SÅ TALAR FLASHBACK. En kritisk retorikanalys av inlägg på en Flashback-tråd under statsministermötet 2022

Abstract

Political discourse on digital platforms has changed dramatically, where anonymity and new forms of communication influence both the tone and the content of discussions. This shift raises important questions about the role of rhetoric in online political discussions, as the tone and style of communication can influence public perception of political figures and the way they are questioned in public opinion. This can also influence people’s willingness to participate in political communications, which in turn may have consequences for democracy. Rhetorical tools such as ethos, pathos and logos are usable to understand how opinions are formed and expressed, while the concepts of civility and incivility can help define the line between respectful and disrespectful political communication. In this context, gender constitutes a central aspect to consider, as research shows that male and female politicians are treated differently and risk being affected by unequal power relations. This gender-specific dynamic is therefore important to consider when rhetorical strategies and expressions of civility or incivility manifest in digital political discussions. This study focuses on the platform Flashback, which is an anonymous discussion forum often characterized by controversial debates. We will analyze how rhetorical tools and civility/incivility interact on the platform, and how these dynamics may relate to the gender of party leaders. The aim of this study was to examine the use of rhetorical strategies - ethos, pathos and logos - in a discussion about the politicians Magdalena Andersson and Ulf Kristersson. The study also seeked to analyze how the concepts and dimensions of civility and incivility are manifested in the discussion. The dimensions applied in the analysis were civility/incivility as politeness/impoliteness, justificatory and moral. To explore this, we analyzed posts from a Flashback thread created in response to SVT’s 2022 prime ministerial debate between Andersson and Kristersson. Furthermore, the study aimed to identify whether rhetorical strategies and forms of civility or incivility vary depending on the party leader's gender. To fulfil the study's aim, the following research questions were formulated: 1. In what ways are rhetorical strategies and expressions of civility/incivility manifested in the Flashback posts, and what combinations of these occur? 2. Are there patterns in how the posts express rhetorical tools and civility/incivility in relation to the party leader's gender? By using the method of critical rhetorical analysis, we were able to investigate how language and rhetoric are used to express opinions about politicians Magdalena Andersson and Ulf Kristersson within a digital setting. This method allows for a detailed interpretation of how messages are constructed and their influence on maintaining or questioning societal norms. The analysis and results showed that the rhetorical tool pathos, which refers to emotional appeal, often appeared alongside with incivility as impoliteness characterized by rude and disrespectful language. This combination was also the most frequent among the posts concerning Magdalena Andersson. The other combinations found in the the posts included pathos and moral incivility alongside incivility as impoliteness, logos and justificatory incivility, ethos and civility as politeness and finally pathos and civility as politeness. Our analysis revealed that posts concerning Magdalena Andersson often used emotional and negative language, as well as rude expressions. In contrast, posts about Ulf Kristersson typically either praise his communication or criticize him in a polite and respectful manner. However, Flashback is characterized by controversial opinions and brief posts, which shape the tone of the platform and may explain the dominant combination of pathos and incivility as impoliteness. It’s also important to note that Magdalena Andersson was already serving as prime minister at the time of the debate, which may have contributed to the greater amount of criticism directed at her, as Ulf Kristersson’s politics had not yet been implied in society.