Audience Engagement on Twitter: The Rijneveld Translation Controversy
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Audience Engagement on Twitter:
The Rijneveld Translation
Controversy
Laura Gurwin
Master of Art: Media and Communication: Culture, Collaborative Media, and
Creative Industries
Master’s Thesis, One-year Master | 15 Credits | Year: 2021
Supervisor: Signe Ivask
Examiner: Alessandro Nani
Examination date: June 1, 2021
Grade Awarded: A
Word count: 14,686
ABSTRACT
Much research exists on cancel culture and cultural gatekeeping. However, there
is little research on more recent examples of cancel culture stemming from the
Netherlands. The current study sought to examine how active Twitter users have
responded to what I have titled, the Rijneveld translation controversy on Twitter.
This controversy involves questions of racism or reverse racism after a Dutch
White translator, Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, reversed their decision to translate
works of the African-American writer, Amanda Gorman after receiving much
backlash from the public. This was followed by debates on Twitter causing an
uproar. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the different issue-
frames tweeted about by active Twitter users through a qualitative content
analysis. In order to inquire into the opinions addressed at various stages of the
controversy, tweets were collected over the course of three different time
periods. A general observation was that a majority of Twitter users were upset by
the pushback Rijneveld received and even regarded the situation as an example
of “reverse racism” and radical wokeism. Moreover, several different
actors/stakeholders were targeted or “called-out” by the “Twitter mob,”
including the Dutch journalist, Janice Deul who led part of the pushback against
Rijneveld. These issues are substantially less about the art and craft of
translation and reflect a broader societal issue that Twitter users felt a need to
address through this controversy.
Keywords: Qualitative Content Analysis, Twitter, Cancel Culture, Wokeism, Reverse
Racism, Scandal, Public Opinion
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ....................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ........................................................................................ 3
List of Figures .............................................................................................. 5
List of Tables ............................................................................................... 5
List of Diagrams .......................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 6
2. Context .................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Black Lives Matter Protests and Dutch Colonial History ............................... 10
2.2 Twitter Affordances ...................................................................................... 12
2.3 Twitter Use in the Netherlands ..................................................................... 15
3. Previous Research ................................................................................. 15
3.1 Twitter: Audiences, Engagement & Counter-Public Narratives .................... 16
3.2 Cancel Culture & Cultural Gatekeeping........................................................ 18
4. Theoretical framework .......................................................................... 22
5. Methods ................................................................................................. 26
4.1 Content Analysis .......................................................................................... 26
4.2 Data Collection & Sampling Method ............................................................ 28
4.3 Developing a Codebook................................................................................. 31
4.4 Research Paradigms ..................................................................................... 32
4.5 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................. 34
3
5. Analysis of Results & Key Findings....................................................... 36
5.1 First period: Rijneveld first announces the translations job .......................... 38
5.3 Second Period: Rijneveld reverses their decision ........................................... 40
5.4 Third Period: one month later ...................................................................... 43
5.5 Status Dissonance Theory............................................................................. 45
5.6 Trivialization Theory .................................................................................... 47
5.6 Scandal-reform cycle & Social Theory of Scandal ......................................... 48
6. Concluding Discussion .......................................................................... 51
References ................................................................................................. 56
Appendix: Codebook ................................................................................. 68
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions (Over the Course of All Three Periods)
Figure 2. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between February 23rd – 25th
Figure 3. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between February 26th– 28th
Figure 4. Overview of Twitter Users’ Opinions between March 23rd – May 3rd
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Overview of Data Extraction Periods, their Corresponding Events and
Sample Size
Table 2. Coding Process
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1. “Ingredients of basic scandal” and “Some elements of more complex
scandals” (Thompson, 2005)
Diagram 2. “Scandal-Reform Cycle” (Sass & Crosbie, 2013)
Diagram 3. A Re-modeled Scandal-Reform Cycle based off of diagrams by Sass
and Crosbie (2013) and Thompson (2005)
Diagram 4. Re-modeled scandal-reform cycle applied to Rijneveld controversy
51. INTRODUCTION
The young African-American writer, and activist Amanda Gorman wrote the
renowned poem The Hill We Climb which she recited at Joseph Biden's 2021
presidential inauguration ceremony. This poem was written specifically for this
event, with the message of unity and progress concerning social justice and
division in the United States (Gorman, 2021). The poem refers to a hill that
symbolizes the current political and racial climate of the nation. It will take time
to reach the top of the hill, meaning that establishing unity among people will
be challenging. However, it is by no means unachievable (Poll, 2021). Moreover,
she asks readers to reflect upon America's history and how although there is
hope for a better, more unified future, no one can escape the past (Poll, 2021).
This poem has resonated with many people, and to allow audiences to connect
with this work, it has been and continues to be translated into different
languages, Dutch being one.
On February 23rd of this year, Marieke Rijneveld, a young non-binary 1 Dutch
author who received the International Booker Prize, took to social media,
including Twitter, to announce that they would be the one to translate Gorman's
The Hill We Climb into Dutch (Harrison, 2021). Soon after, Rijneveld received
backlash from journalists such as Janice Deul and other social media users. Many
were upset that the translation job was not given to a Black Dutch author (Deul,
2021). Over weeks, what was meant to be joyous and positive news became a
controversy that had offended many people. It was argued that a Black author
would better understand the deep meanings and context behind Gorman's
words. As a result of the uproar, Rijneveld reversed their decision. Rijneveld
wrote a poem expressing their sentiments and the reasons behind their decision
which they shared on social media. It is essential to clarify that they were not
forced to quit; instead, Rijneveld felt they were no longer an appropriate
1
Rijneveld’s preferred pronoun is “they”.
