Intersectional representation in online media discourse: reflecting anti-discrimination position in reporting on same-sex partnerships

Introduction

In the intersectionality theory, discrimination and social exclusion are not defined uniaxially—in the case of black women only from a gender or a racial perspective—but as an interaction of different identities (Crenshaw, Citation1989, Citation1991). In particular, intersectionality theory enhances feminist research by incorporating the experiences of marginalization of women of color by considering the dimension of race and not only gender, as in the case of white women (Jibrin & Salem, Citation2015; Smith, Citation2016). Generally, a constitutive feature of the intersectional approach is the recognition of the varying individual features that intersect with one another and the critique of identity politics, which tends to unify the experiences of individuals in a particular social group and consequently obscures or ignores intra-group differences between individuals (Dean, Citation2010).

Identity is recognized as a core analytical category in many studies dealing with intersectionality, and it seems that the premise related to the critique of the unifying nature of identity policies has been broadly adopted. For example, Warner (Citation2008) critically comments on existing studies that have ignored mutually constitutive relations among identities and argues that empirical research should examine simultaneously existing identities and recognize that they are situated within social structural contexts. Similarly, Wadsworth (Citation2011) introduces the term “identity intersectionality”, which she uses to explore the overlap and tensions between multiple identities within a particular social group (e.g., differential class status within a racialized group). In addition, Bowleg (Citation2008), in her study on Black lesbians, shows that social identities and inequality are interdependent for marginalized groups, not mutually exclusive, and emphasizes how important it is for research to ask adequate questions to properly grasp the intersectional dimension of identity since respondents usually think about their identities uniaxially and not intersectionally.

We also consider identity as the starting point of our intersectional analysis, recognizing, however, the critique of the unifying nature of identity policies. Conceptually, we consult Crenshaw’s (Citation1991, pp. 1282–1295) notion of “representational intersectionality” that she uses to explain how the dynamics between different forms of discourses contribute to the marginalization of experiences of defined individuals and groups. The analytical potential of the concept does not seem to be sufficiently explored when it comes to its application in media analysis. Like other studies using an intersectional approach, media research has also used the intersectionality theory primarily to study the complexity of identity construction in the media. For example, theoretical interventions that emphasize the need to incorporate intersectionality theory into media research (e.g., Costanza-Chock, Citation2018; Gouma & Dorer, Citation2019; Molina & Cacho, Citation2014; Zollmann et al., Citation2018) typically point to the need to address how various forms of subordination and oppression resulting from the interaction of identity categories such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality are represented in the media. Moreover, studies that apply an intersectional perspective to the analysis of advertising in mainstream media are concerned with the (in)visibility of certain dimensions of intersectional identities (e.g., Nölke, Citation2018; Gopaldas & DeRoy, Citation2015). Finally, studies dealing with representations of Black women in American journalism (Meyers, Citation2013), of migrant women on German television (Lünenborg & Fürsich, Citation2014), and family narratives on television series (Stern, Citation2012) also use the intersectionality framework for asserting multiple identities.

Due to the apparent gap in reflecting on “representational intersectionality” in the intersectionality research field, we focus on this concept in our study. Using the example of online media reporting on same-sex partnerships in Slovenia, we analyze how power relations are reinforced when one type of discourse fails to acknowledge the importance of other discourses. We show that the discourses that advocated equality between heterosexual and same-sex couples in Slovenia did not recognize the importance of specifying the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples and that this non-recognition weakened their power and strengthened the discourses opposing equality in legal recognition.

Representational intersectionality as a lens for the analysis of media discourse

In our research, we understand intersectionality in terms of both “identity” and “representational intersectionality” (Crenshaw, Citation1989, Citation1991). We define intersectionality not only as the result of the interaction of different identities but recognize that identities interact with a broader social context (Smooth, Citation2013). As argued by Crenshaw (Citation1991, p. 1297), the most pressing problem is not the mere existence of categories but rather the particular values attached to them in a way that foster social hierarchies. Yuval Davis (Citation2011) has emphasized that the core of intersectional analysis is to focus on the different positions of social actors and how these positions affect the economic, political, and other positions within which these actors are placed. Similarly, Anthias (Citation2013) has argued that power and privilege are reproduced through “hierarchies of social locations”. Rejecting the view that gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality or class pertain to social groups with fixed characteristics, Anthias (Citation2020) developed a translocational lens for addressing power relations, emphasizing that identities are interconnected and interdependent as places or locations within processes of reproduction of inequality. We consult these theoretical points and demonstrate in the analysis how reproduction of hierarchies functions in an online media environment.

