Strategies of Inclusion and Exclusion in online and offline Interaction

Introduction

Identity is a crucial concept in the (self-)definition and (self-)representation of every human being. This concept is not stable, and it is continually formed, shaped, and negotiated through the interaction with others (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014, p. 5). Identity is characterised by both sameness and distinctiveness (Jacobson-Widding, 1983, p. 13) that influence not only personal identity but also collective identity (Jacobson-Widding, 1983, p. 13). Indeed, the construction of personal identity cannot be separated from the collective one and its social and cultural background (Erikson, 1968, p. 20; Jacobson-Widding, 1983, p. 14). More precisely, Erikson (1968, p. 19) focused on the continuity of personal identity defining sameness as sameness with oneself (Jacobson-Widding, 1983, p. 13). At the same time, sameness clearly refers also to collective identity because people that belong to a group must share some features (Jacobson-Widding, 1983, p. 13). On the other hand, distinctiveness concerns both personal and collective identity because it indicates the distinctions among groups of people (Jacobson-Widding, 1983, p. 13). It is also important to specify that in-group identity is often perceived as heterogeneous – since in-group social actors care about their self-identity and the differentiation from others –, while out-group identity is perceived as homogeneous (Brewer, 1993). The representation of in-group and out-group identities is linked to the processes of inclusion and exclusion. For instance, people who highly identify within a group will reinforce even more this attitude when there is an out-group threat that jeopardises their in-group identity (Branscombe et al., 1993, p. 382; Wilder & Shapiro, 1984). As a result, in-group and out-group identities are connected to the processes of inclusion and exclusion because these processes are crucial in the construction of both personal and collective identities. According to Brewer’s (1993) model of “optimal distinctiveness”:

[…] an individual’s sense of self is shaped by opposing needs for assimilation and differentiation between self and others. Assimilation is the inclusion of self and others in social categories defined by shared features or common interests. Differentiation is the exclusion of others from the definition of self (Brewer, 1993, p. 157).

Consequently, assimilation supports the process of inclusion and especially the sense of belonging to a group of people with common interests and features. Instead, differentiation involves both the exclusion of in-group people – since social actors preserve their distinctiveness – and especially the exclusion of out-group entities. Indeed, even the concept of community – from a psychological perspective – is pervaded by both positive and negative outcomes (Fisher & Sonn, 2007, p. 26) of inclusionary and exclusionary practices. The community’s dynamics involve supportive and positive feelings connected to the inclusion process (Fisher & Sonn, 2007, p. 26). At the same time, these dynamics can encourage the rise of negative feelings and actions – linked to the exclusion process – towards people who do not belong to the community such as stigmatisation and vilification (Fisher & Sonn, 2007, p. 26). For this reason, the existence of a community is based on the processes of inclusion and exclusion since there is the necessity to determine who can or cannot be considered a member of that group (Fisher & Sonn, 2007, p. 26).

Nowadays the processes of inclusion and exclusion – and consequently even the formation of personal and collective identities – are deeply interwoven with social media interaction because these online platforms provide new spaces for identity construction (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014). Specifically, in the current globalised world the processes concerning the formation of identity – such as inclusion and exclusion – are supported, increased, and extended to a large number of individuals since social media allows the creation of online communities that are formed by people in spite of their geographical locations (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014). For example, social media have been crucial in the (online) debate and in the spread of social movements such as #metoo (Mendes et al., 2018) and Thunberg’s Fridays for Future (Brünker et al., 2019; Soler i Martí et al., 2020). In addition, social media can be defined as eco chambers (Sunstein, 2007; Pariser, 2011) where discourses – especially political discourses – can be polarised (Barberá et al., 2015). The polarisation of discourses can lead to an enhancement of the in-group identity (Gillani et al., 2018) extremising the in-group positions (Cinelli et al., 2021) and to the exclusion of social actors who do not share those positions. The processes of inclusion and exclusion are similar in online and offline interactions but, as mentioned before, in online interaction they are enhanced by social media’s characteristics such as its free accessibility (Flew & Iosifidis, 2019, p. 9) that allows to a lot of people – who do not even know each other in real life – to gather and to create bonds (Fuchs, 2014, p. 35; Murthy, 2013, p. 3).