6candidate. Since this new decision was made, growing numbers of people have
expressed their opinions about this dispute on Twitter.
People's perceptions of what makes a translation strong are essential to better
grasp why various arguments have been made on social media. Some translators
find that translating "is an attempt to bridge beyond identity, beyond cultures,
bringing someone, something that is very different from us into our ecosystem"
(Bhanoo, 2021, para. 1). In saying this, it can be argued that great art is universal
in the sense that it is often relatable or can resonate with many, regardless of
one's background or circumstances. Others find comfort and reassurance in
hiring a person who "conveys the ‘untranslatables’” or, simply put, someone who
has genuinely experienced something similar (Bhanoo, 2021, para. 17).
Therefore, this issue must be considered relative in that it is very personal to
each writer. Similarly, views of social media users vary and these responses are
the very ones that can significantly influence the types of writers who are chosen
to translate not only Gorman's work but the works of countless others.
Rijneveld’s publisher, Meulenhoff had suggested the young author as a
translator to Gorman who quickly agreed. Although Rijneveld and Gorman’s
backgrounds and life experiences were very different, Rijneveld claims to have a
strong understanding of what division feels like in their experience as a non-
binary individual (Flood, 2021). Nevertheless, many other people disagreed with
Rijneveld as a first choice and much of this opposition was expressed on Twitter
(Seveno, 2021). Although this social media site has been considered one of the
less popular platforms in the Netherlands. From 2020 to 2021 it increased from
2.8 million users to 2.9 million users (Statista, 2021). In other words, it is
increasing in popularity. Rijneveld's Twitter backlash shows that there are
enough users taking part in the "Twitter mob," – people who take to Twitter to
mobilize people against various stakeholders (Young, 2019). The purpose of this
so-called “mob” is to silence someone, rendering the Rijneveld dispute as an
7example of cancel culture. Cancel culture occurs when a public figure is
ostracized or excluded for having done or said something offensive and
unacceptable (Stewart, 2016). The public can withdraw support through boycotts
for example or “calling” public figures out via social media.
Concerning this translation controversy, social media audiences have a great
deal of power in influencing the decisions and reputations of others. Examples
of such stakeholders in this translation dispute are professional translators,
Gorman, publishing companies, and readers. Although Rijneveld is the primary
focus of this research, similar examples exist in countries such as Spain. Victor
Obiols was asked to step down after completing his translation of the poem since
the publisher preferred a Black female activist (Holligan, 2021; Pineda, 2021).
Therefore, the uproar that translators and publishers have received online has
influenced the creative decisions made within by publishers. However, what can
help stakeholders react to these situations is understanding how exactly the
public feels and perceives the circumstances.
Understanding audiences can be beneficial to individuals as well as businesses
that deal with the consumer market, including cultural goods. Nowadays
companies are very fearful of boycotts in which anyone can start a campaign
against a company via social media (Shank, 2020). It is now much easier for
people to hurt the reputation or mobilize people against a company that deals
with the public. Companies are very aware and sensitive of this. There are
examples of book cancellations by major publishing companies such as Simon
and Schuster and Hachette whereby authors have been involved in scandals and
received backlash (Alter & Harris, 2021). The backlash convinced publishers to
end contracts with specific authors (Alter & Harris, 2021). Therefore, companies
that publish or sell cultural products must be sensitive to public opinion. This is
important because the Web 2.0 makes it very easy to mobilize people against a
company or a brand and try to get people to attack it, boycott it, or cancel it. It
8can be helpful for companies that sell these cultural products to be sensitive to
and aware of public opinion.
In the case of Rijneveld, illuminating the complaints against as well as support
for the writer can show how opinions come in many forms. Therefore, this study
seeks to explore audience engagement on Twitter with a specific focus on the
different views of Rijneveld. With this in mind, the following research question
is posed:
How have active Twitter users responded to a controversy regarding translation
and identity?
In terms of contributing to the field of media and communications, this study
explores the complex global issue of racism in this case, expressed through
Twitter, cancel culture and cultural gatekeeping. Using such a current example,
I will examine developments almost in real time and explore how they evolve.
This will be done using a qualitative content analysis whereby themes found
within people's opinions will be extracted and analyzed. With this in mind, this
research will provide insights into how people perceive this controversy online,
which can serve as a guide for translators, publishers and others working in the
industry. As mentioned previously, similar situations involving the translation
of Gorman's work by translators in other countries are happening now, rendering
this research very timely. Furthermore, as half-Dutch myself, I have a great
passion and interest in this controversy. It is delicate and filled with nuances
that I intend to explore with respect, sensitivity, and an open mind.
2. CONTEXT
This section highlights contextual information that can be helpful in
understanding the relationship many Dutch people have with racism in relation
to its history and how this was reflected in the Black Lives Matter protests. In
9addition to this, information will be provided on Twitter as a social networking
site as well as its relevance in the Netherlands.
2.1 BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTS AND DUTCH COLONIAL HISTORY
To better understand how this controversy came to be and why it is essential,
one should acknowledge the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement alongside
Dutch colonial history. The BLM movement was founded by Alicia Garza,
Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi in 2013 to fight against "anti-Black violence"
and general racism (often through police brutality) (Linscott, 2017). The deaths
of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Ahmaud Abery in the United States in 2020
drove people to protest all over the United States, attracting widespread media
attention (Giorgi et al, 2020). This inspired worldwide protests, including in the
Netherlands. Protests have taken a different form in different countries
depending on their history. For example, in the Netherlands, a dimension of the
demonstrations is the Dutch colonial history and the Dutch role in the slave
trade.2 Of course, the police brutality in the United States was an essential part
of the protests as well. However, many young protesters were also deeply upset
by a statue of a Dutch East India Company representative and called to have it
removed (Schlagwein, 2020). BLM is a movement that brought about awareness
of racism while stressing the importance of being antiracist. Consequently, this
encouraged many Dutch people to look back on their colonial history and reflect
on how the government has and is currently dealing with issues of racism. As
Gorman (2021) has written in her poem, The Hill We Climb, "It's the past we step
into and how we repair it" (para. 2).