To understand “representational intersectionality”, we follow Crenshaw’s (Citation1991) explanation that when one type of discourse fails to acknowledge the importance of another type of discourse, the positions of power against which both are directed are strengthened. The main point is that the lack of reflection on intersectional perspectives in anti-discrimination discourse can contribute to its weakening and the strengthening of the discourses against it. Specifically, Crenshaw (Citation1991) uses the example of Black women in the United States to show how a feminist perspective that reflects patriarchy but is unable to reflect antiracism results in feminism reproducing racism and antiracism reproducing female subordination (Crenshaw, Citation1991, pp. 1282–1295). We link the lack of discourses that would expose intersectional inequality of social minorities to the concept of “intersectional invisibility” (Gopaldas & DeRoy, Citation2015), which primarily refers to the limited visibility afforded to the intersections of historically oppressed identities in cultural, economic, and political contexts due to the mutually reinforcing effects of ageism, sizeism, racism, sexism, ableism, and heterosexism.

In our view, “identity intersectionality” is intertwined with “representational intersectionality”. The former refers not only to how different identities interact with each other to form exclusionary realities but also to how these identities interact in a broader social context—the fact that someone is same-sex oriented leads to their exclusion from many social contexts (e.g., legal, social, cultural) compared to someone who is heterosexual and fitting within the dominant heteronormative framework. In addition, “representational intersectionality” traces how discrimination discourse is weakened when it neglects identity intersectionality and different contexts of social exclusion.

The main contribution of our study is to show how the theory of intersectionality, focusing on representation and social location, can be useful within a critical discourse analysis in media reporting. We argue that the theory of intersectionality, especially of representational intersectionality, is consistent with the basic postulates of critical discourse studies (CDS) (Krzyzanowski & Machin, Citation2017). Similar to intersectionality theory, approaches within CDS examine how discourses reinforce unequal social relations of power. In doing so, they focus on how language alters, controls, and shapes social structure through media texts (Krzyzanowski & Machin, Citation2017). According to CDS, the key question regarding discourse is how unequal social relations of power and subordination, i.e., the relations between the “dominant” and the “minority” society, are produced and legitimated through language. In our specific case, we focus on the social relations between members of the majority society determined by heteronormative gender identity and members of the minority society with non-heteronormative gender identity. How does language establish and legitimize these social relations, and conversely, how does it seek to expose and deconstruct them? Closest to our view within CDS is Fairclough’s (Citation1989, Citation1992) dialectical-relational approach, which emphasizes the role of social relations between those who dominate and others who are subordinated. Moreover, Fairclough (Citation1992, p. 3) points out that media texts not only reflect and represent social relations and entities but also simultaneously construct and constitute them. Thus, power relations are always more or less implicitly embedded in a particular discourse (e.g., a human rights discourse) that seeks to legitimize hierarchies through ideological mechanisms, and the main goal of CDS is to uncover how these mechanisms work.

Anti-gender mobilization against the rights of same-sex couples in Slovenia

The events in Slovenia are related to global trends of the anti-gender mobilization against the rights of LGBTIQ+ that emerged in the mid-1990s largely as a Catholic project tied to encounters with right-wing populism (Paternotte & Kuhar, Citation2018) and sharing common ideological roots in what has been called “gender ideology” or “gender theory”Footnote¹ and/or “anti-genderism” (Paternotte & Kuhar, Citation2017, p. 4). Across different states, anti-gender campaigns and movements are acting in a myriad of ways, employing different discourses and strategies of mobilization. In Russia, for example, the anti-gender movement’s discourse on “gender ideology” is openly legitimized by the state and even by the academic elite, which is different from the situation in EU member states where universities tend to deconstruct the discourse on “gender theory” rather than legitimize it (see Moss, Citation2017). In the EU candidate countries, the situation is rather different as LGBTIQ+ rights often demonstrate the country’s respect for human rights and the rule of law, for example in Serbia (Slootmaeckers, Citation2017).

