Who Says What? The Role of the Actor’s Political Position in Ideograph Construction

Mahfud Anshori, Pawito ., Drajat Tri Kartono, Sri Hastjarjo

Abstract


Previous studies have shown the relationship between ideology and narrative discourse between ideology and narrative discourse in political debates in parliament, protest movements, or discourse in the media that posit ideology and discourse as a single domination relationship but not in network relations. Consequently, the role of political actors in discourse becomes unattractive and is replaced by media studies. It was discovered that ideographs, and word artefacts, link socio-political cognition and political discourse in practice. They also narrate the ideology of political actors in their daily speeches and quotes in different media outlets, with the meanings presented in vast interpretations. However, these interpretative meanings rely on political function and are embedded in the political position. It is assumed that an ideograph serves as an ideological identity in public discourse while the political organisation of the actors determines the interpretative meaning. Therefore, two prominent ideographs in the Omnibus Law discourse on Job Creation, "welfare" and "democracy," were explored to show the "anchored meaning" and describe how ideological identity leads to the creation of ideographic meaning. We analyse the network of the two ideographs using Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) by Philip Leified and Ideographic Analysis (IA). The findings showed that the functional meaning of "welfare" and "democracy" depends on the use of actors in specific discourse. We concluded that the political position of actors in ideographic narratives plays a more dominant role in the relationship between ideology and narratives.

 

Keywords: Actor’s political position, discourse network analysis, ideograph, ideology, ideographic analysis.

 

https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2023-3902-20


Full Text:

PDF

References


Boyd, J. (2018). The truth about ideographs: Progress toward understanding and critique. In Ø. Ihlen & R. L. Heath (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp. 143–154). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119265771.ch10

Bubandt, N. (2006). Sorcery, corruption, and the dangers of democracy in Indonesia. Journal of The Royal Anthropological Institute, 12(2), 413–431. https://doi.org/fg99hj

Casero-Ripollés, A., Alonso-Muñoz, L., & Marcos-García, S. (2022). The influence of political actors in the digital public debate on Twitter about the negotiations for the formation of the government in Spain. American Behavioral Scientist, 66(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211003159

Claassen, C., & Magalhães, P. C. (2022). Effective government and evaluations of democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 55(5), 869–894. https://doi.org/kfh7

CNN Indonesia. (2020). Indeks media inklusif. https://imi.remotivi.or.id/media-cnn-indonesia

Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1976). Symbolic identifications and political behavior. American Politics Quarterly, 4(3), 305–332 https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X7600400302

Cohen, A. (2018). Likud’s rise to power and the ‘Democracy in Danger’ fearmongering campaign: Rhetoric vs. facts. Israel Affairs, 24(6), 1073–1092. https://doi.org/gqx7rh

Colley, L., & White, C. (2019). Neoliberal feminism: The neoliberal rhetoric on feminism by Australian political actors. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(8), 1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12303

Denton, R. E. (1980). The rhetorical functions of slogans: Classifications and characteristics. Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378009369362

Dumdum, O. O., & Bankston, L. (2021). The interplay of actors in political communication: The State of the Subfield. Political Communication, 39(2), 266-279. https://doi.org/gmhnvq

Fuoli, M., & Paradis, C. (2014). A model of trust-repair discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.09.001

Georgantzas, N. C., & Contogeorgis, G. D. (2012). Societal metamorphosis via authentic democracy principles. Human Systems Management, 31(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/kfh8

Guitar, J. (2020). is (not) a whistleblower: Ideographs, whistleblower protections, and restrictions of speech. First Amendment Studies, 54(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1742761

Hänggli, R. (2012). Key factors in frame building: How strategic political actors shape news media coverage. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 300–317. https://doi.org/bzsq74

Howe, A. C., Stoddart, M. C. J., & Tindall, D. B. (2020). Media coverage and perceived policy influence of environmental actors: Good strategy or pyrrhic victory? Politics and Governance, 8(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2595

Ivie, R. L., & Giner, O. (2010). Genealogy of myth in presidential rhetoric. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 301–316). Routledge. https://doi.org/kfjb

Jensen, K. (2021). Localized ideographs in education rhetoric: Polly Williams and a justice-driven ideology of choice. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 107(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/kfjc

