Symbolic violence and discrimination in a social media comment section: A study on discriminatory discursive strategies targeting non-binary gender identity in the context of Indonesia

Abstract This study examines the presence of discriminatory discourses and symbolic violence in the digital realm within the context of Indonesia. The objective of this research is to identify the discriminatory strategies towards non-heteronormative gender identity within the comment section of an Instagram post published by VICE Indonesia and to comprehend how these strategies function as mechanisms of symbolic violence. The study was conducted qualitatively by analyzing notable comments in the primary data source, which is an Instagram post addressing the issue of non-binary gender in the Indonesian context. To ensure a comprehensive analysis of the comments, only representative comments were included. The data was categorized based on four discriminatory discursive strategies, and subsequently interpreted through the lens of symbolic violence. The results show that the utilization of discriminatory discursive strategies includes the negative portrayal of the other, which involves labeling the out-group using words such as penyimpangan and gangguan jiwa, scare tactics, which are used to stir worries, blaming the victim, by justifying discrimination towards the out-group by emphasizing their negative qualities, and delegitimation, by highlighting the illegitimate status of the out-group. Additionally, the employment of these strategies is argued to transmit symbolic violence as a way to maintain doxa. Furthermore, the transmission of symbolic violence is discussed further and related to the sociocultural context of Indonesia.


Introduction
The internet usage has significantly increased among the Indonesian population in recent years.Recent statistical data indicates that approximately 68% of the total population actively engages with the internet (Ida et al., 2020).Moreover, Indonesia is among the largest social media users in the world, reflecting a significant presence in the digital realm.Following China and India, Indonesia has 170 million active social media users (Nurhayati-Wolff, 2021).
Aside from being a country with a large number of internet users, Indonesia is also characterized by a prevailing conservative mindset among its populace, with the Islamic faith holding a prominent position as the dominant religion.Approximately 87% of the country's population adheres to the Muslim faith (United States Department of State, 2018).The regulations in the country are also designed to align with religious principles, particularly Islamic rules (United States Department of State, 2018).This creates a condition where most Indonesians seem to reject the idea of non-heteronormative gender and sexuality.Furthermore, most Indonesians view the LGBTQ spectrum as degenerate (Kinasih et al., 2022), which leads to its marginalization.Frequently, disparaging remarks regarding this specific topic are prevalent on various social media platforms with Instagram being one of the examples.A recent instance of this phenomenon can be observed in a recent Instagram post by VICE Indonesia.VICE Indonesia itself is a social media-based news outlet with approximately one million followers on Instagram.The platform regularly shares various contents on the current affairs, including a recent post highlighting an incident at a university in eastern Indonesia where a student identified himself as non-binary during a campus orientation activity.This particular incident gained significant attention and went viral in August 2022.However, VICE Indonesia's relatively positive portrayal of the issue received backlash from the populace who express their disapproval of non-binary gender identities.These critical comments have been characterized by their vocal and discriminatory nature, constituting symbolic violence that is conveyed through language rather than physical means which is often subtle and difficult to detect (Recuero, 2015).The process by which symbolic violence operates within the comment section of VICE Indonesia's post is facilitated through the use of language, specifically through the expression of discriminatory discourse by conservative commenters who express their disapproval towards the matter.Consequently, it is worthwhile to examine these inflammatory comments and subject them to a thorough analysis using the framework of discriminatory discourse analysis.
There have been several related studies that explored discriminatory discursive practice and symbolic violence.Specifically, the transmission of discriminatory attitudes through discursive practices in comment sections of social media platforms has been a topic of discussion (Chen & Flowerdew, 2019;Kinasih et al., 2022).Chen and Flowerdew (2019) explored discriminatory discursive strategies in two YouTube comment sections regarding the Hong Kong Umbrella movement, where they looked at the mainland and Hong Kong Chinese comments.A study by Damayanti et al. (2019) also explored symbolic violence in the educational field through euphemisms uttered by lecturers.Studies on discrimination have also been numerous across different topics, including discrimination towards minorities (Ramos et al., 2021;Thijssen et al., 2021) and transgender (Gerhards et al., 2020).Moreover, scholarly investigations have been carried out on the subject of symbolic violence within the realm of film (Wahyudiputra & Riyanto, 2022) and Indonesian literature (Fahruddin & Angelinawati, 2019).The former studied capital contestation and symbolic violence in an American movie, while the latter explored on symbolic violence towards lesbian characters in two Indonesian novels.While there have been some studies on discriminatory discursive practices and symbolic violence regarding gender issues, research exploring a social media comment section remains limited.Remarkably, Kinasih et al. (2022) investigated the utilization of discriminatory discursive strategies by East Timorese in one of VICE's YouTube comment section.Moreover, this study was done in the context of Timor Leste, a neighboring country of Indonesia.Additionally, Martínez-Guzmán and Íñiguez-Rueda (2017), conducted a study to examine discursive practices against the LGBTQ spectrum within the context of education.Nonetheless, further research into discriminatory discursive practices done in social media against a marginalized gender group needs to be undertaken as a way to comprehend how social media users discriminate against people who are not in accordance with their beliefs in the cyber world, particularly within the Indonesian context.Therefore, the present study tries to fill the research gap by looking at the discriminatory discursive strategies in a VICE Indonesia's Instagram post, and relating the result to the postulation of symbolic violence.Therefore, this study aimed to find: (1) the discriminatory strategies in the discourses by the commenters of the post, and (2) how the strategies are used as mechanism of symbolic violence.The findings of the current research may provide invaluable insights regarding how discriminatory discourses are used by internet users against a marginalized gender group.

