A mediated tolerance of violence: an analysis of online newspaper articles and “below-the-line” comments in the Latvian media This article analyses the framing of tolerance of violence in Latvian newspaper articles published online and the reader response “below-the-line” comments to these and how these frames may negatively present and impact those who suffer violence. It makes visible the language used and concepts employed in such cases where someone supports, justifies, or positively perceives violence. The text is based on qualitative media content analysis of 3,166 documents in the Latvian, Russian and English languages from Latvian news sources online published between 2010 and 2018, as well as the comments provided by readers on these. Frame analysis is employed in order to show the different ways in which violence can be practiced and tolerated, closely related to human beliefs. We show how aspects of these may be related to the particular post-Soviet cultural context of Latvia but give a broader view of tolerance itself. The study shows a linguistic tolerance of violence expressed in terms of human nature and its resulting inevitability, in terms of love and thus integral to romantic and kin relations, is imbued with victim blaming and also that punishment for violence should itself be violent. Violence can even be a source of humor, particularly when committed against males. Further, reporting of violence can be regarded as improper and interferes with domestic privacy. These, taken as a whole, justify the existing social order and societal and cultural beliefs and practices on/of gender relations, child-rearing practices, religious beliefs, and notions of love and care. Our analysis shows that violence is not only tolerated in itself, but also the expression of tolerance is itself tolerated in these mediated expressions which are published with impunity and remain unmoderated.
AccomazzoS. (2012). Anthropology of violence: Historical and current theories, concepts, and debates in physical and socio-cultural anthropology. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22(5), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2011.598727
CarlsonB. E., & WordenA. P. (2005). Attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence: Results of a public opinion survey: I. Definitions of domestic violence, criminal domestic violence, and prevalence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(10), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260505278530
Centrs Dardedze, & Kantar Millward Brown. (2017). Aptauja par sabiedrības attieksmi pret bērnu fizisku sodīšanu Latvijā [Survey on public attitudes towards corporal punishment of children in Latvia]. http://centrsdardedze.lv/data/materiali/petijuma-rezultati.pdf
FábiánK. (2010). Introduction: The politics of domestic violence in postcommunist Europe and Eurasia. In FábiánK. (Ed.), Domestic violence in postcommunist states: Local activism, national policies, and global forces (pp. 1–42). Indiana University Press.
18.
Ferrer-PérezV. A., & Bosch-FiolE. (2014). Gender violence as a social problem in Spain: Attitudes and acceptability. Sex Roles, 70(11), 506–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0322-z
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
21.
JenkinsJ. H. (1998). The medical anthropology of political violence: A cultural and feminist agenda. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 12(1), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.1998.12.1.122
22.
JohnsonJ. E. (2007). Domestic violence politics in post-soviet states. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 14(3), 380–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxm015
23.
JohnsonJ. E., KulmalaM., & JäppinenM. (2016). Street-level practice of Russia’s social policymaking in Saint Petersburg: Federalism, informal politics, and domestic violence. Journal of Social Policy, 45(2), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279415000689
Kantar. (2020). TOP 100 lasītākie periodiskās preses izdevumi pēc viena numura vidējās auditorijas [Top 100 most read press periodicals per average readership]. https://www.kantar.lv/petijumu-dati/prese/
26.
KauraS. A., & LohmanB. J. (2009). Does acceptability of violence impact the relationship between satisfaction, victimization, and commitment levels in emerging adult dating relationships?Journal of Family Violence, 24(6), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9234-7
27.
KelmendiK., & BaumgartnerF. (2017). Exploring violence socialization and approval of intimate partner violence among university students in Kosovo. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517692336
28.
KrementsovN. (2010). Darwinism, Marxism, and genetics in the Soviet Union. In AlexanderD. R. & NumbersR. L. (Eds.), Biology and ideology from Descartes to Dawkins (pp. 215–246). University of Chicago Press.
KuypersJ. A. (2010). Framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. In D’AngeloP. & KuypersJ. A. (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 286–311). Routledge.
31.
MarcuseH. (1965). Repressive tolerance. In WolffR. P., MooreB., & MarcuseH. (Eds.), A critique of pure tolerance (pp. 81–117). Beacon Press.
RocheS. P., PickettJ. T., & GertzM. (2016). The scary world of online news? Internet news exposure and public attitudes toward crime and justice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9261-x
35.
RoekelE. van. (2016). Uncomfortable laughter: Reflections on violence, humour and immorality in Argentina. Etnofoor, 28(1), 55–74. www.jstor.org/stable/43823942
36.
RoscoeB. (1985). Courtship violence: Acceptable forms and situations. College Student Journal, 19(4), 389–393.
37.
SchneiderD. M. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship. University of Michigan Press.
38.
ScottJ. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. Yale University Press.
39.
SepsC. D. (2010). Animal law evolution: Treating pets as persons in tort and custody disputes. University of Illinois Law Review, 2010(4), 1339–1374.
40.
SeymourK. (2009). “Real” violence? Gender and (male) violence: An Australian perspective. Probation Journal, 56(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550508099714
41.
TopperK. (2001). Not so trifling nuances: Pierre Bourdieu, symbolic violence, and the perversions of democracy. Constellations, 8(1), 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00214
VoroninaO. (2009). Has feminist philosophy a future in Russia?Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 34(2), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1086/590976
44.
WhiteheadN. L. (2004). On the poetics of violence. In WhiteheadN. L. (Ed.), Violence (pp. 55–78). School of American Research.
