{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.853881278538813, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Agonistic Dysfunction on Facebook in Zimbabwe: A Discourse Ethics Perspective

Abstract The problem of communication as a function of democracy has occupied research in the social sciences for several decades now. It has been particularly central to Habermas’s conceptualisation of the public sphere, deliberative democracy and discourse ethics, criticisms laid against his emphasis on rational argumentation notwithstanding. Although it is widely accepted that communication is a key element to citizen participation in public processes and the negotiation of social conflict, there have also been misgivings about the efficacy of offline mainstream media in undergirding these processes. But the advent of digital media, and by extension social media, has breathed life into optimistic views about communication’s potential to enhance democracy and facilitate inclusive discussion, despite some criticisms. This paper examines the dimensions of these binaries in a post-genocide context. It uses thematic and frame analysis to examine social interaction between people from the Shona and Ndebele ethno-linguistic groups on Facebook in Zimbabwe, against the background of the Gukurahundi genocide. It argues that given the emotional investment in contexts of unresolved traumatic experiences such as genocide, and the high degree of “rage” associated with such conditions, Habermas’s discourse ethics provides a useful framework for guiding online discursive encounters between conflicting citizens.