Difference between revisions of "Kaposi2018"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Clair-AntoineVeyrier moved page Kaposi-2018 to Kaposi2018 without leaving a redirect: key-name issue)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
|BibType=ARTICLE
+
|BibType=INCOLLECTION
 
|Author(s)=Dávid Kaposi
 
|Author(s)=Dávid Kaposi
|Title=In the Shadow of the Other: Arguments About the First Gaza War in British Conservative Editorials
+
|Title=In the shadow of the other: arguments about the first Gaza war in British conservative editorials
|Editor(s)=S. Gibson
+
|Editor(s)=Stephen Gibson
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Discursive Psychology; Gaza; Israel; Palestine
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Discursive Psychology; Gaza; Israel; Palestine
 
|Key=Kaposi2018
 
|Key=Kaposi2018
 +
|Publisher=Springer
 
|Year=2018
 
|Year=2018
 
|Language=English
 
|Language=English
|Booktitle=Discourse, Peace, and Conflict
+
|Address=Cham
|Pages=119-132
+
|Booktitle=Discourse, Peace, and Conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives
 +
|Pages=119–132
 
|URL=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
 
|URL=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
|DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
+
|DOI=10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
 
|Abstract=This chapter presents some aspects of a large-scale empirical study on the British broadsheets’ coverage of the first Gaza war (2008–2009) between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza. In particular, it focuses on various conceptual areas in the editorials of conservative “quality” newspapers, The Times and the Daily Telegraph, where the role of other agents (i.e. different from the subject or different from the one that the subject identifies with) was made relevant by the writers: first, the fighters of Hamas; second, the journalists critiquing the Israeli offensive and thereby exhibiting an alternative political-moral perspective to the conservative newspapers. Analysing these accounts, it will be argued that moving beyond the “us” and “them” dichotomy is indeed a heady task, mainly for the reason that whenever “they” make an appearance in “our” argument, “they” are inevitably presented as occupying a position that cannot be engaged with; a position beyond dialogue, persuasion, and even education. The chapter will conclude with the analysis of the epistemological (indeed, ontological) underpinning of such a dichotomy, and argue that any (i.e. conservative or non-conservative) proposal for a viable peace needs to adopt a different rationale.
 
|Abstract=This chapter presents some aspects of a large-scale empirical study on the British broadsheets’ coverage of the first Gaza war (2008–2009) between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza. In particular, it focuses on various conceptual areas in the editorials of conservative “quality” newspapers, The Times and the Daily Telegraph, where the role of other agents (i.e. different from the subject or different from the one that the subject identifies with) was made relevant by the writers: first, the fighters of Hamas; second, the journalists critiquing the Israeli offensive and thereby exhibiting an alternative political-moral perspective to the conservative newspapers. Analysing these accounts, it will be argued that moving beyond the “us” and “them” dichotomy is indeed a heady task, mainly for the reason that whenever “they” make an appearance in “our” argument, “they” are inevitably presented as occupying a position that cannot be engaged with; a position beyond dialogue, persuasion, and even education. The chapter will conclude with the analysis of the epistemological (indeed, ontological) underpinning of such a dichotomy, and argue that any (i.e. conservative or non-conservative) proposal for a viable peace needs to adopt a different rationale.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 11:42, 13 January 2020

Kaposi2018
BibType INCOLLECTION
Key Kaposi2018
Author(s) Dávid Kaposi
Title In the shadow of the other: arguments about the first Gaza war in British conservative editorials
Editor(s) Stephen Gibson
Tag(s) EMCA, Discursive Psychology, Gaza, Israel, Palestine
Publisher Springer
Year 2018
Language English
City Cham
Month
Journal
Volume
Number
Pages 119–132
URL Link
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title Discourse, Peace, and Conflict: Discursive Psychology Perspectives
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This chapter presents some aspects of a large-scale empirical study on the British broadsheets’ coverage of the first Gaza war (2008–2009) between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza. In particular, it focuses on various conceptual areas in the editorials of conservative “quality” newspapers, The Times and the Daily Telegraph, where the role of other agents (i.e. different from the subject or different from the one that the subject identifies with) was made relevant by the writers: first, the fighters of Hamas; second, the journalists critiquing the Israeli offensive and thereby exhibiting an alternative political-moral perspective to the conservative newspapers. Analysing these accounts, it will be argued that moving beyond the “us” and “them” dichotomy is indeed a heady task, mainly for the reason that whenever “they” make an appearance in “our” argument, “they” are inevitably presented as occupying a position that cannot be engaged with; a position beyond dialogue, persuasion, and even education. The chapter will conclude with the analysis of the epistemological (indeed, ontological) underpinning of such a dichotomy, and argue that any (i.e. conservative or non-conservative) proposal for a viable peace needs to adopt a different rationale.

Notes