According to Weiner (2014) and van Dijk (1992), the Netherlands has refused to
admit that it has performed racist acts in the past. Weiner (2014) clarifies the
2
The Dutch East and West India companies were involved in the slave trade and this is a part of
history that Dutch people are coming to terms with.
10different reasons for which racism has come to exist in the country. However,
this section will focus on Dutch colonial history that is visible in the country's
"racial images" of today (Weiner, 2014, p. 734). Very simply put, the Dutch East
and West India companies were both chartered companies that had the goal to
carry out trade and colonization. They were much more potent than smaller
trading companies. Since the country dominated many of the coastal shipping
routes, the Dutch East and West India companies were in charge of trade
operations that required more power. As a result, they were able to globally
dominate trade, representing a period known as the "Golden Age" (Weiner,
2014). During this time, these chartered companies carried out exploitation
overseas and "massacred and enslaved native populations in colonies from the
West Indies to South Africa to Indonesia" (Weiner, 2014, p. 737; Welie, 2008).
During this time, many people who were subject to the oppression and slavery
of colonialism such as those in Suriname and the West Indies, became slaves to
many White Dutch.
Weiner (2014) also mentions that many Dutch people believe their country is
progressive and antiracist. Even in a postcolonial Netherlands, there is still
negative imagery of the Black community. A prevalent example is the
controversial Dutch tradition of the "Zwarte Piet" or Black Pete in English
(Hilhorst & Hermes, 2015; Pijl & Goulordava, 2014). The traditional holiday
known as Sinterklaas celebrates Saint Nicholas who arrives in the Netherlands
by boat from Spain and is accompanied by his black servants ("Zwarte Pieten").
The controversial issue is that White Dutch men and women often played this
role in blackface (Hilhorst & Hermes, 2015; Pijl & Goulordava, 2014). Moreover,
Van der Pijl and Goulordava (2014) examine racist roots in the Netherlands and
how a Black individual is valued in society today. As a result of colonial history
that is often forgotten and the country's folkloric customs, Pijl and Goulordava
(2014) argue that a Black person in a postcolonial Netherlands is still devalued,
objectified and commodified. In light of this, the Zwarte Piet debate has been
11going on since 2013. However, due to the backlash from other countries, Dutch
people began to realize that they should change this loved tradition. In many
cities in the Netherlands, Zwarte Piet is no longer celebrated in Blackface.
2.2 TWITTER AFFORDANCES
In answering the current study's research question, data will be extracted from
the social media platform Twitter. Therefore, a general understanding of the
platform will be provided along with some of its affordances. These will
demonstrate why this is an appropriate platform for this research. Twitter was
first created in 2006 and quickly gained popularity in 2007 where it became a
widely used platform (Hansen et al., 2020; Hansen et al., 2011). It is still
considered a popular platform today with a staggering 187 million daily users
(Fontanella, 2021). Many researchers define Twitter as a microblogging site
(Kwak et al., 2010; Fiander, 2012; Hansen et al., 2020; Chauhan & Panda, 2015).
Microblogging refers to "the capability of blogging small amounts of text to a
website in much faster cycles usually from a mobile device" (Jackson, 2010,
Microblogging section, para 1). However, Twitter can also be accessed on other
devices such as computers.
According to Oltmann et al. (2020), Twitter makes use of "material features"
through its technology. These features allow users to "further communication in
some way" (Oltmann et al., 2020, p. 3). Firstly, users can consume or produce
"tweets" which are short messages containing up to 280 characters (Lowe &
Laffey, 2011, p. 183; Dijck, 2011; (“Counting Characters,” n.d.). Tweets allow for
the sharing of information about a vast array of topics from one's simple day-to-
day activities to news-related issues and much more (Java et al., 2007).
Individuals can use and search for hashtags (#) or tag other accounts.
Additionally, users can follow or be followed by users and re-post tweets that
have been published by others, known as "retweeting". Every user also has a
12Twitter timeline where tweets posted by followed users appear. There is also a
section with trending topics that can be explored (Deller, 2011).
Twitter's material features as mentioned above, provide users with particular
functional affordances. Functional affordances are “principal functions that
affect how social media messages are transmitted or saved” (Moreno &
D’Angelo, 2019, p. 5). Oltmann et al. (2020) claim that such affordances stem
from the relationship between a technological apparatus and the person using
it. Some of Twitter's affordances are listed as follows: "persistence, visibility,
spreadability, and searchability" (Oltmann et al., 2020, p. 3). For example,
hashtags generally shine light on specific issues or topics and can be easily
searched. They help information spread more quickly to audiences that often
extend beyond one's own following (Oltmann et al., 2020). Information is also
made more visible through Twitter's retweet function whereby users can be
exposed to content from other accounts that they do not necessarily follow.
Zheng and Yu (2016) examine the concept of affordances in relation to social
media use in a slightly different way. They agree that there are functional
affordances that many social media platforms have in common (such as
persistence and visibility, to name a few) (Zheng & Yu, 2016). However, they
argue that it is just as essential to examine such affordances by taking into
account their social aspects (Zheng & Yu, 2016). They refer to these affordances
as ‘affordances-of-practice’ (Zheng & Yu, 2016). Therefore, one should look
beyond the relationship between technology and humans by thinking about the
practices that emerge from this relationship. In other words, it is no longer
enough to consider the relationship between the apparatus and the user on an
individual level. It is essential to think about how Twitter’s technological
properties used by people, influence the collective actions of numerous
individuals.
