Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Centre for British Studies

CDA of anti-vaccination comments on Youtube

Research report for

Module 7: Interdisciplinary Project:

Self, Society and Agency

Summer Semester 2021

Anastasiia Krasnoiaruzhenskaia
M.A.B.S. Course 2020/2022
krasnoia@student.hu-berlin.de

Supervised by:

Felicia Kompio

August 2021
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3
2. Theoretical base and response to readings 4
3. Critical Discourse Analysis 8
4. Data collection 10
5. The analysis of the comments 11
6. Conclusion 15

Bibliography 16

2
 1. Introduction

The years of the COVID-19 pandemic have reminded humankind that there are
still lots of things in the world that cannot be fully controlled. It is a vivid example
illustrating how restrictions can limit people’s capability to work, study, travel, and
enjoy mundane routines. With the spread of vaccines, now when more and more
people have access to them, another debate has started. It is clear that some have
developed strong either pro-vaccination or anti-vaccination sentiment, while some
are just in doubt what is better — to get vaccinated or restrain from it. That is why it
is of particular interest to have a closer look at the capability of people to act, given
that there is a huge number of factors shaping opinions of the society members. How
do people identify themselves according to their attitude to the vaccination process?
What group do they decide to join: anti-vaccination or pro-vaccination ones, and
why?
This paper provides a Critical Discourse Analysis of anti-vaccination comments
on social media, to be more precise, on one of the recent videos concerning the
vaccination with a relatively big number of views published by the BBC on
YouTube. The title of the video is ‘The Race to Vaccinate the World’
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJqvUVRPz70), and it was released on May 13,
2021. It has almost 129 000 views, which is the biggest number for a Covid-related
video over the period of four last months, considering the fact that this paper is
written in August 2021.
The CDA is interpreted from an audience or commenter perspective rather than
the news provider with the focus on how the audience or receivers of news content
tend to respond to the social practices framed within the discourse published online.
As a result, it is sought to examine the audiences’ perception of the rollout of
vaccines, how these anti-vaccination attitudes are constructed through language and
how news comments reveal them. Although an audience or a reader does not play the
role of the initiator of the actions or practices, they may react towards the practices
established by, for example, the news providers.
Considering the anonymity and the fact that social media is perceived to be a
more auspicious ambience for negative outbursts and heated discussions to
proliferate, the research questions are: how do the commenters identify themselves in
relation to vaccination and how is their agency defined in their comments?

3
 2. Theoretical base and response to readings

It makes sense to start with a brief overview of the theory. Being an essential
sociological category, agency is defined in different ways. However, it is clear that
the capability of people to do things or, vice versa, restrain from doing anything is at
its core.
Following the Oxford English Dictionary definition of an agent, as ‘one who
exerts power or produces an effect’, Giddens points out the importance of the word
‘capability’ while explaining the term ‘agency’ (Giddens 1984, 9). Opposing the
opinion that ‘human agency can be defined only in terms of intentions’, he further
separates out people’s intentions from people’s actions (Ibid 8). Another important
thing is that agency is ‘universal to members of society’, whereas not everybody is
agent as it depends on the social identity of each person and how expressive they
want to be (Archer 2000, 261) and what identity they acquire ‘as a social self’ (Ibid
283).
In order to explain the correlation between agency and power, this definition is
given: ‘to be an agent is to be able to deploy (chronically, in the flow of daily life) a
range of casual powers, including that of influencing those deployed by others’
(Giddens 1984, 14).
The question of concern is what constitutes, determines and constrains these
powers, how the society and its existing order shape the capability of people to act or
not to do so. Margaret Archer delves into the process of agents and actors acquiring a
‘social self’, explaining that the stage of being an agent is ultimate and agency is a
‘springboard’ from agents to actors (Archer 2000, 284). Agents are seen as beginners
in this world whose actions are scaffolded by the social context, the environment
they were born to and raised in, whereas actors are those who choose what to
become. Although the first level of predefined characteristics and life-chances is
inevitable and it greatly influences the type of actor a person can become, the set of
features is still left to interests, life choices, and self-identification. These things that
frame directions agents and actors move in are called ‘constraints and enablements’
(Ibid 285).
Nevertheless, this phenomenon is not onefold, constraints and enablements are
solely ‘tendential’, the same factors can impact different people in a different way
due to the fact that human reflexive abilities ‘withstand’ and ‘circumvent’ them
(Archer 2003, 7).

