DISSONANCE OF RIGHTS: DIGITAL SPACE, AN ENABLER OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ABORTION AMONGST SOME SOUTH AFRICANS

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION
E. Lubinga, Karabo Sitto
{"title":"DISSONANCE OF RIGHTS: DIGITAL SPACE, AN ENABLER OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ABORTION AMONGST SOME SOUTH AFRICANS","authors":"E. Lubinga, Karabo Sitto","doi":"10.18820/24150525/comm.v24.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1 ABSTRACT Discussions about abortion evoke strong, complex sentiments. In many societies, and religious and civil society organisations, using moral grandstanding drives polarised sentiments about abortion in the public sphere. These discussions frequently adopt a stance on the health of women versus the foetus that transcends health-related aspects to include the rights of women versus others in society. Yet the complexity and polarisation as reflected in public narratives has been underexplored. This article examines Twitter conversations on the topic. Through a social representation approach, the article analyses the representations made regarding termination of pregnancy, arising social representations, and the communication consequences. The social ecological model studies people in their environments and the influences they hold on each other. Netnography was used to analyse online conversations, which ultimately filtered into traditional media enabling convergence. This study contributes to communication scholarship by highlighting the growing role of social media to enable expression of various dissenting perspectives, from a “safe space” to a subject that would ordinarily be inaccessible through discordance .","PeriodicalId":41956,"journal":{"name":"Communitas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communitas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18820/24150525/comm.v24.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

1 ABSTRACT Discussions about abortion evoke strong, complex sentiments. In many societies, and religious and civil society organisations, using moral grandstanding drives polarised sentiments about abortion in the public sphere. These discussions frequently adopt a stance on the health of women versus the foetus that transcends health-related aspects to include the rights of women versus others in society. Yet the complexity and polarisation as reflected in public narratives has been underexplored. This article examines Twitter conversations on the topic. Through a social representation approach, the article analyses the representations made regarding termination of pregnancy, arising social representations, and the communication consequences. The social ecological model studies people in their environments and the influences they hold on each other. Netnography was used to analyse online conversations, which ultimately filtered into traditional media enabling convergence. This study contributes to communication scholarship by highlighting the growing role of social media to enable expression of various dissenting perspectives, from a “safe space” to a subject that would ordinarily be inaccessible through discordance .
权利的不和谐:数字空间,一些南非人关于堕胎的对话的推动者
1摘要关于堕胎的讨论引发了强烈而复杂的情绪。在许多社会、宗教和民间社会组织中,利用道德哗众取宠,在公共领域引发了对堕胎的两极分化。这些讨论经常对妇女与胎儿的健康采取超越健康相关方面的立场,包括妇女与社会其他人的权利。然而,公众叙事中所反映的复杂性和两极分化却被低估了。这篇文章探讨了推特上关于这个话题的对话。通过社会表征方法,本文分析了关于终止妊娠的表征、产生的社会表征以及传播后果。社会生态学模型研究环境中的人以及他们对彼此的影响。网络图被用来分析在线对话,这些对话最终被过滤到传统媒体中,从而实现融合。这项研究通过强调社交媒体在表达各种不同观点方面的日益重要的作用,为传播学术做出了贡献,从“安全空间”到通常无法通过不和谐来访问的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Communitas
Communitas COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信