13In order to better understand this influence on collective actions,
comprehending/recognizing people's needs and goals for using social media
(within specific contexts such as cultural or social) can be valuable (Zheng & Yu,
2016, p. 293). Many people have a common objective or share a similar view that
they wish to communicate to others via social media. As a result, social groups
have emerged that strive to fight for or against matters that are important to
each group. For example, many communities on Twitter have the collective goal
to use Twitter to drive online activism with the hopes of spreading ideas and
information (Zheng & Yu, 2016; Li et al., 2020). Others wish to push issues
further in the hopes of starting online social movements. With having different
social groups or communities online, there are also more opinions and ideas
expressed which can lead to new forms of debate and this is where my choice for
Twitter can be better understood.
Twitter's functional affordances and affordances-of-practice are both of the
essence here. In my opinion, without Twitter’s functional affordances, it would
not be possible to look at the collective actions fostered by certain technologies.
Debate is better made possible through visible, searchable and persistent
information dissemination and expression. As mentioned previously, social
media platforms can share some of these functional affordances. However, with
differing audiences and needs, affordances-of-practice will likely differ per
platform. Take the example of Facebook. Facebook has similar functional
affordances however the audience differs from that of Twitter. Facebook users
are known for using the platform to engage and connect with friends and family
(Swanner, 2016). On the other hand, Twitter better connects users "with the
world more efficiently" (Swanner, 2016, para. 29).
Facebook contains algorithms that draw users to content posted by friends and
specific Facebook groups (Cox, 2021). Instead, Twitter's algorithm exposes users
to all tweets, but those that it believes the user would find most interesting
14appear on the top of one's Twitter timeline (or feed) (Cox, 2021). Debates do
occur on Facebook, but they are likely to occur within smaller networks or
specific Facebook groups/pages that one needs to actively find and request
access to in many cases. This renders Twitter a more suitable platform for debate
and information dissemination in the form of microblogging. People worldwide
can more easily come together and express opinions about various causes and
topics. As a result, users can debate more easily with others who might not be in
their direct network.
2.3 TWITTER USE IN THE NETHERLANDS
According to Statista (2021), Twitter is not considered the most popular platform
in the Netherlands with Facebook leading. However, it is growing in popularity
and today, almost three million people in the Netherlands are using this platform
(Statista, 2021). Twitter is currently a second leading social networking site with
a 13.52% market share (Global Stats, n.d.). Twitter has greatly influenced
community sentiment and many people such as journalists rely on this platform
"as a source of public opinion" (p. 2) A study was conducted by Kingeren et al.
(2020) to see whether Twitter would be "a reliable proxy of public opinion" (p.
16) compared to opinion polling. It was found that public opinion on Twitter
although imperfect, is reliable in the sense that views on Twitter mirror what
public opinion polling would otherwise show (Klingeren et al., 2020).
Furthermore, as mentioned in the above section, Twitter is simply a more robust
platform for debate and examining polarized opinions. For these reasons, I
believe Twitter to be a suitable and reliable platform for this research.
3. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
My research focuses on sentiments of an online debate expressed on Twitter in
relation to the Rijneveld translation controversy. For this reason, it is essential
to look at previous research that can help provide some insight into the topics
15relevant to my current research. Therefore, this section discusses previous
research on Twitter audiences, how they engage in online debate and how such
discussion is fostered. Additionally, since the Rijneveld dispute is considered an
example of cancel culture, this concept will also be explored further. By
examining previous research on the relevant topics, insights are provided into
the research gap that the current study seeks to fill.
3.1 TWITTER: AUDIENCES, ENGAGEMENT & COUNTER-PUBLIC
NARRATIVES
The current research focuses on active Twitter users and how they engage online.
From the Rijneveld debate alone, Twitter users have proven to have a great deal
of agency and influence over themselves and others. For this reason, I believe it
is essential to look at how audiences can engage and interact on this platform
and with what effects. Twitter audiences have different reasons for engaging in
the platform and interacting with others. What is important to acknowledge is
how much agency audiences have when it comes to influencing different
situations.
I will begin by addressing two specific types of audiences on Twitter. Very
generally speaking, there are passive and active users of social media with some
who fall in between both categories. Passive users consume or monitor media
content without actually engaging with it (Trifiro & Gerson, 2019). Active users
are those who actively engage with media content through "liking, commenting,
sending messages, and otherwise engaging with other users" (Trifiro & Gerson,
2019, p. 1). Twitter allows for and thrives off a participatory culture that fosters
interactivity between different types of users such as, "those involved in making
media: celebrities, journalists, producers, writers, media organizations and the
users of that media" (Deller, 2011, p. 228). Participatory culture is made up of
users who are "grassroots advocates for materials which are personally and
socially meaningful to them" (Jenkins et al., 2009, para. 15; Fuchs, 2014). This
16culture is firmly based on the idea that what active users create (in this case, the
contents of tweets) is significant to the creator and matter and appeal to others,
further encouraging meaningful interaction.
With such interaction and engagement online, active Twitter audiences can hold
the power to influence situations and people. Deller (2011) claims that certain
power relations between audiences can come into play due to users' senses of
agency. Some researchers believe that celebrities and others who represent
official opinion leaders carry more influence than others. Perhaps this is due to
their status and level of influence on large numbers of people (Deller, 2011).
However, this is not always the case. For example, Deller (2011) conducted a
study on power relations on Twitter in order to examine the influence that a
collective group of users could have on media companies. They found that
hierarchies of power exist on the platform in which opinion leaders, celebrities
and other official accounts have a solid ability to spark or provoke debate
amongst Twitter members (Deller, 2011). However, what was also found is that
ordinary Twitter users can disseminate information through discussion, which
can influence specific stakeholders and outcomes.