Although the beginnings of an organized gay and lesbian movement emerged in Slovenia in the early 1980s, a decade before such movements’ mobilization in other Eastern European countries (Podreka, Smrdelj & Kuhar, Citation2019, p. 180), efforts to equalize the rights of heterosexual and same-sex couples have been very difficult. The first milestone was the 2005 Civil Partnership Registration Act, adopted by the right-wing conservative legislature, which gave minimal rights to same-sex couples (Kuhar, Citation2011). In the following years, the Slovenian legislature adopted the legislation to equalize heterosexual and same-sex couples twice, and both times the law was rejected in a public referendum. Although the reasons for the double rejection have already been reflected upon,Footnote² there has been no study so far that has examined these reasons in light of media discourse analysis through the lens of intersectionality theory.

Therefore, in our study, we focus on the media reporting of events related to the second referendum in 2015. The reason why we focus on the second referendum and not also on the first is that during the first referendum in 2012, the opponents of marriage equality had not yet framed their arguments with references to “gender theory”, but had already created a discoursive substance, which was then developed into “gender theory” during the second referendum in 2015 (Kuhar, Citation2017, p. 224). However, the anti-gender mobilization around the first referendum in 2012 was reenacted a few years later with the amendment to the Marriage and Family Relations Act defining marriage as the union of two persons (and no longer as “husband” and “wife” as before) that was introduced into the parliamentary procedure by the political party United Left in December 2014. However, immediately after the law was passed in the Slovenian Parliament in March 2015, opponents of the law, the so-called “concerned citizens” formed the “Children Are at Stake Coalition” (Slovenian: Koalicija Za otroke gre) led by Metka Zevnik and Aleš Primc, and collected more than 48,000 signatures (out of the required 40,000) to hold a referendum for citizens to decide whether or not the Slovenian government should adopt the law. Opponents of the law, who mobilized in close cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church, celebrated the referendum on 20 December 2015, by collecting more than two-thirds of the votes against the law, contributing to the failure of the second referendum on family law in Slovenia. In the years that followed, same-sex couples had all legal rights except the ability to adopt children and marriage. A decisive breakthrough was achieved in July 2022, when the Slovenian Constitutional Court found the ban on same-sex marriage and adoption of children by same-sex couples unconstitutional, ending more than thirty years of struggle for equality between same-sex and heterosexual couples in Slovenia.

However, in 2015 there were at least 70 laws in Slovenia that contained discriminatory elements without justifying the unequal treatment of same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples, relating to, for example, the right to health insurance per partner, the right to sick leave due to a partner’s illness, the right to the status of privileged witness in court, and many others (Rajgelj, Citation2015). Therefore, the rejection of the second proposed legislative change was a particularly severe blow to the struggle for the human rights of same-sex couples in Slovenia, as the proposed amendment provided for the rights of heterosexual and same-sex couples to be fully and uncompromisingly equal.

Research questions, sample and method

Taking the example of online media reporting on same-sex partnerships in Slovenia, we aim to analyze how power relations structure specific discourses. Our study focuses on two research questions: (1) what identity categories appear in media reporting on same-sex couples and how they relate to each other, and (2) how has the status of the reflection on the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples in media reporting affected the dynamics between discourses advocating and discourses opposing the proposed legislative changes.

To answer these questions, we will first identify the main discourses in media reporting using critical discourse analysis through the lens of intersectionality theory. Next, we will analyze the appearance of identity categories related to same-sex couples and will then examine the dynamics between the main discourses in terms of if and how the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples are reflected in media reporting. With regard to the first research question, we emphasize that in our analysis we pursue all possible intersections of identity and do not limit ourselves a priori to one in particular but leave this question wide open to examine whether and how different intersectional dimensions are included in media discourse.

