Abstract
In this paper, we try to build a semiotics of stereotypes through the key idea of enunciation. We investigate stereotypes of Persons with Disabilities in the context of social media networks (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) by adopting a semiotic perspective. The mainstream idea about stereotypes is that they are necessarily something negative, that must be avoided to maximize inclusivity and fairness. However, in our view, stereotypes are the background of our perception of the world, and we cannot escape from them, because when we leave behind a stereotype, it is only for adopting a new one built on a different basis. Therefore, it is crucial to understand stereotypes and the way they are expressed, since they are one of the enunciating instances that circulate in the space of the Encyclopedia. Through a semiotic point of view, we will follow how stereotypes transform, showing the way they change the modes of existence of meanings, shifting between the virtualized, the potentialized, the actualized, and the realized. Analyzing a huge corpus of social network messages built by the partners of the European project MeMe (Me & the Media: Fostering Social Media Literacy competences through Interactive Learning Settings for Adults with Disabilities), we will show how the advent of social media affected the research field of disability studies. Later, we will point out the variations of the classic stereotypes that have been addressed in the new participatory context of social media through the semiotic theory of enunciation.
Funding source: Erasmus+Action type: KA2 Strategic Partnerships for adult education
Award Identifier / Grant number: 2019-1-LT01-KA204-060697
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the European Commission as part of the MeMe, Me & the Media: Fostering Social Media Literacy competences through Interactive Learning Settings for Adults with Disabilities (Grant Agreement NO. 2019–1-LT01-KA204–060697).
C.P., P.M. and M.B. have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Specifically, Sections 1 and 7 were written in a collective effort; Section 4 was written by C.P.; Sections 3 and 5 were written by P.M.; Section 6 was written by M.B.; Section 2 was written jointly by C.P. and P.M.
References
Bartezzaghi, Stefano. 2019. Banalità. Milano: Bompiani.Search in Google Scholar
Boxall, Kathy. 2019. Revisiting the foundations of (critical) disability studies: Manifesto for an inclusive social model. In Katie Ellis, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Mike Kent & Rachel Robertson (eds.), Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies, vol. 1, 199–208. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Briant, Emma, Nicholas Watson & Gregory Philo. 2013. Reporting disability in the age of austerity: The changing face of media representation of disability and disabled people in the United Kingdom and the creation of new “folk devils”. Disability & Society 28. 874–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.813837.Search in Google Scholar
Bruns, Axel. 2018. Gatewatching and news curation: Journalism, social media, and the public sphere. New York: Peter Lang.10.3726/b13293Search in Google Scholar
Carlson, Licia. 2010. The faces of intellectual disability. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Coquet, Jean-Claude. 2007. Phusis et logos: Une phénoménologie du langage. Paris: PUV.Search in Google Scholar
Coquet, Jean-Claude. 2022. Phénoménologie du langage. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.10.23925/2763-700X.2022n4.60182Search in Google Scholar
Creamer, Deborah. 2009. Disability and Christian theology: Embodied limits and constructive possibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195369151.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Dhamdhere, Amogh & Constantine Dovrolis. 2010. The Internet is flat: Modeling the transition from a transit hierarchy to a peering mesh. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (Co-NEXT ’10), 1–12. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/1921168.1921196Search in Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari. 1980. Mille plateaux (Capitalisme et schizophrénie 2). Paris: Les Èditions de Minuit.Search in Google Scholar
Duyan, Veli. 2007. The community effects of disabled sports. In Centre of Excellence Defense Against Terrorism (ed.), Amputee sports for victims of terrorism, 70–77. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1979. Lector in fabula. Milano: Bompiani.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1984. Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio. Torino: Einaudi.Search in Google Scholar
Ellcessor, Elizabeth. 2016. Restricted access: Media, disability, and the politics of participation. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Katie, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Mike Kent & Rachel Robertson (eds.). 2019. Manifestos for the future of critical disability studies, vol. 1. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351053341Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Katie & Gerard Gogging. 2015. Disability and the media. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Search in Google Scholar
Fontanille, Jacques & Claude Zilberberg. 1998. Tension et signification. Liège: P. Mardaga.Search in Google Scholar
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 1997. Feminist theory, the body, and the disabled figure. In Lennard Davis (ed.), The disability studies reader, 279–292. New York & London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2001. Seeing the disabled: Visual rhetorics of disability in popular photography. In Paul K. Longmore & Lauri Umansky (eds.), The new disability history, 335–374. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Grue, Jan. 2016. The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability & Society 31(6). 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1205473.Search in Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1942. Langue et parole. Cahiers F. de Saussure 2. 29–44.Search in Google Scholar
Jenkins, Henry. 2009. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Leone, Massimo. 2017. Cultural semiotics as fluxorum scientia. In Kristian Bankov (ed.), New semiotics: Between tradition and innovation. Sofia: New Bulgarian University & IASS.Search in Google Scholar
Longmore, Paul K. 1985. Screening stereotypes: Images of disabled people in television and motion pictures. Social Policy 16(1). 31–37.Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Juri. 1985. La semiosfera, Simonetta Salvestroni (trans.). Venezia: Marsilio.Search in Google Scholar
McRuer, Robert. 2006. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York: New York University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Olkin, Rhoda. 1999. The personal, professional and political when clients have disabilities. Women & Therapy 22(2). 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1300/j015v22n02_07.Search in Google Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2007. Da che cosa si riconosce la semiotica intepretativa? In Claudio Paolucci (ed.), Studi di semiotica interpretative, 43–144. Milano: Bompiani.Search in Google Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2010. Strutturalismo e interpretazione. Milano: Bompiani.Search in Google Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2017. “Sfuggire ai cliché”: Gli stereotipi tra enciclopedia, enunciazione e soggettività nel linguaggio. Reti, Saperi, Linguaggi 2. 352–374.Search in Google Scholar
Paolucci, Claudio. 2020. Persona: Semiotica dell’enunciazione e filosofia della soggettività. Milano: Bompiani.Search in Google Scholar
Retief, Marno & Rantoa Letšosa. 2018. Models of disability: A brief overview. HTS Teologiese Studies 74(1). a4738. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v74i1.4738.Search in Google Scholar
Shakespeare, Tom. 1994. Cultural representation of disabled people: Dustbins for disavowal? Disability & Society 9(3). 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599466780341.Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Mirko T. 2011. Bastard culture! How user participation transforms cultural production. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.10.5117/9789089642561Search in Google Scholar
Turnbull, Helen. 2016. The illusion of inclusion: Global inclusion, unconscious bias and the bottom line. New York: Business Expert Press.Search in Google Scholar
UPIAS. 1976. Fundamental principles of disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/UPIAS/fundamental%20principles.pdf (accessed June 2020).Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