With such audience agency, I would like to emphasize Twitter as a digital space
that welcomes "healthy debate" as well as counter-public narratives that
challenge societal norms despite possible tensions between people (Wheatley &
Vatnoey, 2019, p. 5; Gutierrez, 2020; Ineland et al., 2019). According to Ineland
et al. (2019), Twitter can be regarded as an "arena for negotiation of power, where
marginalized voices can be given influence in the public debate" (p. 238). Such
debates can be transformed into information that receives widespread media
attention. When enough people come together and mobilize their voices to
express particular sentiments, opinions or messages, whether through a single
tweet or a Twitter discussion, it can influence the behavioral outcomes of others.
17Gutierrez (2020) conducted a study on the strains found between counter-
publics on Twitter. These counter-publics took place on what Gutierrez (2020)
calls, Black and Latinx Twitter. This research was focused on the general
sentiment of the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite debate in which Twitter users were
fighting for equal representation of minorities within the Academy Awards. It
was found that both social groups disagreed with one another which developed
into a sort of competition between minorities (Gutierrez, 2020). However, this
rivalry inspired people to mobilize to protest against the Academy Awards.
Consequently, enough voices were heard and changes were made in the grading
criteria of the panel of judges at the Oscars. This is just one example of how
audiences on Twitter appeared to have a great deal of agency regarding having
control over their behaviors and meeting their goals.
3.2 CANCEL CULTURE & CULTURAL GATEKEEPING
While a participatory culture can foster more profound and often positive
connections between individuals, it can also be a means of calling people out or
"canceling" them – another example of how audience agency can influence
others. Clark (2020) conducted a study on the presence of "cancel culture" on
Twitter. Cancel culture in relation to Twitter is a "phenomenon, in which tweets
are amplified and circulated through large-scale networks to shame – or even
unmask or "dox" – identities whose speech is deemed unacceptable" (Stewart,
2016, p. 78). It is often carried out to address or fight against injustice (Clark,
2020). The most common examples of people who have been cancelled include
well known individuals such as celebrities (Clark, 2020). Bouvier (2020) points
out that platforms such as Twitter are democratizing digital public spheres for
public and political discourse; however, it can be damaging at the same time.
Therefore, Twitter must be cautious in allowing people to express opinions about
social justice (Bouvier, 2020). These types of behaviors can be regarded as
18exercising one's right to democracy, yet at the same time, they can be considered
polarizing.
As a result of cancel culture and simply being able to express oneself freely on
platforms such as Twitter, users as a collective can hold great power as cultural
gatekeepers or mediators (Chin-Fook & Simmonds, 2009; Erigha, 2020).
According to Erigha (2020), cultural gatekeepers are people who make "racial
valuations" through "race-based judgments" (p. 2). In the context of the
Rijneveld controversy, such gatekeepers can influence or threaten a writer's
reputation and cultural capital by "connecting race to ideas about value, success,
and failure" (Erigha, 2020, p. 2). Therefore, cultural mediation can censor many
peoples' voices and prevent them from creating art or expressing their feelings
or views. Although not all theorists and researchers agree that cultural
gatekeeping occurs on social media, Chin-Fook and Simmonds (2009) argue the
opposite. Individuals are more involved in the gatekeeping process due to social
media's democratizing and interactive nature (Chin-Fook & Simmonds, 2009).
Cultural gatekeeping along with cancel culture have the power to censor people
and their crafts. Regardless of how others perceive it, it will influence the art of
translation and the industry to which it belongs.
What has been described above ties in with this idea of the Twitter "mob
mentality." "Mob" here indicates/implies that multiple people are involved for
this mentality to apply. Mob mentality occurs, in this case, on Twitter when
"multiple perpetrators pursue one victim" (Replogle, 2011, p. 801). Several
different consequences arise in the case of groups virtually harming others. Du
Plessis (2016) examined how Twitter mobs have influenced journalism
concerning how and what news is being reported. Journalists resorted to writing
slanted news to avoid getting into any sort of trouble with groups of Twitter users
who make "virtual noise" far too loud and degrading (Du Plessis, 2016, p. 40). Du
Plessis (2016) believes that the mob mentality leads to victims who once felt
19confident and self-assured to feeling as though they need to self-correct
themselves. Depending on the circumstance, self-correction might be necessary.
However, there have been cases where journalists and celebrities have tweeted
controversial remarks which have hurt their reputations and even ended their
careers (Du Plessis, 2016). Even if apologizing for a comment can reverse a
person's dismissal, Du Plessis (2016) claims that enough fear has been evoked
among journalists reporting news on Twitter.
While Du Plessis (2016) finds Twitter mob mentality to be quite a negative
phenomenon, there are examples where the message behind this mentality
comes from a well-intentioned place (Bouvier, 2020). Bouvier led a study on
racist call-outs on Twitter. She examined tweets that included "racist call-out
hashtags" (Bouvier, 2020, p. 3) and in the end, Bouvier (2020) had mixed feelings.
For example, it is considered positive that many people choose to speak up about
and criticize racism. Twitter is regarded as a suitable platform for this type of
protest (Bouvier, 2020). However, the cancel culture aspects or mob mentality
can take away from the actual cause. The victim of cancel culture becomes a
"folk-devil, rather than a real person with everyday flaws" (Bouvier, 2020, p. 10).
