Litmus Test for a Democratic Public Sphere? Discussion on the Abortion Issue on Polish Twitter

• Authors: Julia Trzcińska

Title variants

PL

Papierek lakmusowy demokratycznej sfery publicznej? Dyskusja na temat aborcji na polskim twitterze

Abstracts

PL

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie kluczowych wniosków z analizy dyskusji na temat aborcji przeprowadzonej na polskim Twitterze. Media społecznościowe są narzędziem służącym tzw. peryferiom politycznym, a wraz z pandemią COVID-19 stają się kluczowe także w naszej codziennej komunikacji. Mając na uwadze ich ważną rolę, przeanalizowano dyskusję toczącą się na Twitterze na temat aborcji i protestów Strajku Kobiet, które miały miejsce w październiku 2020 r. w Polsce. Dyskusja na temat samej aborcji w wielu krajach prowokuje szersze pytania o stan dyskursu publicznego i procesów demokratycznych, a protesty przyniosły jeszcze więcej pytań o wolność słowa czy prawo do protestu. Ponad 68 tys. tweetów zostało zebranych i przeanalizowanych za pomocą oprogramowania MAXQDA, aby odpowiedzieć na pytania badawcze dotyczące autorów wpisów, reprezentacji różnych stron konfliktu oraz potencjału Twittera jako platformy komunikacji wspierającej sferę publiczną. Analiza wykazała duży potencjał, jaki ma Twitter dla polskiego dyskursu publicznego, ale także wiele przeszkód, problemów, a nawet podziałów społecznych ujawniających się w analizowanej dyskusji.

EN

The paper’s aim is to present key findings of the analysis of the discussion on the abortion issue on Polish Twitter. Social media are believed to be a tool serving the political periphery to participate in political discourse and with the COVID- 19 pandemic they have become crucial in our everyday communication. In this context, the Twitter discussion on abortion issue and Women’s Strike protests that took place in October 2020 in Poland was analyzed. The discussion on the abortion issue itself in many countries brings broader questions on the state of public discourse and democratic processes, and the protests brought even more inquiries about freedom of speech or the right to protest. In total, 68,716 tweets were collected from October 20 till November 15, 2020, and analyzed with MAXQDA software to answer two main research questions: RQ1: Who was shaping the discussion in the analyzed period? RQ2: Were the two sides of the conflict represented in the discussion? The analysis showed great potential that Twitter has for Polish public discourse, but also many obstacles, problems, and even social cleavages manifesting in the analyzed discussion.

Keywords

EN

public discourse; polarized society; abortion issue; Poland; Twitter

PL

dyskurs publiczny; społeczeństwo spolaryzowane; kwestia aborcji; Polska; Twitter

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek
• Journal: Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 75
• Pages: 157-176