Discriminatory discursive strategies
The taxonomy of discriminatory discursive strategies was first introduced by Flowerdew et al. (2002).This inquiry into conducting critical discourse analysis was initially used to examine news discourse, specifically in the context of Hong Kong news media.Moreover, Flowerdew expanded the framework to include social media by examining discursive practices in YouTube comments (Chen & Flowerdew, 2019).He is particularly interested in discursive practices regarding problems between Hong Kong and China.However, the present study contributes to the discussion of symbolic violence and gender by incorporating the taxonomy of discriminatory discursive strategies, which aligns with similar previous studies mentioned (Kinasih et al., 2022;Martínez-Guzmán & Íñiguez-Rueda, 2017).
In developing the taxonomy of discriminatory discursive practices, Flowerdew drew inspiration from other scholars in the field of discourse studies, including Wodak (1997) and van Dijk (1995).Wodak (1997) is particularly interested in the discursive tactics employed in the construction of national identity, with a particular focus on the potential inclusion of discriminatory discourses.Similarly, van Dijk (1995) has demonstrated a keen interest in discriminatory discourses, specifically examining how these discourses serve to empower the majority group while discrediting minority groups.van Dijk's (1995) theoretical framework posits that discriminatory groups have been subjected to discriminatory discourses through the utilization of socio-cognitive strategies (Flowerdew et al., 2002;van Dijk, 1987van Dijk, , 1988van Dijk, , 1995)).Some scholars also develop strategies to address discriminatory discourse (Bar-Tal, 1989;Gruber, 1997;Horvat et al., 1997;Teo, 2000).
Flowerdew's taxonomy (Flowerdew et al., 2002) opens up existing foundations that are scattered around the topic of power dominance.Flowerdew et al. (2002) presents a taxonomy consisting of four categories: negative other presentation, scare tactics, blaming the victims, and delegitimation.These categories have been derived from previous frameworks proposed by other scholars.Negative other presentation involves the process of marginalizing and alienating minority groups.Scare tactics are employed to amplify the perceived threat posed by the out-group (Chen & Flowerdew, 2019).Blaming the victim serves as a justification for discrimination by the majority.Lastly, delegitimation is employed to marginalize and disempower minority groups.Each category encompasses various sub-strategies, which are shown in Table 1.Initially, this taxonomy was developed to analyze discourse in news media.However, Fahruddin and Angelinawati (2019) has recently expanded its application to the study of social media, particularly comment sections.Chen and Flowerdew (2019) conducted a study on a YouTube comment section to identify instances of discriminatory discourse related to the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement.The taxonomy is presented in Table 1 below.