On the one hand, it is perhaps debatable whether call-out culture is a healthy
use of Twitter since users can work against each other rather than with one
another. On the other hand, Twitter is all about engagement with others. Users
can often feel inclined to express themselves resulting in the creation of
competing forces and perhaps is necessary to foster meaningful discourse and
debate. In cases of online discussions and debates there can come agreement and
unison and vehement disagreements between people (Bail et al., 2018). Bouvier
(2020) believes that polarization stems from a majority of people who engage
and debate with others online with "high levels of affect and emotion" (Bouvier,
2020, p. 2). Another potential driver for polarized opinions is echo-chambers as
well as trench warfare.
20Liao and Fu (2014) examine the dynamics of online debate concerning echo-
chambers and trench warfare. Echo-chambers refer to "patterns of information
sharing that reinforce preexisting [beliefs] by limiting exposure to opposing
[views]" (Bail et al., 2018, p. 9216). Social media users tend to be drawn to others
who are similar to them or hold similar ideologies (Bail et al., 2018; Liao & Fu,
2014). Consequently, Yiu (2020) claims that such chambers discourage or even
prevent users from exposing themselves to different views. Although the
internet helps foster echo-chambers which some believe deter people from
having debates, researchers have found that as important it is for people's beliefs
to be reinforced and confirmed by others, confrontation is just as fundamental
(Karlsen et al., 2017; Wollebæk et al., 2019). Findings of a survey experiment
revealed that echo-chambers have not entirely stopped social media users from
engaging with others who have different views (Karlsen et al., 2017). They found
that trench warfare helped explain debate dynamics more clearly (Karlsen et al.,
2017).
Trench warfare is characterized as situations "where attitudes are reinforced
through both confirmation and disconfirmation biases" (Karlsen et al., 2017, p.
257). Confirmation bias occurs when individuals surround themselves with
information and people who reinforce or support their personally held beliefs
(Karlsen et al., 2017). Disconfirmation bias is different although it results in a
similar outcome. This type of bias occurs when individuals engage with people
in such a way that any opposing opinions are heavily criticized (Karlsen et al.,
2017). This is done to ensure that a person ends up having an even "stronger
belief in the already held opinion" (Karlsen et al., 2017, p. 260). Therefore,
regardless of the type of bias, trench warfare facilitates polarized viewpoints,
often evident in online debate.
For the current research, it is essential to understand why users choose to speak
up online and how Twitter is an appropriate place to do so. Additionally,
previous research on cultural gatekeeping, cancel culture and Twitter as a
21platform for polarized opinions provides insights into the current study's
relevance and importance. No scientific research has been conducted on the
Rijneveld controversy specifically since it is very recent. Therefore, although
limited in scope, my research will provide new insights and ways of
understanding how this controversy has resonated with active Twitter users.
Moreover, much research has looked at debate dynamics and how they have
formed. However, there is one commonality which is that little to no discussion
about online debates comprise Dutch Twitter users.
4. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This analytical framework serves as a guide or empirical lens through which I will
justify my research aims and examine my data. Therefore, I intend to use the
Social Theory of Scandal and the Scandal-Reform Cycle to make sense of my
research. First and foremost, a scandal can be defined as the "actions or events
which involve, among other things, the transgression of certain values, norms or
moral codes" (Thompson, 2013, p. 67). Based on Thompson's definition of
scandal, the Rijneveld controversy can be considered a scandal. Furthermore,
since I am exploring public opinion on Twitter, I believe it is essential to consider
Thompson's concept of mediated scandals. Such scandals can exist where
mediated communication occurs within digital public spheres (Twitter).
"Mediated publicness" is another relevant term, which refers to the idea that
people who have not explicitly witnessed a scandal can still be exposed to it via
for example, social media. Social media users in this case can be informed about
scandals (whether alleged or actual) online.
Thompson (2013) has developed the Social Theory of Scandal involving three
critical notions: reputation, trust, and power. According to this theory, "scandals
are struggles over symbolic power in which reputation and trust are at stake"
(Thompson, 2013, p. 243; Dziuda & Howell, 2021). Symbolic power refers to
one's ability to exert influence by symbolic means (such as words or gestures).
22Concerning the Rijneveld dispute, there is power in deciding who gets published
and who is not allowed to translate. More specifically, it can be said that symbolic
power lies in the hands of the two transgressors – the publisher, Meulenhoff and
writer, Rijneveld. Both can influence the situation so that reputation and trust
are protected. On the other hand, we must not forget the power of the audience
(Twitter users) who criticized or approved of the choice of Rijneveld. In doing so,
audiences have the ability to harm the reputation of these stakeholders. This has
been taken into account from a contextual point of view since the reputations of
both Rijneveld and the publisher, Meulenhoff will potentially be addressed in my
data sample.
This theory demonstrates an implied threat to "cancel" the publisher and
"cancel" the translator. Therefore, scandals can very much be similar to cancel
culture which was discussed in the previous section. After receiving backlash or
disapprobation, the publisher is undoubtedly aware that it can be economically
harmful. One recent example of a scandal which has come to be an instance of
cancel culture involves the Republican senator and author, Hawley and the
American publishing company, Simon and Schuster (Alter & Harris, 2021). A
scandal arose when Hawley attempted to block the confirmation of president
Biden's election and people in the country rose in arms and protested. Hawley
had a book contract with Simon and Schuster. However this was cancelled after
the much-received backlash (Alter & Harris, 2021). Corporate political donors
also said they would stop donating money to his campaign. In this case, Simon
and Schuster and the public had symbolic power to influence how the scandal
would influence Hawley's book contract and overall reputation.