Jiang, X., & González, A. (2021). and : The rhetoric of nationalism in the Voice of China. Journal of Contemporary China, 30(132), 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2021.1893553

Kelly, C. R. (2014). “We are not free”: The meaning of in American Indian Resistance to President Johnson’s War on poverty. Communication Quarterly, 62(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.922486

Kukkonen, A., Stoddart, M. C., & Ylä-Anttila, T. (2021). Actors and justifications in media debates on Arctic climate change in Finland and Canada: A network approach. Acta Sociologica, 64(1), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699319890902

Kuypers, J. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In P. D’Angelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis empirical and theoretical perspectives (1st ed., pp. 286–305). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864463

Leifeld, P. (2016). Discourse network analysis. In J. N. Victor, A. H. Montgomery, & M. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks (Vol. 1, Chapter 12). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190228217.013.25

Lijphart, A. (1968). Typologies of democratic systems. Comparative Political Studies, 1(1), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041406800100101

Luis, F., & Moncayo, G. (2017). Ideographs. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/kfjg

Matthes, J. (2012). Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426324

McGee, M. C. (1980). The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383499

Miller, H. T. (2019). Narrative subscription in public policy discourse. Critical Policy Studies, 13(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2018.1429937

Mounk, Y. (2018). The people vs. democracy why our freedom is in danger and how save it. Harvard University Press.

Müller, S. (2020). Media coverage of campaign promises throughout the electoral cycle. Political Communication, 37(5), 696–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1744779

Munck, G. L. (2016). What is democracy? A reconceptualization of the quality of democracy. Democratization, 23(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.918104

Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963

Quinsaat, S. (2014). Competing news frames and hegemonic discourses in the construction of contemporary immigration and immigrants in the United States. Mass Communication and Society, 17(4), 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2013.816742

Robinson, P. (2019). Expanding the field of political communication: Making the case for a fresh perspective through “propaganda studies.” Frontiers in Communication, 4(July). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00026

Rodelo, F. V., & Muñiz, C. (2019). Government frames and their influence on news framing: An analysis of cross-lagged correlations in the Mexican context. Global Media and Communication, 15(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766518818862

Rusadi, W. Y. S. U. (2019). Wacana pemberitaan diskriminasi terhadap Muslim Uyghur di Republika.co.id dan Kompas.com. Jurnal ISIP: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 16(2), 75–83. https://ejournal.iisip.ac.id/index.php/jisip/article/view/27/pdf_7

Schäfer, S. (2019). Democratic decline in Indonesia: The role of religious authorities. Pacific Affairs, 92(2), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.5509/2019922235

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

Schmid-Petri, H., Häussler, T., & Adam, S. (2016). Different actors, different factors? A comparison of the news factor orientation between newspaper journalists and civil-society actors. Communications, 41(4), 399–419. https://doi.org/gms9fw

Shaw, S. (2022). Authoritarian leadership: Is democracy in peril? Philosophy & Social Criticism, 48(9), 1247–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211072882

Sigafoos, J., & Organ, J. (2021). ‘What about the poor people’s rights?’ The dismantling of social citizenship through access to justice and welfare reform policy. Journal of Law and Society, 48(3), 362–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12312

Stassen, H. M., & Bates, B. R. (2020). Beers, Bros, and Brett: Memes and the visual ideograph of the . Communication Quarterly, 68(3), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2020.1787477

Stockmann, D., Hartman, K., & Luo, T. (2020). The political position generator—A new instrument for measuring political ties in China. Social Networks, 63, 70–79. https://doi.org/ghjn34

Tomsa, D. (2010). Indonesian politics in 2010: The perils of stagnation. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 46(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2010.522501

Wallaschek, S. (2020). Framing solidarity in the Euro crisis: A comparison of the German and Irish media discourse. New Political Economy, 25(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/kfjk

Zafirovski, M. (2011). Liberty, life, and happiness for all: The ideals and legacies of the enlightenment in modern societies revisited. In M. Zafirovski (Ed.), The enlightenment and its effects on modern society (pp. 1–18). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/d9vbr6

Zaini, Sariono, A., & Subaharianto, A. (2013). Perbandingan penggunaan bahasa Indonesia pada Harian Jawa Pos dan Kompas. Publika Budaya, 1(1), 53–63. http://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/PB/article/view/339


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 2289-1528