Braxton Wright

Lacee Nisbit

EN 102

29 January 2019

A Rhetorical Analysis of Digital cultures of political participation: Internet memes and the

discursive delegitimization of the 2016 U.S Presidential Candidates

It is well known that we as a society are heavily reliant on social media and technology

for our communication. Andrew Ross and Damien Rivers wrote “Digital cultures of political

participation: Internet memes and the discursive delegitimization of the 2016 U.S Presidential

Candidates,” published in January 2017 in the Elsevier Journal, and they argue that the way

people portray the 2016 Presidential candidates in memes shared online influences others to

change their ideas about the candidates whether the information shared is correct or not. The

authors begin building their credibility by giving statistics about how social media has influenced

people to vote a certain way and also how social media specifically has made people want to get

out and vote; however, towards the middle of the article, their attempts to give examples of how

the memes have changed voting behavior whether they were truthful or not weakens the overall

argument of the text.

In the article, Ross and Rivers start by explaining the term delegitimization as how

memes “negatively characterize” the target. They then discuss how the language used in memes

is a common language in society as we know it and they go further by saying that these memes

are a way that people can communicate in a way that has no delay and also has no censorship,

basically saying they can put something out there for everyone to see when they want and

however they want. Also, the authors go into detail about how this problem of delegitimization
usually is attacking a single person rather than in the past legitimization was usually always

referring to an organization. Authors of these memes usually identify the main topics that are hot

in society at a certain time and apply this idea of delegitimization to a specific person, for

example, Trump building the wall and making Mexico pay for it, or Hilary using a private email

to discuss top secret information. These memes were attempting to delegitimize the two top

candidates in the 2016 election.

Throughout the text, Ross and Rivers use many examples and sources that strengthen

their credibility and appeal to ethos, as well as build their argument. These examples include

many of the memes found on www.politicalmemes.com and www.knowyourmeme.com.

Mentioning these websites add credibility by showing that they have done research and provided

good sources as to where these political memes that support their claims can be found. They also

use Van Leeuwen’s model for deciding if these memes are supporting, or legitimizing, or

hurting, delegitimizing, the candidates which states that, “as a foundation, we develop a series of

prompt questions through which to approach each meme encountered as an act of

delegitimization”(Ross, Rivers 5).

In addition to their appeal to ethos, Ross and Rivers also appeal to logos by using many

facts about how, when people read something in the media, they are affected by it whether they

mean to be or not. They do this by pointing out facts about the way that internet memes relate to

contemporary political events also about how there is a crazy amount of anonymity when

creating and dispersing memes in internet culture. That being said, they then break down how

this effects how people see the candidates and sometimes the things in these memes may not be

necessarily true or the things might be a backwards version of the truth. At the end of the text,

Ross and Rivers choose a specific collection of memes that represent their claims by being
overly dramatic, these include memes about not only the presidential election specifically, but

also other economic problems such as the oil market and Shell gas company. They use formal

language to persuade the audience that the ideas shown through these internet memes might not

be completely legitimate but might be shown to viewers in a way that convinces them otherwise.

For example, towards the end of the text they write, “…further demonstrate the delegitimization

strategy of mythopesis through the issuance of an indirect caution” (Ross, Rivers 10).

Even though Ross and Rivers begin the essay with these ideas of how delegitimization is

causing turmoil for these candidates they somehow contradict themselves with the sources used.

Readers get lost in the fact that these people are creating these humorous pictures with no

backlash from the candidates due to the anonymity of the platform and that soon turns into the

thought that if random people can create these memes then why shouldn’t they create them about

themselves just for attention because apparently these images just fuel the fire for backlash in a

presidential election. Overall, the appeals to ethos and logos have become evident in the text and

are centered obviously more toward people who don’t agree with the backlash often seen as

innocent comic relief in a stressful political time. Therefore, Ross and Rivers do a good job of

explaining their views on this very controversial topic by giving relevant examples, and by using

a language that is easily comprehendible yet incredibly formal.

 Works Cited

Ross, Andrew S., and Damian J. Rivers. “Digital Cultures of Political Participation: Internet

Memes and the Discursive Delegitimization of the 2016 U.S Presidential

Candidates.” Discourse, Context & Media, vol. 16, 14 Jan. 2017, pp. 1–11.,

doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2017.01.001.