Symbolic violence
The concept of symbolic violence was coined by the sociologist Bourdieu (1991).Symbolic violence is produced, maintained, and perpetuated through the use of language as the status quo (Bourdieu, 1991), a viewpoint with which Žižek (2008) also concurs.However, Bourdieu does not stop there.Symbolic violence has an effect in that the discourse containing it is naturalized, which legitimizes power relations or domination (Bourdieu, 1991).Bourdieu (1991) asserts that symbolic violence results from symbolic dominance, which is not maintained coercively.Rather, the instrument that is used to exercise this symbolic dominance and transmit symbolic violence is language.It is considered as an instrument of power and action that asserts dominance (Bourdieu & Eagleton, 1992).The term symbolic violence is also utilized interchangeably with symbolic power and symbolic relations (Karnanta, 2013).Although this type of violence is not as subtle as other physical types of violence, the effects are not less real.Furthermore, discussion about dominant and dominated groups also needs to be addressed.Symbolic power, as described by Bourdieu (1991), involves the ability to create or alter an unquestioned reality that is perceived as natural within a particular field.This reality is transmitted through cognitive and perceptual schemes (Martínez-Guzmán & Íñiguez-Rueda, 2017).Symbolic violence, although often subtle, shapes social relations by reinforcing the beliefs of the dominant group and presenting them as the natural order.This form of violence is effective in maintaining dominance because the dominant group does not need to actively exert effort to preserve their privilege (Bourdieu, 1991).Additionally, symbolic violence occurs within a field where different agents possess varying forms of capital and habitus (Karnanta, 2013).Bourdieu (1991) explains that symbolic violence is transmitted through a mechanism known as doxa, which refers to fundamental beliefs that are dogmatized and do not require explicit justification.However, not all individuals accept doxa, and the non-dominant group within a field may attempt to challenge it.Bourdieu (1991) refers to those who challenge doxa as heterodoxa, as they explicitly express their beliefs and contest the implicit perceptions of the dominant group.On the other hand, the orthodoxy refers to the agents who actively defend and maintain the integrity of doxa (Karnanta, 2013).Bourdieu also employs the terms dominant and dominated group or class to describe the contestation of doxa, with the dominant group aiming to challenge it and the dominated group defending its integrity (Bourdieu, 1991).Therefore, Karnanta (2013) argues that symbolic violence utilizes language as a medium to exert power and is an integral part of social practice, as it is enacted by agents within a field.In this study, the focus is on exploring discriminatory discourses in social media related to non-binary gender to gain insight into the symbolic violence perpetuated by these agents.

Method
The primary objective of the present study is to conduct a qualitative inquiry on the utilization of discriminatory tactics by individuals commenting on an Instagram post from VICE Indonesia.The selected Instagram post, shown in Figure 1, pertained to the topic of nonbinary genders, specifically discussing a student who identified as "gender-neutral" during a campus orientation program at a state university in eastern Indonesia.The post garnered approximately two thousand comments, which serve as the data for this investigation.These comments were written in the non-formal style of Indonesian.In order to uphold ethical considerations, the account names of the users who generated these comments were not displayed in the paper.
The present study does not encompass the whole corpus of comments within the post, as only a representative sample of comments was chosen.Furthermore, the study solely aims to qualitatively examine the selected comments without quantifying the total number of strategies identified in the comment section.Additionally, the selection criteria for the representative comments are based on the taxonomy of discriminatory discursive strategies (refer to Table 1).Regarding the data analysis, the selected comments were organized into tables based on their respective categories.These categories align with the four discriminatory discursive strategies identified by Flowerdew et al. (2002).Furthermore, the analysis sought to uncover instances of discrimination against the targeted group through discourse analysis.
It is important to note, however, that there are minority commenters who express agreement with the post.This study does not focus on these comments.Following the analysis of all instances, the results were interpreted using the Bourdieusian framework of symbolic violence and doxa (Bourdieu, 1991).Despite being a qualitative investigation of written texts in social media, concerns regarding the reliability and validity of this study still need to be addressed.In discourse analysis, the reliability and validity of interpretations can be enhanced when a shared set of rules, frame of reference, or beliefs are employed to analyze the data (Jaipal-Jamani, 2014).Moreover, Jaipal-Jamani (2014) asserts that knowledge of social code regarding the text being analyzed is important to legitimize interpretations.In this case, both researchers are Indonesians and familiar with the cultural context of the society.Hence, these serve as justifiable grounds for interpretations made in the present study.