4
 There are a number of prerequisites for structural and cultural factors to turn into
constraints and enablements. To begin with, they exist only in relation to some
human projects. Moreover, agents should be in a congruent or incongruent
relationship with these projects. Furthermore, agents should react to these external
influences (Ibid 8).
The book ‘Contested Britain. Brexit, Austerity and Agency’ employs all these
concepts in order to analyse Brexit or, to be more precise, the role of austerity in its
political and everyday meanings, preceding the referendum on leaving the EU and its
influence on Britons’ agency. By means of this category, the link between voting
Leave and austerity is explained. Being the dominant policy, austerity measures
affected the economic growth of the country and public service delivery, which
reduced sources of people’s agency and resulted in voting Leave as their attempt to
improve the situation (Guderjan, et al. 2020, 241). Being logical and plausible, this
whole approach in regard to Brexit is substantiated with the theoretical scope in the
introduction. Despite the fact that the part devoted to it is quite brief and not intended
to contribute to theoretical debates, it provides the reader with concise essential
information, totally enough to operate these ideas. Although these explanations are
placed in a certain context, it is possible to use them as introductory reading so as to
be guided by them further in different contexts. Admitting various accounts, e.g.
structuralist and intentionalist, and citing the scholars belonging to these different
movements such as Anthony Giddens, Margaret Archer, Paul Kockelman, Colin Hay,
etc., the authors of the introduction to the book bridge the gap between them and
strive to give a multifaceted understanding of agency. Considering the fact that
agency depends on our choices that, in turn, depend on lots of other conditions,
power is pointed out to be one of the main mechanisms shaping the strategies of
actors. The emphasis is also put on the importance of contexts containing either
enabling or constraining ‘properties’, which activate themselves in accordance with
the personal characteristics and reactions of individuals (Ibid 7). Thus, scrutinising
several definitions and uniting the existent approaches, it is possible to say that the
authors see agency as the capability of people to act, influenced by the ambience
agents live in and their reactions to the enabling and constraining elements around
them. In the conclusion the authors arrive to the idea that such policies as
privatization and the retrenchment of public services, health, education and welfare
‘has severely undermined the agency of those who depend on these services’ and
changed ‘the relationship between state and citizens’ who then had to choose

5
providers of the services mentioned above on their own. Sources of people’s agency
were reduced, which is illustrated by the culture sector, the control over which was
given to volunteers, philanthropic donors and commercial interests. At first sight, it
seems that these changes helped people to be more capable of making differences,
but in reality, they deprived individuals of power and reduced their ‘quality of life
(chances)’ (Ibid 236).
In the book ‘Cultural Studies. Theory and practice’ Chris Barker and Emma A.
Jane delve into the concepts of subjectivity and identity, building on them the
discussion on agency.
Having emerged as a theme of cultural studies in the 1990s, ‘identity’ is closely
connected to subjectivity. The authors give these definitions: subjectivity is ‘the
condition of being a person and the processes by which we become a person; that is,
how we are constituted as cultural subjects and how we experience ourselves’,
whereas identity is explained in its two dimensions. Self-identity is ‘the conceptions
we hold about ourselves and our emotional identification with those
self-descriptions’; social identity is ‘the expectations and opinions that others have of
us’ (Barker, Jane 2016, 259-260). These categories are seen as cultural productions,
so they vary depending on the culture individuals exist in. Self-identity is also
perceived as a narrative about the self, an ability to compile all the life details in one
coherent story over a certain period. Social identities are formed under the influence
of the social regulations and standards, individual’s willingness to fit in or, vice
versa, stand out.
Mentioning the argument that identities are discursive constructions, further the
authors draw upon the concept of agency, posing a question of how to regard it in
terms of cultural studies. Foucault’s take is presented through the point of view that
discourse is the determinant for knowledge that people can have, which is also a
form of power involved in subjectivity (Ibid 277). It is also pointed out that in
Foucault’s initial works subjects are considered to be the product of discourses
without acquiring any agency, which was, however, edited in the later work dwelling
on it as ‘the possibility of resistance and change’ (Ibid 277). Joining the notions of
ethics, or ethical discourses, and subjectivity, Foucault sees agency through their
interrelation or, in other words, ethics’ influence on subject positions construction, in
the result of which agency ‘occurs’. Thus, according to this frame agency is ‘a
discursive construction exemplifying the productive character of power’ (Ibid 278).