For instance, on social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook and Instagram) hashtags play a crucial role in connecting different people who do not necessarily share common values (Seargeant & Tagg, 2014, p. 142). Furthermore, hashtags are particularly useful in the organisation of online discourses (Scott, 2018; Zappavigna, 2015). According to Zappavigna, hashtags contribute to the searchability of online discourses facilitating the rise of new forms of social bonding (Zappavigna, 2015, p. 16). More precisely, hashtags have three main functions that contribute to searchability. Firstly, the interpersonal function facilitates the construction of relationships through evaluative stances (Zappavigna, 2015, p. 6). Secondly, the experiential function defines the posts’ discourses as being part of a particular kind of experience (Zappavigna, 2015, p. 6). Thirdly, the textual function organises the post textually since hashtags are metadata (Zappavigna, 2015, p. 6).

In addition, identity and its construction are connected to language (Tabouket-Keller, 2017) and its performativity (Austin, 1962; Butler, 1997) in both offline and online interactions. According to Tabouret-Keller (2017, p. 315):

The language spoken by somebody and his or her identity as a speaker of this language are inseparable: This is surely a piece of knowledge as old as human speech itself. Language acts are acts of identity.

Moreover, it should be specified that the process of communication involves the interactive participation of social actors who cooperate disseminating traces of their (social) identity (Gumperz, 1983, p. 111). Linguistic analyses have influenced – and intersected with – many fields of study such as anthropology, psychology and sociology (Gumperz, 1983, p. 112). In this regard, some Discourse Studies disciplines (e.g., Critical Discourse Analysis) – that are generally interdisciplinary fields of study – focus on language in use (van Dijk, 1997, p. 2) and perceive language as a social practice. This means that language is the product of social practices but, at the same time, it represents a tool capable to shape society and social order (Angermuller et al., 2014, p. 3). For this reason, linguistic behaviour should be considered and interpreted in the social context in which it is reproduced (Bhatia et al., 2008, p. 1). The Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach provides a clear example to understand how the processes of inclusion and exclusion – and consequently even the in-group and out-group identity formation – can be strategically performed through language. CDA pays particular attention to the relationship among language, power and ideology (Machin & Mayr, 2012) since language – as a form of social practice – can legitimise specific ideologies and normalise power inequalities (Machin & Mayr, 2012). The enhancement of the in-group identity can be achieved through specific linguistic strategies that represent the out-group entities as otherness and as dangerous threats. The out-group entities can be dehumanised, represented as threats that jeopardise social order, or they can even be suppressed through a rich variety of linguistic strategies (e.g., metaphorical representations, representational strategies, transitivity etc.). For instance, these inclusionary and exclusionary linguistic practices are currently relevant and visible in right-wing politicians’ populist discourses (Wodak, 2015). Although the boundaries of a community are the product of social and cultural practices, (far) right-wing politicians often present the community and its boundaries – based on ethnic identity (Meeus et al., 2010, p. 307) – as a fixed order that cannot and should not be changed. Furthermore, this fixed social order is strengthened by these politicians through the construction of otherness that is formed by out-group threats such as immigrants – who threaten the in-group cultural and religious identity (Meeus et al., 2010, p. 306) –, feminist movements and the LGBTQ+​ community that strongly destabilise the social status quo (e.g., the concept of traditional family and traditional gender roles) (Mudde, 2019). However, the polarised and common dichotomy us versus them is not limited to the social actors already mentioned (e.g., immigrants), but it can be also generally extended to every out-group entity that opposes to an in-group identity.

This volume aims to introduce different – and even less common – perspectives on identity construction as an interactional practice focusing on the analysis of communicative practices that may either facilitate or hinder effective online and offline interaction.

Chapter 2 by Francesca Ervas starts with the assumption that social networks communities can be described as “imagined communities” with “liquid” borders between the real and the imagined, characterised by “deferred rationality”, “epistemic bubbles” and misinterpretation. Ervas analyses two case studies of multimodal metaphors in a Facebook group (Italian political elections in March 2018 and the pro-vaccination versus anti-vaccination dispute on herd immunity) to show that even the multimodal and especially visual nature of communication, usually a powerful epistemic and persuasive device, may enhance and reinforce the epistemic bubbles in these communities.

In Chapter 3, Emanuela Campisi and Marco Venuti investigate how the label “politically correct” is used by Italian Twitter users, especially in contexts of offence and exclusion, by means of a corpus of Italian tweets containing the hashtags #politicamentecorretto and #politicallycorrect. The results show that, as for other countries, in Italy the label is used mainly with the purpose of offending somebody because of her/his attempt to use or promote an inclusive language. The findings are discussed with special reference to the lack of consensus around the importance of language as a tool to increase equality, and to the actual efficacy of PC practices as they have been implemented so far.