Although scandals are not usually indefinite, they tend to last anywhere from a
week or several months (Thompson, 2013). For this reason, I will examine tweets
over different points in time and compare any differences or similarities in
patterns of opinions addressed. In terms of a scandal's developments or
23understanding how it evolves, the process shown in Diagram 1 and 2 below can
be helpful (Thompson, 2013; Sass & Crosbie, 2013). According to Thompson,
first, an immoral or questionable action/event takes place (the transgression),
followed by public disclosure/allegations which results in public disapprobation
(Thompson, 2013). Regarding the Rijneveld controversy, Rijneveld accepted the
translation job (the transgression) and revealed this information on their social
media (public disclosure). This eventually led to public disapprobation or a
strong sense of disapproval from the public (backlash on Twitter). This last step
can end here, or it can form a cycle in which public denials and counter-
allegations are made, leading to more investigations or revelations and even a
second-order transgression. In Rijneveld's case, perhaps the second-order
transgression is them reversing their decision of being Gorman's translator since
this follow-up mediated event provoked new reactions.
Diagram 1. “Ingredients of basic scandal” and “Some elements of more complex
scandals”
24Sass and Crosbie (2013) devised a “Scandal-Reform Cycle” which maps out some
of Thompson’s more nuanced steps. However, they showcase them in a
somewhat clearer and more straightforward way (Sass & Crosbie, 2013). I would
like to adjust these steps slightly so that it can be better applied to the Rijneveld
controversy. This revised model is shown below in Diagram 3. First, is the
transgression (actor deviation), followed by public allegations (media reports).
This eventually leads to public disapprobation (public outrage). Soon after, the
transgressor (or institution) will respond in the hopes that trust is restored. It is
this last step about trust that I would like to change to ‘public response’ which
can entail either restoration of trust among the public or further disapprobation.
In my opinion, this cycle simplifies the steps and clearly showcases how two
scandals can occur within one cycle.
Diagram 2. “Scandal-Reform Cycle” (Sass & Crosbie, 2013)
25Diagram 3. A Re-Modeled Scandal-Reform Cycle based off of diagrams by Sass
and Crosbie (2013) and Thompson (2013).
5. METHODS
The current research uses a mixed-methods approach to explore how active
users have responded to the Rijneveld translation controversy on Twitter. More
specifically, a qualitative content analysis will be carried forth to investigate the
various issue frames addressed on Twitter at three different points in time. The
following section provides insights on the chosen method for this study and the
data collection/sampling, developments of the codebook, the most appropriate
research paradigm and finally, ethical considerations.
4.1 CONTENT ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, I chose to conduct a qualitative content analysis to
determine and describe the arguments addressed on Twitter in response to the
Rijneveld controversy. A content analysis is defined as a systematic means of
26analyzing text by identifying patterns. More specifically, it is "the subjective
interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification
process of coding and identifying themes or patterns" (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005,
p. 1278). Hseih and Shannon (2005) claim that this analysis is used to explore a
particular phenomenon to acquire more information. Similarly, Collins (2018)
states that it is used to provide “an initial understanding of an issue or a situation
and is usually conducted because a research problem has not yet been defined”
(p. 51).
In my case, I wish to gain insights into Twitter users' reactions to the Rijneveld
translation dispute. With this in mind, I have explored this topic through both
inductive and deductive approaches or methods of reasoning. Deduction
involves theory which is used to form hypotheses. Data is then observed and any
predictions are rejected or confirmed. Induction looks at research in the opposite
direction in which data is first explored for patterns which is then linked to
theory. Since the present study is both explorative and descriptive, I have used a
mixed-methods design.
On one hand, there is an explorative aspect to this research that requires an
inductive approach. I first collected a sample of tweets from Twitter which were
analyzed (or explored) to identify patterns. Mayring (2014) refers to this as
"inductive category development" (p. 12). On the other hand, this research is also
descriptive which involves a deductive approach. Although I am not using theory
to form hypotheses, I use Scandal theory to guide some of my research choices.
Additionally, through the coding process, I have registered the frequency of each
category which were operationalized in a codebook (Mayring, 2014). This
codebook serves as an indispensable guide that showcases the systematically
categorized information to be examined in the tweets.
27There are both positive and negative reasons for conducting a qualitative
content analysis. One negative is that conducting a content analysis is limited in
scope (Allen, 2017). For example, specific relationships between variables
cannot be established or explained, such as cause-and-effect (Maier, 2017).
Fortunately, I am not interested in drawing such conclusions. Instead, I am
interested in the “actual communicative message characteristics” as well as
“what can be inferred from the message” (Maier, 2017, p. 2). Moreover, I can also
examine tweets over time allowing me to draw conclusions about Twitter users’
means/processes of communication (Maier, 2018). A second disadvantage is that
content analysis is considered time consuming. This can discourage the
collecting of large enough samples of data (Maier, 2018). However, a qualitative
content analysis involving inductive reasoning offers flexibility as a researcher
as well as a better understanding of what people ascribe meaning to (Collins,
2018, p. 43; Allen, 2017). All in all, this method is deemed appropriate and
helpful despite a few of the mentioned pitfalls.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION & SAMPLING METHOD
My data sample comprises of tweets extracted directly from Twitter. Usually,
researchers who wish to use Twitter data often need access to Twitter’s
application programming interface (API). This software serves as a connector or
bridge “between two applications that want to communicate with each other”
(Fontanella, 2021, para. 6). This provides access to tweet creation, profile
information, as well as a “high volume of tweets on particular subjects in specific
locations” (Fontanella, 2021, para. 6). Initially, I planned to use the application,
Rstudio which connects to Twitter’s public API and uses statistical programming
language to extract tweets. However, there were slight complications since my
data requires extractions from different points in time, starting from February of
this year which I do not have access to with Twitter’s standard API. Therefore, I
decided to use Twitter’s advanced search tool to filter through different criteria
such as, search terms, mentions, hashtags, accounts, replies, and specific dates.