6
 Opposing Foucault’s ideas, Giddens’ structuration theory is based on the way
‘agents produce and reproduce structure through their own actions’ (Ibid 279), which
means the resources that agents and actors are built on are created by them. It can be
compared with a self-perpetuating system that gives fuel to new elements by burning
the given ones. Moreover, it does not happen by each individual as such at some
concrete moment, but rather collectively and continually. According to Giddens,
there is another thing one needs to understand about it — the concept of its duality,
which means structures can be constraining, as well as enabling. This theory is in
tune with Archer’s ‘constraints and enablements’: actors are shaped by social
conditions they are faced with. Chris Barber and Emma A. Jane provide the reader
with the essence of the two theories, comparing them. Besides the contrasts, the
unifying thing is named: both Giddens and Foucault reckon that agency of subjects is
predetermined (either by structure or by discourse). Further, the authors of the book
‘Cultural Studies’ present the main concepts of agency including such categories as
freedom; free will; action; creativity; originality; and the very possibility of change
through the actions of free agents. However, it is pointed out that there are some
reservations about the word ‘free’ because it is quite contradictory: so-called free
agency cannot emerge out of nowhere for no reason, it is always socially produced.
Developing the discussion, the authors also draw on other characteristics of agency
that ‘consists of acts that make a pragmatic difference’ (Ibid 281). Although it seems
that we are free to choose how to act, these choices are predetermined. As the authors
conclude, there is no ‘escape from social determinants’.
Thus, the two main texts of the course provide the reader with the scope of
essential terms and definitions, citing different scholars while comparing and
contrasting their approaches. Having analysed these materials and added to readings
of some initial sources, it is absolutely possible to work with such concepts as
agency, agent, actor, subjectivity, both self- and social identity, understanding their
interdependence and correlation.

7
 3. Critical Discourse Analysis

There are several approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis, they were developing
altogether, complementing and expanding each other: Fairclough’s Critical
Approach, Wodak’s Discourse-historical Approach, and van Dijk’s sociocognitive
approach (SCA) (Gao, Gang 2021, 2).
The thing is that these scholars belong to one network that emerged in the early
1990s, and they even had a chance to discuss theories and methods of CDA, and it is
possible to speak about the interdependence between these directions (Wodak 2001,
2-4). To begin with, language for CDA is ‘social practice’, i.e. the context of
language is perceived to be of paramount importance (Ibid 1).
After Gunther Kress, Ruth Wodak names some established principles of a CDA
programme:
· ‘language is a social phenomenon;
· not only individuals but also institutions and social groupings have specific
meanings and values, that are expressed in language in systematic ways;
· texts are the relevant units of language in communication;
· readers/hearers are not passive recipients in their relationship to texts;
· there are similarities between the language of science and the
language of institutions, and so on’ (Ibid 6).
Norman Fairclough sees CDA as a tool to analyse language or semiosis ‘within
broader analyses of the social process’ (Fairclough 2001, 121). This view is closely
connected with semiosis (all sorts of meaning-making things) that in essence is its
base. The following definition is given within this frame: CDA is an ‘analysis of the
dialectical relationships between semiosis (including language) and other elements of
social practices’. Any practice in any sphere of life (economic, political, cultural,
social) is practice of production, and it makes sense to analyse these elements:
‘productive activity; means of production; social relations; social identities; cultural
values; consciousness; semiosis’ (Ibid 122). Semiosis presupposes dealing with
representations the world is embodied in. Fairclough in his article ‘CDA as a Method
in Social Scientific Research’ presents a schematically analytical framework that can
be used when one gets down to CDA. There are 5 stages that can guide a researcher
through the main operations. The first stage is identifying a social problem having a
semiotic aspect, which is evidence of the fact that CDA is a method that always deals
with ‘social controversy’ (Ibid 125). During the second stage, one should realise