Findings and discussion
This section presents the research findings which have been categorized into discriminatory strategies according to Flowerdew's framework (Chen & Flowerdew, 2019;Flowerdew et al., 2002).It is important to note that the current study does not aim to quantify the exact frequency of each strategy utilized by the commenters.

Negative other presentation
Table 2 below presents the comments which employ negative other presentation sub-strategy.
As indicated by its name, this particular strategy involves the use of negative language to target and marginalize a minority group.It specifically focuses on highlighting the negative characteristics of the minority, which in turn perpetuates stereotypes and leads to their social isolation (Flowerdew et al., 2002).

Dehumanisation
of the non-binary/LGBT minority group and placed them in prominent positions within the sentence structure.These prominent positions, known as the foreground, can be either at the beginning or end of a sentence.In example 1, the noun "penyimpangan" (deviation) is placed at the head position, indicating its status as the foreground element.Not only does the commenter position the word in the foreground, but when considering the given-new information perspective, the word "penyimpangan" is in the given and subject positions, suggesting that it is already known information.The commenter seems to be asserting that deviation is the inherent characteristic of LGBT individuals that everyone should be aware of, by placing this label at the front or given position.Examples 2, 3, and 4 further reinforce the notion that non-binary gender is seen as a deviation rather than a form of diversity.It is worth noting that there is also a negation label, "bukan keberagaman" (not diversity), used to describe the minority.Additionally, the remaining examples of negative attributions include the noun phrases "gangguan jiwa" (mental disorder) and "aneh2" (strange), both of which can imply mental illness.
This labeling strategy also extends to the attribution of mental conditions.In Example 5, the commenter uses the adjective "sakit" (ill) to describe individuals who identify outside the male or Some commenters take this labeling strategy to an even more extreme level by dehumanizing the minority group.The last two examples demonstrate the use of nouns associated with animals.Example 6 employs the noun phrase "dunia satwa" (animal world), suggesting that the non-binary/LGBT identity would be acceptable only within the realm of animals.Another dehumanizing comment can be seen in Example 7, where the noun "species" is used to refer to "LGBTers".

Scare tactics
Table 3 below presents the discursive strategy of scare tactics done by the commenters toward the non-binaries.This discursive strategy, as identified by Chen and Flowerdew (2019), involves the use of exaggeration of statistics, threats to the public, or quasi-theory to instill fear and concern among others.However, upon analysis of the comments in the data source, it was found that the use of exaggerated statistics was not present.Instead, commenters employed quasi-theory by making quasi-objective arguments through the use of theory quotations, sometimes without indicating the source.Additionally, the exaggeration of threats to the public was observed as a means to criminalize or marginalize minority or outgroup populations.
In excerpt 8, an example of a quasi-objective argument is presented, drawing upon the biblical story of Luth.This religious reference is utilized to intimidate the outgroup by suggesting potential consequences they may face.Furthermore, it is worth noting that this reference was also found in in the study conducted by Kinasih et al. (2022).In example 9, a commenter argues that there are only two genders and explicitly states that VICE Indonesia's argument is incorrect.A similar sentiment is expressed in Example 13, where the commenter questions the basis of gender diversity, asserting that gender is solely determined by an individual's biological sex.
Furthermore, Table 3 highlights three instances of exaggeration of public threats.These examples share a common theme of outgroups failing to adhere to established rules or laws.For instance, Example 10 questions why the outgroup desires to alter the absolute rules of God.Example 11 also amplifies the argument based on religious law, exaggerating how LGBT individuals attempt to normalize what is actually prohibited, and anyone who disagrees is labeled as discriminatory.The latter comment intensifies the perceived threat to the public.Lastly, Example 12 incorporates the concept of law into the argument, aiming to criminalize the outgroup by asserting that identifying as a gender other than the one assigned at birth is against the law.

