Fandom and Polarisation in Online Political Discussion: From Pop Culture to Politics

This book takes an innovative fan studies approach to investigating one of the most pressing issues of contemporary times: polarization. Drawing on three years of observational data from Facebook political discussions, as well as interviews and survey responses from those heavily engaged in online political debate, Barnes argues a fan-like investment in a political perspective initiates and drives polarization. She calls on us to move beyond the traditional Habermasian approach to political discussion, which privileges the rational and deliberative, and instead focus on how we perform the self. How we behave in these online debates is part of a performance, a performance of self, in which an affective investment in a particular political perspective drives a need to contribute, refute and other those opposing. Because this performance stems from an emotional basis, judgments and contributions are often not rational or factual, but rather a form of establishing and defending an identity. Renne Barnes is senior lecturer in Journalism at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia Acknowledgements 6 Contents 7 About the Author 8 List of Tables 9 Chapter 1: Introduction: Polarization, Fandom and Meeting in the Middle 10 What Exactly is Polarization? 12 Finding Political Talk Online 13 Why Fan Studies? 14 Anti-fandom and the Study of Dislike 15 Why Facebook? 17 Where to from Here? 17 References 20 Chapter 2: Getting Down in the Muck: Polarization and Online Debate 22 Introduction 22 Moving Beyond Ideological Polarization 23 Affective Polarization 25 Populism and Affective Polarization 27 Political Fragmentation Through Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles 30 An Emotionally Charged World 32 Beyond the Ideals of Deliberation and Rational Consensus 34 Conclusion 37 References 38 Chapter 3: Finding the Fan and Anti-fan: Fan Studies as an Interpretative Frame for Political Polarization 46 Introduction 46 You Call Yourself a Fan? 47 Intensity of Affective Engagement 49 Pleasure from Consumption, Collective Meaning-Making and Appropriation 51 Community, Social Interaction and Identity Performance 53 Anti-fandom: Loving to Hate 55 Politics, Fandom, Activism and Citizenship 60 Conclusion 63 References 64 Chapter 4: Loving to Hate: Fandom Fuelling Polarised Behaviour 69 Introduction 69 Identity Performance 71 The Role of Emotion and Affective Investment 79 Pleasure, Entertainment and Humour 85 Conclusion 89 References 91 Chapter 5: Can We Debate Away the Hate? 95 Introduction 95 The Group 96 Locating the Fan 98 Moderation and the Importance of Policing 102 Community Life Cycle 105 Disembedding as a Participatory Practice 108 Conclusion 110 References 111 Chapter 6: ‘Fake news,’ Polarization and Fan-like Behaviours 114 Introduction 114 What Is Fake News? 116 Media Trust and the Fake News Label 117 The Role of Social Media 118 Affective Interpretation of Information 120 Politics of Against and Fake News 122 The Who, Not the What 124 Fan-like Identity Performance, Family, Friends and Networks 126 Seeing is Believing 129 Conclusion 130 References 131 Chapter 7: Conclusion: Politics and the Political Informed by Fandom 135 Examining the Fringes 138 Disillusionment with Politics 140 Not Forgetting the Listeners 141 Conclusion 142 References 143 Method Appendix 146 National Settings of Study 147 Observations 148 News Pages 148 Private Facebook Group 149 Interviews 150 Australian News Commenters 151 Private Facebook Group Members 153 Surveys 153 Analysis 158 A Couple of Final Notes 159 References 161 Index 164 "This book takes an innovative fan studies approach to investigating one of the most pressing issues of contemporary times: polarization. Drawing on three years of observational data from Facebook political discussions, as well as interviews and survey responses from those heavily engaged in online political debate, Barnes argues a fan-like investment in a political perspective initiates and drives polarization. She calls on us to move beyond the traditional Habermasian approach to political discussion, which privileges the rational and deliberative, and instead focus on how we perform the self. How we behave in these online debates is part of a performance, a performance of self, in which an affective investment in a particular political perspective drives a need to contribute, refute and 'other' those opposing. Because this performance stems from an emotional basis, judgments and contributions are often not rational or factual, but rather a form of establishing and defending an identity."--Fourni par l'éditeur