8
what ‘obstacles’ are there to be handled and scrutinised. This ‘diagnosis’ includes the
way social practices interact, the way semiosis is related to them and the main
features of discourse itself. The interaction mentioned above (or text) usually
consists of different genres, discourses, or styles that need to be unravelled as a part
of the analysis. The third stage is thinking about the necessity of the chosen problem
in the sense of its significance in relation to the whole society. Hence, it is clear that
discourse is rather ‘ideological’ as it can contribute to sustaining ‘particular relations
of power and domination’ (Ibid 126). The fourth stage is concentrated on the search
of the adjacent elements (whether they are contradictions or the way to overcome
described obstacles). As for the final fifth stage, it is seen as a moment of reflection
of the conducted analysis. At this stage, a number of questions can be posed in order
to understand how effective and unbiased the estimation is.
As it was already said, there are several approaches to CDA. Wodak centers on a
‘macro perspective as national identity’ and the ways to develop strategies in order to
achieve certain ‘political and psychological goals’. These objectives are to be
fulfilled in the process of historical analysis and taking into account the
socio-cultural background of the text researched (Gao, Gang 2021, 2). The main idea
is to integrate texts of various different genres and ‘the historical dimension’ of the
subject studied (Wodak 1999, 187), thus, dealing with intertextuality. The thing one
should remember when getting down to CDA is that there is no ‘right’ interpretation,
the researcher is always a part of the analysis with their beliefs and opinions, not
speaking about the general cultural background that enables them to interpret
subjects. Wodak points out that interpretations can be characterised with such words
as ‘plausible’, ‘adequate’, but not ‘true’. One more significant aspect of CDA is that
it is not finished when the analysis has been conducted, it should intend to be in a
constant dialogue with the society to work on possible solutions to the problems (Ibid
187).
Teun Adrianus van Dijk’ perspective is sociocognitive and sometimes named as
SCA. In its core it is quite close to Fairclough’s theory on the connection of ‘the
microstructure of language’ and ‘the macrostructure of society’. Nevertheless, van
Dijk’s works name social cognition as ‘the mediating tool between text and society’
(Gao, Gang 2021, 2). Through these social cognitions both societal arrangements and
mental operations are represented.
To sum up, CDA is something between a research method and a theoretical unit
that is supposed to guide researchers in their analysis of social practices. Although

9
there are many prominent scholars who established their scientific directions in this
field, it is clear that they are by no means contradictory. They compliment each other
and explain how semiosis and its interpretation in some social contexts can work for
not only identifying and scrutinising social issues but also trying to propose
solutions.

4. Data collection

The video chosen for the analysis had 2984 comments at the moment of the study.
Considering the fact that the video has (had) almost 130k views, it is possible to say
that only approximately 2% of the viewers decided to vocalize their opinions.
On the pre-analytical stage, the service ‘Coberry’ (https://coberry.com/youtube)
was used to export the Youtube comments, so it was possible to work with them in a
table. All the comments used in the paper as examples are presented with their
original spelling and punctuation. While reading the comments for the first time, it
was noticed that the overwhelming majority of the comments express the
anti-vaccination attitude. Those rare cases of them being not anti-vax, people either
shared that they are going to get their jab or have already done it, or wrote that they
were shocked to read the comments. Thus, the next categories of anti-vaccination
comments were distinguished:
● Comments related to conspiracy theories;
● Comments hinting at either the UK government or global politics;
● Comments referring to religious beliefs and Christianity;
● Comments that draw on personal experiences;
● Offensive, abusive, mocking or sarcastic comments;
● Comments doubting the effectiveness and the safety of the vaccines.
Limitations. The major limitation of this study is that the online commenting
BBC viewers do not necessarily reflect the viewing of each news source related to
the Covid-19 pandemic. Individuals who are most likely to comment are those with
particularly strong and negative opinions. Future studies could consider other videos
of other news sources or on other social media such as Instagram or Twitter to
confirm findings (particularly the fact that people who comment convey negative
sentiment towards vaccination) or to see how people who decided to comment on
different platforms see their agency in terms of vaccination and the pandemic in
general.

10
 5. The analysis of the comments

In the process of analysis, it was seen that the biggest number of comments
belong to the categories either of conspiracy theories, or some governmental plan, or
God. These groups can be put close to each other in the sense that people cannot
fully feel their agency in the situation of a pandemic, assuming that there are some
other powers standing behind the situation and forcing them to act in a certain way.
There are a number of researches studying existent conspiracy theories and their
influence on the actual level of public health. Vaccine hesitancy is often dependent
on misinformation, which leads to the creation of various ‘secret’ plots contemplated
by some shady actors in power (Lazić, Žeželj 2021, 3). Not surprisingly the Internet
is the most appropriate space for the spread of these ideas since anyone can
contribute to the narratives without taking even a bit of responsibility.
The majority of the commenters to the video analysed are distrustful of
authorities, including pharmaceutical companies. The comments about the
pharmaceutical companies’ role in the pandemic are all negative, with sentiments
like outright accusations of deliberately endangering the public for their profit:
‘The race to make Biopharma richer than ever’;
‘The race to steal humanity’s soul so moloch and the government can continue to
eat your children’.
‘Big Pharma’ conspiracy theories are not new and in some sources are
distinguished even as a separate conspiratorial narrative genre. In this case ‘Big
Pharma’ is an ‘abstract entity comprised of corporations, regulators, NGOs,
politicians, and often physicians, all with a finger in the trillion-dollar prescription
pharmaceutical pie’ (Blaskiewicz 2013, 4). The things that sprang and reinforced this
idea are different, from real side effects some medicine can have to the situations
where diseases become worse or even fatal, which makes pharmaceutical
advertisements perceived as ‘mind control’ or ‘brainwashing’ and the system —
corrupted (Ibid 4). Or else when one gets seriously ill with no treatment possible,
belief in a conspiracy can serve as a scapegoat: ‘Big Pharma is a convenient target
and is often imagined as withholding a cure’. Thus, not being capable of doing
anything, conspiracy theories followers consider other powers to take their agency.
Some commenters to the video speculated on surveillance as being the secret
motive behind the vaccination scheme and vaccination certificate:

