation of the events (Baden and David, 2018). This line of research treats message resonance as a discursive process in which ideas are rendered persuasive and emphasizes both the cultural contingency of persuasive appeal (Gamson et al, 1992; Gamson and Modigliani, 1989; Snow and Benford, 1988) and the alignment of prior knowledge and new ideas (Harcup and O’Neill, 2001; Tversky and Kahneman, 1973) as factors in the ability of messages to yield resonance.…”

“…These two factors – cultural belief systems and prior knowledge – give rise to a distinction between epistemic resonance (when a message is rendered descriptively correct) and normative resonance (when a message is rendered morally appropriate). By examining how the discursive process takes place in culturally distinct communities, Baden and David (2018) have established a framework for how ideas transform in order to obtain resonance. For instance, if a message fails to align with the previously held knowledge of the target audience, but nevertheless appears morally appropriate, rephrasing the message to align with the symbolic universe of the target audience results in resonance.…”

“…For instance, if a message fails to align with the previously held knowledge of the target audience, but nevertheless appears morally appropriate, rephrasing the message to align with the symbolic universe of the target audience results in resonance. Conversely, when messages appear undeniably correct though morally inappropriate, elaborating the message by bringing new evidence or expanding the detail and context makes the audience reconcile the message with their shared cultural values, which in turn results in resonance (Baden and David, 2018: 528). Consequently, using discourse to target and exploit the culturally shared perceptions and values of a Western audience will enable political actors to obtain resonance for their messages.…”

“…At that time, the perception of Western states was that IS constituted a global security threat and that an alliance of states ought to intervene militarily. By rephrasing the enemy, that is, equating the enemy with IS in order to connect with and exploit the symbolic universe of the target audience, the description of the war was shifted to emphasize new and emerging aspects that made sense to the audience in light of the current context (Baden and David, 2018). The evolution of the GWT discourse can consequently be seen as an example of how political leaders exploit current contextual factors by rephrasing them, thereby incorporating them into legitimation strategies in order to preserve or reinforce resonance with a target audience.…”