Since representational intersectionality is closely related to the political and structural dimensions of intersectionality theory (Verloo, Citation2006), we focus on media reporting on legislative procedure related to the legal equality of rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples passed by the Slovenian parliament in March 2015 and rejected in a public referendum later that year. In terms of media, we selected online news portals of mass media, whereby the assumption was that contemporary mass media are increasingly part of the online digital context (Chadwick, Citation2013). The digital platforms of mass media occupy an important place in the online media environment in the context of the agenda-setting hypothesis, retaining an important role in structuring public debates (Aruguete, Citation2017). The basic analytical unit of our analysis is a media text, which includes different types of journalistic texts (e.g., news, columns, interviews). We treat the selected texts as equally valid, regardless of their type, as type is not critical for the inclusion or exclusion of intersectional dimensions in discourse.

The sample consists of 297 media texts published between January 2015 and December 2015Footnote³ on four Slovenian online news portals: RTVSLO.si (107 texts), 24ur.com (51 texts), SiOL.net (57 texts) and Nova24TV.si (82 texts).Footnote⁴ The sample includes online news portals with different ownership structures to identify similarities and differences between the portals and obtain a diverse sample. RTVSLO.si is the online portal of the public broadcaster RTV Slovenija, while the portals 24ur.com, SiOL.net, and Nova24TV.si are privately owned commercial portals.Footnote⁵ According to data from the website MOSS, which measures website traffic, the selected online portals, with the exception of Nova24TV.si, are among most-read Slovenian news portals. The Nova24TV.si portal was included in the sample because it has explicit links to the right-wing political network in terms of ownership, from which we expected a more visible discourse opposing the legislative changes that would equalize same-sex and heterosexual couples.

As seen from Figure 1, the largest part of the media texts appears on the portal of public radio and television RTVSLO.si and the smallest on the portal 24ur.com. Compared to other privately owned portals, 24ur.com (17%) and SiOL.net (19%), the media reporting on Nova24TV.si is more extensive (28%), following the public RTVSLO.si (36%). Nova24TV.si was, at that time, a newly founded medium that started to publish at the end of September 2015. While the numbers of published texts related to a 12-month period for the other three media, Nova24TV.si published a full 82 media texts in only three months which is proportionally the largest share of texts among the four online media (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Share of media texts according to the analyzed online portals.

Display full size

The media texts were analyzed using the method of critical discourse analysis through the lens of representational intersectionality. CDA is not “apolitical” in the sense that it would distance itself from the reality of the subject. On the contrary, it is a method with political potential to influence change in discriminatory discourses and policies. CDA is an interpretive method that emphasizes contextual, interpretive, and analytical reading of texts. It pays attention to uncovering some implicit aspects of constructions of meaning and takes into account the social reality that shapes the emergence and understanding of a particular socio-political issue (Pajnik, Citation2007, pp. 1–2). Our analysis focuses on the written part of media production, while other discursive elements such as images, visual highlights, further references or comments are not part of the analysis. When conducting the analysis, we paid attention to the similarities and differences between the discourses and between the portals. Reading media texts, we noted central concepts, key emerging discursive patterns, as well as consistencies and contradictions in speech formation. We use excerpts from texts to exemplify organization of arguments in a specific discourse.

Results of the analysis

Uniaxial representation of gender and sexual orientation

Gender and sexual orientation appear as key identity categories in the media texts overall, while other identity categories (e.g., race, ethnicity, class, and religion) are not reflected in media reporting. Although gender and sexual orientation are always inherently intersectional in the case of same-sex partnerships, they are presented separately in media texts. Figure 2 shows that gender is used more frequently in media texts (n = 252) than sexual orientation (n = 44). Figure 2 also reveals that the number of mentions of gender and sexual orientation by each medium portal depends on the number of media texts published on the individual portal: the more media texts there are on the portal, the higher the total number of mentions of gender and sexual orientation on that portal.

Figure 2. Number of mentions of the identity categories “gender” and “sexual orientation” by the portal.