Blaming the victim
Table 4 below presents the discursive strategy of blaming the victim employed by the commenters.This strategy involves highlighting the negative attributes of the outgroup in order to justify discriminatory attitudes towards them, known as the self-justification sub-strategy.Another way this strategy is employed is through comparisons between the prejudiced group and a negatively perceived community abroad.Distortion occurs when negative fallacies are used to prejudice the outgroup, while concession involves making a positive statement before expressing a negative opinion.
Example 14 illustrates the use of concession, where the commenter first makes a positive remark before criticizing the outgroup.The commenter compares the rules for polygamy, which are still debatable, with those for non-binary individuals, stating that they are not the same as one is still open to discussion while the other is absolute.
Examples 15 and 16 employ the self-justification sub-strategy by referencing "notorious" communities abroad.In Example 15, the commenter mentions Thailand as a country that allows gender diversity, using it as a comparison to highlight the conditions in South Sulawesi mentioned by VICE.The following example also demonstrates positive discrimination, as the commenter cites the law that recognizes only two sexes in Indonesia.The commenter justifies this condition by referring to the law and stating that those who identify differently should not be in Indonesia.
In Example 17, the commenter refers to the United States as Uncle Sam, suggesting that it is a place where all cultural products contain LGBT references.This is an example of distortion, as American cultural products are being misrepresented and overgeneralized as always containing

Distortion
LGBT content.Another instance of distortion is seen in the subsequent example, where the nonbinary gender is distorted through the use of the derogatory term "banci."

Delegitimation
Finally, Table 5 presents the last discursive strategy employed by the commenters, which is delegitimation.
The delegitimation strategy can be further implemented by highlighting the illegitimate status or activities of the outgroup and amplifying voices that oppose the group (Chen & Flowerdew, 2019).An example of this strategy can be seen in Example 19, where the commenter points out the calabai's illegitimate status.The commenter goes on to explain that this is considered a deviation, a term commonly used in the comment section.In Example 20, the illegitimate status is emphasized through the use of an adjective clause: "hal yang tak sepantasnya dinormalisasi," which translates to "things that should not be normalized."Although the exact terms LGBT or non-binary are not mentioned, based on the context, it can be inferred that the noun "things" refers to the status of the outgroup.The commenter states that it is not normal and therefore should not be normalized.The final example demonstrates how the commenter amplifies voices against the group.Amplifying voices can be achieved by disempowering the outgroup (Chen & Flowerdew, 2019).The commenter appears to argue against the outgroup by using the noun phrase "something that is wrong."The disempowerment is evident when the commenter suggests that by constantly justifying the outgroup's illegitimate status, it will eventually be accepted, but that does not make it morally right.

