HATE SPEECH AS A FORM OF MANIFESTATION OF CONFLICTS BASED ON STEREOTYPES

UDC 81'1

  • Vasilenko Ekaterina Nikolayevna – PhD (Philology), Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University (1, Kosmonavtov str., 212022, Mogilev, Republic of Belarus). E-mail: e.n.vasilenko@gmail.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52065/2520-6729-2021-249-2-90-97

Key words: hate speech, conflict, speech, linguoconflictology, speech crime, stereotype, prejudice, social group, verbal aggression, intolerant discourse, discourse of hate.

For citation: Vasilenko E. N. Hate speech as a form of manifestation of conflicts based on stereotypes. Proceedings of BSTU, issue 4, Print- and Mediatechnologies, 2021, no. 2 (244), pp. 90–97 (In Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52065/2520-6729-2021-249-2-90-97.

Abstract

The relevance of hate speech studies in modern humanities can hardly be overestimated. Hate speech as a form of manifestation of hostility towards certain social groups carries a significant social danger, since it can be an indicator of discrimination or intolerance and lead to the development of social conflicts of different levels. Hate speech is always based on social prejudices and stereotypes, which makes it necessary to study it as a form of manifestation of conflicts based on stereotypes.

The article considers hate speech from the standpoint of linguoconflictology. Special attention is paid to the concept of speech crimes, hate speech being their immediate component. Hate speech is understood as a set of language means expressing negative, based on stereotypes or prejudices, attitude towards the addressee as a carrier of values different from those of the addresser and, as a result, verbalizing one or another type of discrimination or intolerance. Stereotypes are viewed as the basis of the process of social categorization. It is concluded that hate speech as a form of manifestation of intergroup conflicts based on stereotypes – in contrast to verbal aggression – can possess a “milder” character, is always aimed at a certain social group and is based on the fundamental semiotic opposition ‘we’ versus ‘other’. Hate speech is recognized as an immediate component of intolerant discourse.

