Search

This research examines online misogynist discourse related to the Finnish prime minister (PM) Sanna Marin's image published in Trendi magazine in October 2020. The affective-discursive analysis of online commentaries resulted in the identification of four affective-discursive practices: an immoral woman, incompetent woman, calculating woman and inferior woman. Misogynist discourse related to the PM Marin took the form of a moral act, drew from stereotypical images of women as less rational than men, appeared as accusations targeted at Marin for playing the gender card as a political tactic, and constructed an image of Marin and female politicians as objects of men's sexual desires and as inferior to men. These affective-discursive practices mobilized dehumanizing discourse ranging from milder forms of derogation, scorn and other-condemning practices to harsher forms of belittlement, humiliation and animalistic dehumanization. This study contributes to the current knowledge on the affective-discursive processes underlying online misogyny against female politicians.

This research examines the mobilization of populist rhetoric of the 2019 Finns Party election video. By focusing on both the FP’s election video (production) and Youtube users’ comments (reception), we examine the constructions and uses of social categories and humour as well as responses to their rhetorical deployment among like-minded supporters and opponents. The multimodal analysis of the production of a populist campaign video demonstrates the construction of social categories and humour through the five steps of collective hate. These humorous messages are differently received by like-minded and opposing YouTube users. Two supportive affective–discursive practices – glorification and schadenfreude – both express shared joy and laughter, but while glorification emphasizes the positive self-understanding of the in-group, schadenfreude belittles the ‘political Other’. Two opposing affective–discursive practices – irritation and scorn – place FP voters in subject positions of morally and intellectually inferior fascists, racists, and idiots. The populist message fosters expressions of social anger and polarization between FP supporters and opponents. Humour entangled with hatred encourages a sense of moral superiority in both groups. This study contributes to the current knowledge of mobilizing populist rhetoric and polarization, and responds to the call to broaden analysis of political communication in the field of multimodality.