28It is considered essential to look at different time periods because each
represents a different stage of a scandal. The first two periods represent certain
events that take place within a few days of each other. However, the third period
does not and I believe it is important to clarify why. Opinions represent a
dynamic process. For example, early commenters might base their opinions
purely on their own reactions without being influenced strongly by others. On
the other hand, later commenters will likely have more information and will
probably be more aware of what others have said. In a way, the debate and
discussion are being advanced to a further stage because people have more
information and have more variety of opinions. That is why the third period takes
place approximately one month after the initial period. If the third period were
not included or occurred only a few days after the second period, I would not
have been able to explore as deeply the dynamic process of dialogue that is
involved in the different phases of scandals. Furthermore, the third period had
to comprise more days compared to the first two since not enough data was
available to be considered a sufficient sample size for that period. Please see
Table 1 for an overview of each period and its corresponding event.
In order to collect my sample of tweets, a purposive sampling method was carried
out. Purposive sampling is the process of selecting data which is most suitable
for the research method and topic (Palinkas et al., 2015). A type of purposive
sampling is judgment sampling in which the researcher decides exactly what unit
of analysis is best in answering the given research question (Battaglia, 2008).
This is considered a popular sampling method for qualitative content analysis
(Frey, 2018). One disadvantage of this method is that it reduces generalizability
of results, resulting in a compromised external validity (Frey, 2018). However,
the nature of content analysis and inductive reasoning is to explore a certain
topic which means it is more important that the units of analysis are suitable to
the topic than having a very high external validity (Collins, 2018; Elo et al., 2014).
29It is not possible to be entirely sure that each Twitter user has sufficient
knowledge about the translation controversy. However, I am making the
assumption that most users are informed enough about the dispute.
To ensure content relevancy in my sample, the search term, “Rijneveld” had to
be present in all tweets. Any of the following search terms could also be included:
"Amanda," "Gorman," "Dutch," "White," "translator," "Translates," "Translating,"
and "Translation.” However, to gather as much data as possible, I included any
replies to the tweets that appeared in the search. As a result of the advanced
search, a total of 2,832 tweets were collected. Of this initial sample, a total of
1,427 tweets were comprehensible and clearly linked to the Rijneveld
controversy.
Table 1. Overview of Data Extraction Periods, their Corresponding Events and
Sample Size
Time period (all Event Number of tweets
take place in 2021) extracted
1) February 23rd to Rijneveld announces translation Pre-coded: N = 238
the 25th job (plus an extra two days for Official sample: N = 148
follow-up responses/tweets)
2) February 26th to Rijneveld reverses their decision Pre-coded: N = 2364
the 28th (plus an additional two days for Official sample: 1,218
follow-up responses/tweets)
3) March 23rd to Follow-up period to see how Pre-coded: N = 230
May 3rd people’s responses are after Official sample: 61
approximately one month after
Rijneveld’s initial translation
announcement.
304.3 DEVELOPING A CODEBOOK
A codebook was created comprising the most prominent themes found in the
data sample (N = 1,427). I have undergone a coding process described by Thomas
(2006) which is displayed in Table 3 below. I have adjusted each step slightly to
suit my research and personal process.
Table 3. Coding process
Initial reading of Read through Go through data Include the most
tweets (exclude part of sample to again to reduce important
irrelevant identify general any overlapping categories (or
tweets) themes. Provide categories and see codes) into
them with if any new codebook and code
specific category categories arise. all tweets
names. accordingly
N = 2,832 N = 1,427 N = 1,427 N = 1,427
26 categories 10 categories 7 categories
During the pre-coding or initial reading phase, I went through all 2,832 tweets
to check for irrelevant or non-usable tweets. These include tweets that have
nothing to do with the Rijneveld debate. Moreover, tweets that were
incomprehensible in terms of grammar and content were not included. Once this
was done, I went through the remaining sample of 1,427 tweets and marked
down important themes/patterns. Then, I grouped together any overlapping or
similar patterns. Following this step, I went through the data one more time to
make sure I included all important categories or added any missing ones. Finally,
I narrowed down the categories to a total of seven (excluding sub-categories).
31I decided to inductively extract themes from each time period until I reached a
saturation point – the moment I noticed patterns were repeating with no new
ones arising. For the first time period (February 23rd – 25th), this point occurred
after looking through 50% of the tweets. For the second time period (February
26th-28th), I went through 15% of the data since this was a much larger number
of tweets. For the final time period (March 23rd – May 3rd), I coded 50% of the
dataset. Finally, a codebook was created with the following categories (some of
which include sub-categories):
- Racism and reverse racism
- Failure to use members of ethnic minorities as translators
- Translator’s skills
- Radical wokeism
- Criticism towards: Meulenhoff, Rijneveld, and/or Janice Deul
- Support for: Rijneveld and Gorman
- “Let’s move on”
Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed overview of the codebook, including
operationally defined codes with coding instructions.
4.4 RESEARCH PARADIGMS
A paradigm is a very abstract construct referring to a person’s general world
views “revolving around the notion of the creation of knowledge and how change
can be accomplished” (Collins, 2018, p. 38). This can be applied to fields of
research known as, research paradigms. Research paradigms can be understood
as a set of beliefs, views or assumptions “within a research community about
ontological, epistemological and methodological concerns” (Collins, 2018, p.
167). Ontology concerns the nature of being or existing. Epistemology involves
the study of knowledge and how it is acquired. Lastly, methodology regards the
“process of research” (Collins, 2018, p. 54). Since the current study involves a
mixed-methods design including both deductive and inductive logics of enquiry,
I argue that two paradigms are relevant when it comes to providing my research
32You can also read