Display full size

Same-sex identity tends to be presented uniaxially, as gender and sexual orientation categories are most frequently mentioned separately, without any thought about their possible interaction. Although both are mirrored in the media discourse from the legal discourse, they appear in two entirely different contexts. The predominant context for the appearance of gender is related to the proposed amendment to the Marriage and Family Relations Act that provides that two persons can marry irrespective of their gender, thus removing the diction of “different genders” from the existing Act. The more frequent mention of gender, if compared to sexual orientation, is due to the fact that gender is the category that has been removed from the existing family relations law. Therefore, the removal of the gender identity category from the law contributed to the “virality” of the gender category, which is discussed more frequently in the media than sexual orientation, the category not directly mentioned in the law.

Our analysis shows two significant discursive forms in which the gender identity category is most frequently addressed. The first refers to the examples of the defense to the removal of gender identity category from the existing law, as exemplified by the summary of the statement of MP Matej Tašner Vatovec, a member of the political party United Left, who was the first to sign the proposed amendment to the law:

According to him [Matej Tašner Vatovec], the proposed amendment, which defines marriage as the cohabitation of two persons regardless of gender, systematically eliminates the discriminatory situation in Slovenia, and it is also aligned with the LGBT community. (Blatnik Kozorog et al., Citation2015)

The second discursive form refers to the examples of opposition to the removal of the gender identity category from the existing legislation. One example is the statement of Tomaž Merše, a visible figure of the anti-gender movement, in which he describes gender as something that the nation is losing:

We will lose gender in legislation and documents. Instead of husbands and wives, we will become persons 1 and persons 2. (Merše, Citation2015)

Gender also appears as something that is no longer sacred due to its deletion from the existing law:

According to Zore [Slovenian Archbishop], Christians celebrate this year’s Easter in a world where ‘the exploitation of man is ruthless; where the basic values of human life and coexistence have been destroyed and crumbled; where the human gender, the family are no longer sacred.’ (STA & S.S., Citation2015)

Moreover, because of the removal of the gender identity category, a concern exists that children will eventually be allowed to change their own gender. To justify this concern, the portal Nova24TV.si refers to allegedly existing practices abroad:

Sweden is already in the process of passing a new law that will allow children to change their gender at the age of 12 legally, and at the age of 15 they can change their gender without their parents’ consent. (N.K., Citation2015b)

While both discursive forms appear on the portals RTVSLO.si, 24ur.com and SiOL.net—the one that links the removal of gender identity with equal rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples and the one that opposes it—the second discursive form predominates on the portal Nova24TV.si.

On the other hand, the predominant context in which sexual orientation appears most often is related to the Slovenian Constitutional Court judgment, which found the law on the registration of same-sex partnerships to be unconstitutional in parts concerning inheritance rights per partner. Our analysis shows that sexual orientation is mentioned most often when the media report about the Court’s judgment. The example is the official statement of the Modern Center PartyFootnote⁶ when declaring support for the law:

The Constitutional Court was aware of or recognized the importance of the circumstance of sexual orientation and took a particular stand on this issue, namely that sexual or same-sex orientation is one of the circumstances of Article 14 of the Slovenian Constitution, in relation to which the state may not, in particular, allow discrimination or it must even seek to establish equality. (Cerar, Citation2015a)

Within the overall context in which sexual orientation appears most frequently, the analyzed media portals do not establish a dynamic between different discoursive forms in terms of defending or rejecting the proposed change in the law, as in the case of the gender identity category. Most likely, this is due to the fact that the sexual orientation identity category is not central to the amendment and is, therefore, less discussed both by the supporters and the opponents of the proposed amendment.

Children’s rights: defending heterosexual family against same-sex partnership

The discourse on children’s rights is the most visible discourse in media reporting of same-sex partnerships in Slovenia. Overall, it appears in 59% of all media texts. It also appears in most media texts on the analyzed individual portals, except SiOL.net, where it appears in 40% of all texts (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Shares of media texts with discourse on children’s rights per portal.

