Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 20:6 (2021) ► pp.894–912

The struggle between the power of language and the language of power

Pro- and anti-vaccination memes and the discursive construction of knowledge

ORCID logo | Aalborg University
| Aalborg University
In this study we look at how pro- and anti-vaccination groups construct alternative knowledge and facts discursively and linguistically in order to challenge or support the established scientific knowledge on vaccines. Through this case study we wish to examine how the power of language interacts with a language of power when memes in creative ways mimic, produce and reproduce scientific language and practices. Drawing on a dialogical-semiotic and a discourse theoretical analytical strategy, we, first, adopt Austin’s speech act theory and Bakhtin’s concept of speech genres to argue that memes are performative with an especially illocutionary force and are made up of alien language from scientific discourses. Second, we argue that Laclau’s discursive approach to how political positions are articulated in an antagonistic terrain allows us to see vaccination memes as either subversive or supportive of a scientific social imaginary.
Keywords: alternative knowledge, dialogical-semiotic analysis, discourse analysis, internet memes, vaccination debate
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discursive contestations of knowledge and facts in digital public spheres
    • 2.1Speech act, speech genres and truth
    • 2.2Contested discourse on knowledge
  • 3.Methodology: Memes as text and discourse
    • 3.1Data
  • 4.Analysing memes as speech act, speech genre and the alien language
  • 5.Analysing memes as antagonistic discourse
  • 6.Conclusion: The power of language and the language of power
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19101.ros
References (32)
References
Askanius, Tina. 2013. “Online Political Activism and Political Mash-up Genres.” Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies 41: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 2003. “Truth”. In Philosophical Papers, ed. by J. O. Urmson, and G. J. Warnock. 118–133. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979 [1961]). Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. How To Do Things With Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. by J. O. Urmson, and M. Sbisà. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975 [1962].) Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online 2011. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. “Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination, ed. by Michael Holquist, trans. by Caryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist. 259–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1986. “The Problem of Speech Genres.” In Speech Genres & Other Late Essays, ed. by Carol Emerson, and Michael Holquist, trans. by Vern W. McGee. 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 1977. “Rhetoric of the Image”. In Image – Music – Text, ed. and trans. by Stephen Heath. 32–51. New York: The Noonday Press.Google Scholar
Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond. From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Buts, Jan. 2020. “Memes of Gandhi and mercury in anti-vaccination discourse.” Media and Communication 8 (2): 353–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campell, James B., Jason W. Busse, and H. Stephen Injeyan. 2000. “Chiropractors and Vaccination: A Historical Perspective.” American Academy of Pediatrics 43 (105):1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpentier, Nico, and Benjamin De Cleen. 2014. “Bringing Discourse Theory into Media Studies: The Applicability of Discourse Theoretical Analysis (DTA) for the Study of Media Practices and Discourses.” Journal of Language and Politics 6 (2): 265–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clarke, Christopher E. 2008. “A Question of Balance: The Autism-Vaccine Controversy in the British and American Elite Press.” Science Communication 30 (1): 77–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fenton, Natalie. 2012. “The Internet and Radical Politics.” In Misunderstanding the Internet, by James Curran, Natalie Fenton and Des Freedman. 149–176. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gauchat, Gordon. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review 77 (2): 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartley, John. 2010. “Silly Citizenship.” Critical Discourse Studies 7 (4): 233–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Amanda M., Sharlynn Thompson, Andrew Lac, and Frederick L. Coolidge. 2019. ”Fear and derision: A quantitative content analysis of provaccine and antivaccine internet memes.” Health, Education & Behaviour 46 (6): 1012–1023. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. “The Idiom of Co-production.” In States of Knowledges: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, ed. by Sheila Jasanoff. 1–12. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
. 2005. On Populist Reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
. 2005. On the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ross, Andrew S., and Damien J. Rivers. 2017. “Digital Cultures of Political Participation: Internet Memes and the Discursive Delegimization of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Candidates.” Discourse, Context and Media 161: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 1 (5):1–23. [URL]. DOI logo
Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge: Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strydom, Piet. 2008. “Risk communication: World Creation through Collective Learning under Complex Contingency Conditions.” Journal of Risk Research 11 (1): 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijck, José. 2012. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wakefield, Andrew J., Simon H. Murch, Andrew Anthony, John Linnell, David M. Casson, Mohsin Malik, Mark Berelowitz, Amar P. Dhillon, Michael A. Thomson, P. Harvey, Alan Valentine, Susan E. Davies, and John A. Walker-Smith. 1998. ”Ileal-lymphoid-nodular Hyperplasia, Non-specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children.” Lancet 351 (9103): 637–41 (retracted). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Bradley E., and G. Bret Bowers. 2015. “Memes as Genres: A Structurational Analysis of the Memescape.” New media & society 11 (17): 1886–1906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Tidy, Helen, Joanne Irving-Walton, Gary Currie, Leisa Nichols-Drew & Helen Page
2024. What do you meme? – Meme-Making as a research method. Teaching in Higher Education ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Klinge, Denise & Christina Müller
2023. Memes als Umgang mit der Corona-Pandemie – Aneignung und Auflehnung in Zeiten eines gesellschaftlichen Ausnahmezustandes. In Pädagogik des gesellschaftlichen Ausnahmezustandes, ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Yoon, Sunny
2023. The memefication of Squid Game and mimicry of Asian images. International Journal of Cultural Studies 26:5 ► pp. 497 ff. DOI logo
Hultin Morger, Fabia
2022. Populism in Internet Memes. An Investigation with Analytical Approaches from Discourse Analysis and Multimodality. tekst i dyskurs - text und diskurs :16 (2022) ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Roslyng, Mette Marie
2022. Between Populism and Popular Citizenship in Science Conflicts. In Populism and Science in Europe, ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.