Deliberative Breakdowns in the Social Representation Process

Abstract

This article examines breakdowns that occur when readers at partisan news websites attempt to understand a challenging news event. We conduct the work with the 2017 Alabama senate race as the empirical context marked by the nomination of Republican Roy Moore (a challenging news event for the left-leaning readers), and the story of his alleged sexual misconduct (a challenging news event for the right-leaning readers). To examine how readers attempt to understand these events, we scrape reader comments from two partisan news websites. Our analysis relies on and further elaborates the social representation theory and argumentation theory to identify obstacles that prevent successful progression of social representation processes: rhetorical, epistemological, and emotional breakdowns. The findings from our data reveal indicators of rhetorical breakdowns (greater occurrence of fallacious and non-argumentative reader comments) and epistemological breakdowns (greater use of doxastic comments) both tied to how challenging the news event is as well as indicators of emotional breakdowns (greater occurrence of attack posture) tied to the emotionally charged nature of the news event. We interpret the findings as a balancing act between protecting pre-existing representations and acknowledging the challenging news event. The indicators of potential breakdowns we find enhance our understanding of partisan political discourse viewed through the lens of social representation processes. The article discusses these contributions, including elaborations to social representation theory, and discusses implications of the work.