Download

References

  1. Vasilenko E. N. Hate speech as an object of scientific research and as a social phenomenon (theoretical grounding of research prospects). Filologiya i chelovek [Philology and Person], 2019, no. 4, pp. 136–145 (In Russian).
  2. Vasilenko E. Online hate speech in Belarus: Highlighting the topical issues. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 2021, vol. 66, issue 4, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1515/slaw-2021-0026.
  3. Paz M. A., Montero-Díaz J., Moreno-Delgado A. Hate Speech: A Systematized Review. SAGE Open, 2020, no. 10, pp. 1–12. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244020973022 (accessed 23.05.2021). DOI: 10.1177/2158244020973022.
  4. Assimakopoulos S., Baider F. H., Millar S. Online hate speech in the European Union: a discourseanalytic perspective. Cham, Springer Publ., 2017. 90 p.
  5. Pejchal V. Hate speech regulation in post-communist countries: Migrant crises in the Czech and Slovak Republics. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2018, vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 58–74. Available at: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/905/668 (accessed 23.05.2021). DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i2.500.
  6. Vasilenko E. Xenophobic rhetoric: Thematic organization of intolerant discourse. Filologichni studii'. Naukoviy visnik Krivoriz’kogo derzhavnogo pedagogichnogo universitetu [Philological Studies: Scientific Bulletin of Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University], 2020, issue 21, pp. 123–132 (In Russian).
  7. Ortiz S. M. “You can say I got desensitized to it”: How men of color cope with everyday racism in online gaming. Sociological Perspectives, 2019, vol. 62, issue 4, pp. 572–588. DOI: 10.1177/0731121419837588.
  8. Graham R. Race, social media, and deviance. In: Holt T. J., Bossler A. M. (eds.) The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan Publ., 2020, pp. 67–90.
  9. Hill A. Free speech v. free blacks: Racist policing and calls to harm. First Amendment Studies, 2020, vol. 54, issue 2, pp. 190–196. DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837655.
  10. Mason-Bish H., Duggan M. ‘Some men deeply hate women, and express that hatred freely’: Examining victims’ experiences and perceptions of gendered hate crime. International Review of Victimology, 2020,
    vol. 26, issue 1, pp. 112–134. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269758019872903 (accessed 23.05.2021). DOI: 10.1177/0269758019872903.
  11. Oliva T. D., Antonialli D. M., Gomes A. Fighting hate speech, silencing drag queens? Artificial intelligence in content moderation and risks to LGBTQ voices online. Sexuality & Culture, 2021, vol. 25, pp. 700–732. DOI:10.1007/s12119-020-09790-w.
  12. Vasilenko E. Gender-biased hate speech functioning in media: factor-production specifics (a Belarusian case study). In: Oukhvanova I., Senderska J. (eds.) Discourse linguistics and beyond. Vol. 5: Types of discourses via applied research. Kielce, UJK Publ., 2019, pp. 119–133 (In English).
  13. Vasilenko E. Sexist hate speech: Topical organization of intolerant discourse. Językoznawstwo, 2020, no. 14, pp. 47–60. DOI: 10.25312/2391-5137.14/2020_03ev.
  14. Vasilenko E. Gender-based hate speech in Belarus: Factors and specifics. Filologichni studii. Naukoviy visnik Krivoriz’kogo derzhavnogo pedagogichnogo universitetu [Philological Studies: Scientific Bulletin of Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University], 2019, issue 20, pp. 21–28 (In Russian).
  15. Lakoff R. T. The language war. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press Publ., 2000. 322 p.
  16. Sharonov I. A., Kozodaeva M. Impoliteness and “anti-politeness”: two targets of speech etiquette. Materialy Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. “Vezhlivost’ i antivezhlivost’ v yazyke i kommunikatsii” [Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Politeness and anti-politeness in Language and communication”]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 292–299 (In Russian).
  17. Tret’yakova V. S. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech. Izvestiya Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [News Ural Federal University Journal], series 1, Problems of Education, Science and Culture, 2003, no. 27, pp. 143–152 (In Russian).
  18. Golev N. D. The legitimization of language conflicts as the basis of their typology. Yurislingvistika [Legal linguistics], 2008, no. 9, pp. 137–156 (In Russian).
  19. Chernyshova T. V. Linguoconflictology: new opportunities for the formation of competencies of Masters of Journalism. Uchenyye zapiski Novgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Memoirs of Novgorod State University], 2015, no. 1 (1), pp. 1–4 (In Russian). Available at: https://www.novsu.ru/file/1147339 (accessed 18.07.2021).
  20. Kara-Murza E. S. Linguoconflictology and conflicts in the Russian media space (double case analysis). Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Science Journal of Volgograd State University], series 2, Linguistics, 2020, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 18–27 (In Russian).
  21. Kara-Murza E. S. Linguoconflictology as a direction in the spirit of language ecology. Ekologiya yazyka i kommunikativnaya praktika [Ecology of Language and Communicative Practice], 2014, no. 2, pp. 55–68 (In Russian).