11
 ‘Step by step the agenda is moving toward total global technocratic control over
everyone’s lives.’;
‘Race for depopulation and next level cyber control of everybody's lives’.
In terms of the syntactic structure, it is striking that some commenters tended to
imitate the first words of the video title (‘The Race to Vaccinate the World’) when
writing their opinions:
‘The race to Depopulate the world !’;
‘The race to make Biopharma richer than ever’;
‘THE RACE TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD !!!! as opposed to “The race to
vaccinate the world”’;
‘The race to administer a weapon of mass destruction’;
‘The race to Thanos the world’.
This repeated pattern may indicate a shift in the perception of power relations
between commenters (receivers of content) and the news providers. As it is reflected,
commenters do not perceive themselves as passive news consumers anymore, but
amending the title and imposing their versions instead, they rather publicly
demonstrate their awareness that their agency belongs to those in power.
Some commenters hold a negative undertone towards the intention of the
government and the elite in general, portraying them as very dangerous who work
against the common good:
‘For example, They're gonna execute all those that haven't had the vaccine!’;
‘They got us all chip and pin for life!’.
Looking at these words from the linguistic point of view, it is possible to say that
the first person plural pronoun ‘we’ is juxtaposed with the second person plural
pronoun ‘they’, which illustrates the confrontation between powerless social agents
who ought to follow the order inflicted by powerful social actors that presumably
stand behind the pandemic and issue of vaccination.
Some comments refer to or hint at either the UK government or global politics.
However, there are commenters criticising the current state of affairs and allegedly
revealing those powers that can be blamed for it. Rather than commenting upon the
vaccines, these examples try to go beyond and unveil the reasons for the pandemic or
even question its existence.
‘I'd like to thank the Chinese Communist Party for concealing the initial
appearance and spread of the virus in Wuhan/ China (and thus allowing the suffering

12
and deaths of Chinese people in China, too) and thereupon thank you for this viral
mess we're now in.’;
‘No thank you! This is not a pandemic. It's cheap politics!’’;
‘The Indian varient is spreading in the UK ☠ . Oops....who left the doors open?
Boris…?’.
The governmental actions are distrusted by some commenters, which provokes
them to see malicious intent in vaccination.
‘Declined mine a few months ago. I’m good without it thanks.Don’t need a British
government telling me a English person what is good for me.Especially as I watch
daily the British government destroying my England.DOVER. Daily invaders. 125 so
far today alone. (Known ones)’;
‘When the British government sprays its own people with germs
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience then why
should I trust them?’;
‘And of course there was a certain amount of comments stating that the BBC is
the governmental media propaganda and the corrupt media is there to promote
governmental evil plans’;
‘DISGUSTING.... GOVERMENT MEDIA PROPAGANDA… THIS IS NOT A
PANDEMIC IT'S A SCAMDEMIC …..’;
‘The race to brainwash people through corrupt media 🤣🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🤣…’.
During the analysis a number of comments referring to God and Providence were
found. Most of them either recited the Bible or used it as a source to prove their
points. These commenters seem to be extremely influenced by the structure of
Christianity. It could be interpreted that they consider God to be the ultimate actor,
and therefore, other powers are very weak in this comparison.
The love of Jesus and God is interpreted as a reason not to trust vaccines,
otherwise it will be seen as a betrayal:
‘You will never be safe if you don't trust The LORD our God through our LORD
JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT though you can have all the billions of
vaccines.JESUS CHRIST is LORD.’
Commenters in five of the comments describe some evil forces which are trying
to destroy the world. They use such words as ‘evil', ‘beast’ and ‘darkness’ to describe
these forces.This world could be considered as the other main structure of the world,
but it is going to lose ultimately:

13
 "2 Corinthians 4:3-6 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:‫ آ‬In
whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the
light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto
them.‫ آ‬For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your
servants for Jesus' sake.‫ آ‬For God, who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to‫ آ‬give‫ آ‬the light of the knowledge of the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ."1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that
the WHOLE world is under the power of the evil one."
There is one comment that compares vaccines to Myrrh and wine offered to Jesus
when he was being crucified to decrease the intensity of his pains. He refused this
wine since he wanted to endure the sufferings given to him by God:
‘Any Christians thinking about getting vaccinated should consider Jesus who just
before He was crucified was offered Myrrh and wine (a narcotic drug) by a Roman
guard (the establishment/government) and He refused. He put His faith in God and
only God and not in man. How many of you Christians believe in God but your faith
is in man and not in God? You cannot serve two masters. Something you should
really think about’.
Most commenters of this group seem to be under the influence of the structure of
the religion they wholeheartedly support. They seem to believe in a power relation or
rather struggle between the good and the evil structure. However, all these examples
resemble the American discourse of the ‘Christian nationalism’ movement that
denotes a ‘fusion of American civic life with Christian identity and culture’ (Brik,
Chayinska, Metreveli 2021). There are some research findings on the correlation of
this movement and the spread of anti-vax attitudes: as religious people are
considered to be sceptical toward ‘the trustworthiness of doctors and pharmaceutical
companies, an elevated assessment of the risks involved, misinformation about the
link between vaccines and autism, and belief in parents’ ultimate authority to
withhold vaccines from their children’ (Whitehead , Perry 2020, 2).
Thus, through the examples chosen for this report, it is seen that anti-vaccination
sentiment is quite often substantiated with the lack of agency. Some commenters feel
that there are some other figures who are responsible not only for the pandemic but
also the way the world is trying to deal with it.

14
 6. Conclusion

To sum up, it is important to say that the anonymity and the fact that social media
is a popular channel for negative comments and sentiments to proliferate quite
quickly facilitated the emergence of a bigger number of anti-vaccination comments
to the video taken for this report. The emergence of a significantly higher proportion
of negative attitudes towards the vaccination is not an indication that the
pro-vaccination sentiment does not exist, but rather it is just because the group of
anti-vax commenters are more vocal.
It was indicated that the most prominent themes arisen in the comments are
related to conspiracy theories, political plots, and religious implications. The
majority of commenters explicitly expressed distrust of the vaccination scheme,
feeling that the level of their agency is low. Being incapable of acting in the situation
of the Covid-19 pandemic, some people claim other powers to be responsible for an
allegedly pre-planned vaccination process with malicious intentions. Some, however,
stated that the reason for the Covid spread is God Providence, so there is no sense to
resist: the only way out is to put up with it and endure.

15
 Bibliography

Archer, Margaret S. Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 2003.

Archer, Margaret S. Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge

UP, 2000.

Barker, Kulturwissenschaftler, 03.10., Jane, Medienwissenschaftlerin, and Jane,

Emma A. Cultural Studies : Theory and Practice. 5th ed. Los Angeles, 2016.

Blaskiewicz, Robert (2013) The Big Pharma conspiracy theory, Medical Writing,
22:4, 259-261.

Brik, T., Chayinska M., Metreveli T. “God Is With Us”: Chrisitan Nationalism And
Anti-Vaccination. May 2021,
https://voxukraine.org/en/god-is-with-us-chrisitan-nationalism-and-anti-vaccination/
(last accessed 27 August 2021).

Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific

research. In Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 121-138).

Gao, Yang, and Gang Zeng. “Exploring Linguistic Features, Ideologies, and Critical
Thinking in Chinese News Comments.” Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–8.

Giddens, Anthony. The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of

Structuration, Polity Press, 1984. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/huberlin-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1221197
(last accessed 20 August 2021).

Guderjan, Marius, et al. Contested Britain : Brexit, Austerity and Agency. 2020.

Lazić A, Žeželj I. A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for

countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public
Understanding of Science. 2021; 30(6):644-670.

Whitehead AL, Perry SL. How Culture Wars Delay Herd Immunity: Christian
Nationalism and Anti-vaccine Attitudes. Socius. January 2020.

Wodak, Ruth (1999) Critical Discourse Analysis at the End of the 20th Century,
Research on Language & Social Interaction, 32:1-2, 185-193.

Wodak, Ruth (2001). What CDA Is About – A Summary of Its History, Important
Concepts and Its Developments. In Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-13).

16