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Julia Trzcińska

• University of Wrocław

References

• BBC News. (2020, July 29). Mexico Supreme Court Rejects State’s Bid to Decriminalise Abortion. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53584575.
• Benkler, Y. (2006).The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Berer, M. (2017). Abortion Law and Policy Around the World: In Search of Decriminalization. Health and Human Rights, 19(1), 13–27.
• Bielińska-Kowalewska, K. (2017). #czarnyprotest: The Black Protest for Abortion Rights in Poland. New Politics, 16(2), 53–60.
• Bouvier, G., & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2020a). Communication in the Age of Twitter: The Nature of Online Deliberation. In: G. Bouvier, & J.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.). Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation (pp. 1–22). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bouvier, G., & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2020b). Afterword: Twitter and the Democratization of Politics. In: G. Bouvier & J.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.). Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation (pp. 315–324). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Chełstowska, A. (2011). Stigmatisation and Commercialisation of Abortion Services in Poland: Turning Sin into Gold. Reproductive Health Matters, 19(37), 98–106. DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(11)37548-9.
• della Porta, D., & Mattoni, A. (2015). Social Networking Sites in Pro-democracy and Anti-austerity Protests: Some Thoughts from a Social Movement Perspective. In: D. Trottier, & C. Fuchs (Eds.). Social Media, Politics and the State: Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (pp. 39–65). New York & London: Routledge.
• Einspänner, J., Dang-Anh, M., & Thimm, C. (2014). Computer-Assisted Content Analysis of Twitter Data. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. 97–108). New York: Peter Lang.
• Entman, R.M., & Usher, N. (2018). Framing in a Fractured Democracy: Impacts of Digital Technology on Ideology, Power and Cascading Network Activation.Journal of Communication, 68(2), 298–308. DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqx019.
• Ferree, M.M., Gamson, W.A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping Abortion Discourse Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gainous, J., & Wagner, K.M. (2014). Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Galasińska, A., & Galasiński, D. (2010). Living between History and the Present: The Polish Post-Communist Condition. In: A. Galasińska, & D. Galasiński (Eds.). The Post-Communist Condition: Public and Private Discourses of Transformation (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/ dapsac.37.01gal.
• Galdieri, C.J., Lucas, J.C., & Sisco, T.C. (2018). Introduction: Politics in 140 Characters or Less. In: C.J. Galdieri, J.C. Lucas, & T.C. Sisco (Eds.). The Role of Twitter in the 2016 US Election (pp. 1–5). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319- 68981-4_1.
• Gee, J.P. (2001). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London & New York: Routledge.
• Hixson, K. (2018). Candidate Image: When Tweets Trump Tradition. In: C.J. Galdieri, J.C. Lucas, & T.C. Sisco (Eds.). The Role of Twitter in the 2016 US Election (pp. 45–62). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Hunter, J.D. (1994). Before the Shooting Begins. New York: The Free Press.
• Hussein, J., Cottingham, J., Nowicka, W., & Kismodi, E. (2018). Abortion in Poland: Politics, Progression and Regression. Reproductive Health Matters, 26(52), 11–14. DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1467361.
• Jelen, T.G., & Wilcox, C. (1997). Attitudes toward Abortion in Poland and the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 78(4), 907–921.
• Johnson, A.J., & Cionea, I.A. (2020). An Exploratory Mixed-Method Analysis of Interpersonal Arguments on Twitter. In: G. Bouvier, & J.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.).Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation (pp. 205–231). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kemp, S. (2021, February 11). Hootsuite. Digital 2021: Poland. Retrieved from: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-poland.
• Lakomy, M. (2014). Tweety na szczycie. Polityka responsywna. Studia Medioznawcze, 2, 153–164.
• Layman, G.C., & Carsey, T.M. (1998). Why Do Party Activists Convert? An Analysis of Individual-Level Change on the Abortion Issue. Political Research Quarterly, 51(3), 723–749. DOI: 10.1177/106591299805100308.
• Lee, J., & Xu, W. (2018). The More Attacks, the More Retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s Agenda Setting on Twitter. Public Relations Review, 44(2), 201–213.DOI: 10.1016/j. pubrev.2017.10.002.
• Maireder, A. & Ausserhofer, J. (2014). Political Discourses on Twitter: Networking Topics, Objects, and People. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. 305–318). New York: Peter Lang.
• Mango, T. (2017). Abortion in Poland: A Question of Individual Responsibility and Ethics. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 2(3), 94–99.
• Maragh-Lloyd, R. (2020). Civic Debate and Self-Care: Black Women’s Community Care Online. In: G. Bouvier, & J.E. Rosenbaum (Eds.). Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation (pp. 101–120). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Marietta, M., Cote, T., Farley, T., & Murphy, P. (2018). Less Is More Ideological: Conservative and Liberal Communication on Twitter in the 2016 Race. In: C.J. Galdieri, J.C. Lucas, & T.C. Sisco (Eds.).The Role of Twitter in the 2016 US Election (pp. 7–20). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Morgan, L.M. (2017). The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health Care and AntiAbortion Activism: Examples from Latin America. Health and Human Rights, 19(1), 41–53.
• Mowbray, M. (2014). Automated Twitter Accounts. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. 184–194). New York: Peter Lang.
• Murthy, D. (2018). Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion.Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x.
• Norris, P. (2012). The Impact of Social Media on the Arab Uprisings: The Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube Revolutions? Paper presented at Advancing Comparative Political Communication Research: New Frameworks, Designs and Data. Antwerp, Belgium: ECPR Joint Workshops.
• Ott, B.L., & Dickinson, G. (2019). The Twitter Presidency: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of White Rage. New York: Routledge.
• Ouyang, Y., & Waterman, R.H. (2020). Trump, Twitter, and the American Democracy Political Communication in the Digital Age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Papacharissi, Z. (2016). Affective Publics and Structures of Storytelling: Sentiment, Events and Mediality. Information, Communication, and Society, 19(3), 307–324. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1109697.
• Perry, L., & Joyce, P. (2018). Tweeting on the Campaign Trail: The When, How, and What of Donald Trump’s Tweets. In: C.J. Galdieri, J.C. Lucas, & T.C. Sisco (Eds.). The Role of Twitter in the 2016 US Election (pp. 63–74). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Pfeiffer, D. (2018). Yes, We (Still) Can: Politics in the Age of Obama, Twitter, and Trump. New York: General Central Publishing.
• Puschmann, C., Bruns, A., Mahrt, M., Weller, K., & Burgess, J. (2014). Epilogue: Why Study Twitter?. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. 425–432). New York: Peter Lang.
• Rogers, R. (2014). Foreword: Debanalising Twitter: The Transformation of an Object of Study. In: K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.). Twitter and Society (pp. ix–xxvi). New York: Peter Lang Lang.
• Salem, S. (2015). Creating Spaces for Dissent: The Role of Social Media in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. In: D. Trottier, & C. Fuchs (Eds.). Social Media, Politics and the State: Protests, Revolutions, Riots, Crime and Policing in the Age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (pp. 171–188). New York and London: Routledge.
• Sandre, A. (2013). Twitter for Diplomats. Geneve & Rome: DiploFoundation & Istituto Diplomatico.
• Szlek Miller, S. (1997). Religion and Politics in Poland: The Abortion Issue. Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, 39(1–2), 63–86. DOI: 10.1080/00085006.1997.11092143.
• Tribe, L.H. (1990). Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W.W. Norton.
• Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
• Turkewitz, J. (2020, March 2). Colombia Court Keeps Restrictive Abortion Law in Place. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/world/americas/colombia-abortion.html.
• Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social Media and the Arab Spring: Politics Comes First. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137. DOI: 10.1177/1940161212471716.
• Woodly, D.R. (2015).The Politics of Common Sense: How Social Movements Use Public Discourse to Change Politics and Win Acceptance. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London & New York: Continuum International Publishing House.

Identifiers

DOI

10.15804/athena.2022.75.09

Biblioteka Nauki

2163337