  22. Ratinov A. R. The lawyer's afterword. “When they are not shy in their expressions...”. In: Simonov A. K., Gorbanevskiy M. V. (eds.) Ponyatiya chesti, dostoinstva i delovoy reputatsii. Spornyye teksty SMI i problemy ikh analiza i otsenki yuristami [Concepts of honour, dignity and business reputation. Controversial media texts and problems of their analysis and evaluation by lawyers]. Moscow, 2004, pp. 101–116 (In Russian).
  23. Zakonodatel’stvo protiv prestupleniy na pochve nenavisti: Prakticheskoye rukovodstvo [Hate crime laws: A practical guide]. ODIHR. Warsaw, Polygrafus Andrzej Adamiak Publ, 2009. 82 p. Available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/a/1/36427.pdf (accessed 18.07.2021).
  24. Mikhaylova O. A. Tolerance in speech communication: cognitive, pragmatic and ethical grounds. Kul’turnyye praktiki tolerantnosti v rechevoy kommunikatsii [Cultural practices of tolerance in speech communication]. Ekaterinburg, 2004, pp. 15–26 (In Russian).
  25. Krysin L. P. Tolerance as a sociolinguistic category. Kul’turnyye praktiki tolerantnosti v rechevoy kommunikatsii [Cultural practices of tolerance in speech communication]. Ekaterinburg, Izd-vo Ural’skogo universiteta Publ., 2004, pp. 27–32 (In Russian).
  26. Agadullina E. R. Social categorization: ideas about the object and the specifics of the process. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta [Moscow State University Bulletin], series 14, Phsychology, 2008, no. 1, pp. 114–120 (In Russian).
  27. Fiske S. T., Neuberg S. L. A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York, 1990, vol. 23, pp. 1–74. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2.
  28. Whitley B. E. Jr., Kite M. E. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Publ., 2010. 692 p.
  29. Kunda Z., Spencer S. J. When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goalbased theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological bulletin, 2003, vol. 129, pp. 522–544. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.522.
  30. Astafurova T. N., Olyanich A. V. Semiolinguistics of protective communication. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Science Journal of Volgograd State University], series 2, Linguistics, 2019, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 172–181 (In Russian).
  31. Nelson T. The psychology of prejudice. New York, Allyn & Bacon, 2002. 308 p. (Russ. ed.: Nel'son T. Psikhologiya predubezhdeniy. St. Petersburg, Praym-Evroznak Publ., 2003. 384 p.)
  32. Lippmann W. The world outside and the pictures in our heads. Public opinion. 1922, pp. 3–32 (In English).
  33. Bargh J. The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. Dual process theories in social psychology. New York, Guilford Press Publ., 1999, pp. 361–382.
  34. Stangor C., Jhangiani R., Tarry H. Principles of Social Psychology. Minneapolis, Open Textbook Library, 2014. 553 p. Available at: http://uilis.unsyiah.ac.id/oer/files/original/0580db2c157c3861211191e6b9b4f83e.pdf (accessed 23.08.2021).
  35. Linville P. W., Salovey P., Fischer G. W. Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An application to ingroup-outgroup perception. Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando, FL, Academic Press Publ., 1986, pp. 165–208.
  36. Vasilenko E. Hate speech as a manifestation of socio-political conflict. Kommunikatsiya v epokhu protestov [Communication in the era of protests], 2021, pp. 9–23 (In Russian).
  37. Khromenkov P. N. Lingvopragmatika konflikta: issledovaniya metodom kolichestvennogo kontentanaliza. Dis. … dokt. filol. nauk [Linguopragmatics of conflict: research by the method of quantitative content analysis. Diss. DSc (Phylosophy)]. Moscow, 2016. 405 p.
  38. Zaytsev A. K. Sotsial’nyy konflikt [Social conflict]. Moscow, Academia Publ., 2001. 461 p.
  39. Dzyaloshinskiy I. M. Dzyaloshinskaya M. I. Images of enmity in the Russian mass media: social, cultural, professional factors. Rossiyskiye SMI: kak sozdayetsya obraz vraga. Stat’i raznykh let [Russian mass media: how
    the image of the enemy is created. Articles of different years]. Cheboksary, 2019, pp. 168–182 (In Russian).
  40. Enina L. V. Ethnic tolerance in the reflection of the Ural dialects. Kul’turnyye praktiki tolerantnosti v rechevoy kommunikatsii [Cultural practices of tolerance in speech communication]. Ekaterinburg, 2004, pp. 150–164 (In Russian).
  41. Kuße H. Aggression und Argumentation. Mit Beispielen aus dem russisch-ukrainischen konflikt [Aggression and reasoning. With examples from the Russian-Ukrainian conflict]. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Publ., 2019. 230 p.
  42. Kirdun A. A., Andreeva A. V. Hate speech in modern mass communication in Belarus. Vestnik Minskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of Minsk State Linguistic University], series 1, Philology, 2017, no. 6 (91), pp. 100–110 (In Russian).
  43. Il'in E. P. Psikhologiya obshcheniya i mezhlichnostnykh otnosheniy [Psychology of communication and interpersonal relations]. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2009. 576 p.
  44. Vasilenko E. N. Hate speech: to the definition of the term. Sbornik statey Mezhdunar. nauch. konf., posvyashchennoy 105-letiyu MGU imeni A. A. Kuleshova “Romanovskiye chteniya – 13” [Сollection of articles of the International Scientific Conference, dedicated to 105th anniversary of Mogilev State A. Kuleshov University “Romanov readings – 13”], Mogilev, 2019, pp. 126–127 (In Russian).
10.09.2021