Hegemonic Discourse and Hegemonic Actor Potential for Social Conflict Towards the Presidential Election
Article Sidebar
Read Counter : 458
Download : 503
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to explore how hegemonic discourse is related to the potential for social conflict in virtual space ahead of the 2024 presidential election and find out how the hegemonic actors are involved. This research is a qualitative research analysis of Laclau & Mouffe's discourse with data collection methods through web crawlers and SNA. This study found that; First, the hegemonic discourse on the potential for social conflict ahead of the presidential election is divided into two, namely (1) the potential for SARA conflict and (2) the potential for political conflict. SARA conflict refers to the potential for ethnic and religious conflict. The potential for political conflict that occurs in virtual space is found in the three presidential candidates, namely Anies, Ganjar and Prabowo. Second, Hegemonic Actors in the discourse ahead of the presidential election are dominated by non-state actors or intellectual actors and buzzers who are connected to a network of fellow supporters, and not from state actors and online news. Apart from the Hegemonic Actor, the contestation of actors in the presidential election discourse is divided into four main actor clusters, namely the Anies Baswedan, Erick Thohir, Ganjar Pranowo, and online news clusters.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The proposed policy for journals that offer open access
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s).
- Author grant the journal, right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- The article and any associated published material is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
References
Fany, L. (2018). Isu Sara (Suku Agama, Ras Antar Golongan) dalam Pemilu/Pilkada. 154–170.
Farkas, J., & Schou, J. (2018). Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism and the Politics of Falsehood. Javnost, 25(3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1463047
Haryadi Santoso, D. (2014). Mobilisasi Sosial dalam Ruang Virtual: Social mobilization in the Virtual Space: Study of Virtual Ethnography on www.sedekahrombongan.com. Jurnal Pekommas, 17(1), 1–8. www.sedekahrombongan.com,
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE Publication.
Juditha, C. (2019). Comparison of SARA Issues Sentiment between Online News Portal and Social Media Towards the 2019 Election. Journal Pekommas, 4(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.30818/jpkm.2019.2040107
Kasra, M. (2017). Vigilantism, public shaming, and social media hegemony: The role of digital-networked images in humiliation and sociopolitical control. Communication Review, 20(3), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2017.1343068
Lestari, Y. S. (2018). Politik Identitas Di Indonesia : Antara Nasionalisme Dan Agama. Journal of Politics and Policy, 1(1), 19–30.
Miranda, S. M., Young, A., & Yetgin, E. (2016). Are social media emancipatory or hegemonic? Societal effects of mass media digitization in the case of the SOPA discourse. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 40(2), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.2.02
Narwaya, T. G. (2021). Discourse Analysis in the Perspective of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Journal Communication Spectrum, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.36782/jcs.v1i1.2106
Rousseau, E. O. & R. (2014). Journal of Information Science. Journal of Information Science, 28(December 2002), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601
Santoso, D. H. (2021). New Media and Nationalism in Indonesia : An Analysis of Discursive Nationalism in Online News and Social Media after the 2019 Indonesian Presidential Election. Malaysian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2021-3702-18
Santoso, D. H., Aziz, J., Pawito, Utari, P., & Kartono, D. T. (2020). Populism in New Media : The Online Presidential Campaign Discourse in Indonesia. Gema Journal, 20(May), 115–133. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2020-2002-07 Populism
Sarah, O. (2014). Russian State Narrative in the Digital Age: Rewired Propaganda in Russian Television News Framing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, August, 1–18.
Sarwoprasodjo, S., & Lubis, D. P. (2019). Google Trends dan Analisis Pengelolaan Konflik Sosial di Ruang Publik Virtual. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 18(1), 51–66.
Suyati. (2021). Dampak Media Sosial Terhadap Konflik di Masyarakat. Jurnal Petik, 7(1), 30–36.
Triantoro, D. A. (2019). Konflik Sosial dalam Komunitas Virtual di Kalangan Remaja. 13(April), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.20885/komunikasi.vol13.iss2.art2
Wasisto, R. J. (2021). Fenomena Kemunduran Demokrasi Indonesia 2021. 2021, 27.
Wu, Y., & Duan, Z. (2015). Social network analysis of international scientific collaboration on psychiatry research. International Journal of Mental Health System, 9(2), 1–10.