Symbolic violence and doxa in the discourses
The previous analysis has presented and categorized the four discursive strategies employed by the commenters in the data source.Given that the data analyzed consists of language, which is recognized as a tool of power and a means of exerting dominance (Bourdieu & Eagleton, 1992), the subsequent step is to further examine it through the lens of Bourdieu's concepts of symbolic violence and doxa.
The findings have revealed that the discourses contain instances of discrimination against the nonheteronormative gender.In relation to symbolic violence, one manifestation of this violence is the discrimination directed towards specific groups.This can be observed in Table 2, where commenters employ terms such as "penyimpangan" (deviation), "penyakit" (illness), and "gangguan jiwa" (mental disorder) to discriminate against the group.In Table 3, the use of scare tactics further highlights the presence of violence.Commenters frequently assert that LGBT individuals are in opposition to both legal and religious institutions.By invoking these institutions, commenters are unquestionably reinforcing the status quo.Table 4 provides additional examples of discriminatory discourse, illustrating how commenters assert their symbolic dominance.As the dominant group, they employ the discursive strategy of blaming the victim, even going so far as to suggest that out-groups should leave the country and using derogatory terms (examples 16 and 18).Lastly, Table 5 demonstrates the final strategy of delegitimation, which the group is subjected to.These discursive strategies clearly indicate that the LGBT community is targeted due to their beliefs regarding non-binary genders.Commenters appear to exercise their dominance by articulating discriminatory discourses, such as the assertion that there are only two genders or sexes.
The transmission of symbolic violence, as described by Bourdieu, occurs through a mechanism known as doxa (Karnanta, 2013).In this particular case, the commenters can be identified as the orthodoxy, as they are the individuals who defend the doxa through the use of symbolic violence.Conversely, the alternative media outlet VICE Indonesia can be seen as the heterodoxy, as it attempts to present a positive portrayal of the LGBT community in relation to the issue at hand, which subsequently receives backlash from the orthodoxy.The doxa being defended in this context is the belief that there are only two genders: male and female.The orthodoxy reinforces their claims by invoking religious and state laws.
The majority of Indonesians, particularly young people, perceive non-heteronormative gender and sexuality as being contrary to the moral values upheld by the state and religion.Consequently, many Indonesians hold socially conservative beliefs, particularly regarding matters concerning gender and sexuality, which are further reinforced by authoritative figures (Parker, 2014).In relation to the data presented in this study, it was observed that the comments analyzed can be seen as reflections of this belief, serving as a means to defend the doxa, albeit through the use of discriminatory discourses and symbolic violence.However, the harsh nature of these comments may be attributed to a moral panic surrounding non-heteronormative gender and sexuality.This moral panic within the Indonesian context reached its peak in 2016 (Platt et al., 2018).Furthermore, it has been argued that negotiating non-heteronormative gender and sexuality has become increasingly challenging since then, as these practices have been labeled as immoral (Platt et al., 2018).

Conclusion
The paper presents a qualitative analysis of discriminatory discursive strategies and symbolic violence in the comment section of VICE Indonesia towards the non-binary gender/LGBT community.The study identifies four discursive strategies of discrimination that are prevalent in the comments.The discursive strategies include negative other presentation, which includes labeling the out-group using words such as penyimpangan and gangguan jiwa; scare tactics, which are used to stir up worries; blaming the victim by means of justification of discrimination towards the out-group by maximizing their negative attributes; and delegitimation by pointing out the illegitimate status or activities of the out-group.The analysis also reveals the use of symbolic violence through discriminatory discursive practices to uphold existing beliefs or doxa.The findings highlight the extent of discrimination by social media users in Indonesia, particularly towards those who do not conform to their beliefs.Therefore, it is crucial for Indonesian social media users to maintain civility while engaging online, creating a safer environment for all and recognizing that differences should not be a justification for violence.It is also important to acknowledge that the present study did not conduct frequency analysis of each sub-strategy.Additionally, future research on similar topics could benefit from examining the frequency of each discriminative discursive sub-strategy to gain a more objective understanding.

Table 1
above presents several instances of this strategy found in the comment section.Under the sub-category of negative attributions, commenters wrote down negative attributes

Table 3 . Scare tactics employed by the commenters
The commenter suggests that these individuals are mentally ill, as indicated by the subsequent clause stating that this illness should be treated by a psychologist.