Display full size

The discourse on children’s rights foregrounds the struggle to protect the rights of children, who are allegedly disadvantaged in the case of legal equality between heterosexual and same-sex couples. Its distinctive feature is that it shifts the focus of media reporting from the human rights of the same-sex couples to children, to which the proposed change in the law does not apply directly. For example:

Zevnik reiterated today that this is a family referendum, for the protection of children, fathers, mothers and grandparents. She is convinced that the amendment is most unfair to children. (STA & N.Š., Citation2015)

The shift in the focus of media reporting from the human rights of same-sex couples to the human rights of children is evident in several ways. For example, through emotive vocabulary:

According to Primc, the Children Are at Stake Coalition is committed to Slovenia as a country of happy children who receive the love of their father and mother. (STA & N.S., Citation2015)

Another way the focus shifts is by presenting rights as a zero-sum game, i.e., more rights for same-sex couples mean fewer rights for children. An example is the statement of student Norma Korošec, the most prominent activist of the younger generation from the Children Are at Stake Coalition:

I believe that homosexual couples will gain additional rights if the amendment is implemented, but I think that implementing their rights will infringe on the rights of other, weaker members of our society. These are children who have no voice of their own. (Makovec, Citation2015b)

Discourse on children’s rights that is systematically reproduced without the actual voice of children, is most prominent on the Nova24TV.si portal, where it is also present in the largest share if compared to other portals (see Figure 3). The media texts on Nova24TV.si openly propagate the discourse on children’s rights by establishing a distinction between advocates and opponents, as exemplified in one of the headlines: “Member of the European Parliament Fajon strongly against children’s rights” (M.P., Citation2015).

The discourse on children’s rights manifests itself in several themes. The most prominent is the opposition to the adoption of children in same-sex partnerships, as exemplified below by Aleš Primc:

This referendum is mainly about all our children, whether we want them to be adopted by two men, two women, two transsexuals, two queersexuals? That is the main question. (Primc, Citation2015)

Children’s rights are also visibly defended by expressing fear of the end of classical family roles, as articulated in Metka Zevnik’s statement:

People told them [the Children Are at Stake Coalition activists] that they were in favor of children having ‘a mother and a father and not a parent one and a parent two, that they have a grandfather and a grandmother and not a grandparent one and a grandparent two.’ (K.H., STA & S.S., Citation2015)

Opposition to adopting children in same-sex partnerships is justified in several ways, most often claiming that having children raised by a same-sex couple has negative consequences for the child’s personal development.

The negative consequences for the child’s personal development related to being raised in a same-sex family are justified by a “pseudoscientific” discourse (Vezjak, Citation2018) that comes from suspicious, unsubstantiated and falsifying scientific sources, or it can discredit or manipulate with the existing scientific knowledge. For example:

Studies showing that children from homosexual families are more responsible and developed are flawed, false and misleading, experts warn. Research conducted according to international standards proves just the opposite—children from heterosexual families grow up to be better people. (A.R. & N.K., Citation2015)

Although the pseudoscientific discourse prevails on the Nova24TV.si portal, it also appeared on the public broadcaster RTVSLO.si, which reports on speeches by the President of the Slovenian Bishops’ Conference, Andrej Glavan, the official representative of the Roman Catholic Church:

A child needs a father and a mother for healthy development, and all the quasi-studies that say it does not matter for a child to have a father and a mother are forgeries. (Masten, Citation2015)

Furthermore, opposition to the adoption of children in a same-sex partnership is also justified by appropriating liberal discourse, a practice common among right-wing populist politicians (Pajnik Citation2019), for example:

Janša stressed that the SDS respects human rights, including those of the same sex. ‘However, a child is not a human right. A child is someone who has human rights himself. Adopting a child is not a human right,’ he said. (Rugelj, Citation2015)

Another theme in which the discourse on children’s rights manifests itself is the fear of changes in the school curricula. For example, “the amendment […] provides a basis for introducing homosexual gender education into the school curricula for all children, without the consent of their parents” (STA & N.Š., 2015). The SiOL.net portal mentions “teaching material Love is love, which is already in use and makes children question their sexual identity from an early age on” (Makovec, Citation2015a).

As we can see from the examples presented, the discourse on children’s rights appears in various forms that converge in legitimizing the reasons against the equality of heterosexual and same-sex couples. Although the discourse on children’s rights is fundamentally discriminatory, there are examples in media reporting that counteract it, for example, by questioning why the struggle for children’s rights fails to take place also in other contexts:

Why are they not calling for rallies or praying for the hundreds of kids who end up in foster care[?] […] No. No one is standing up for them. Just like we have not seen rallies for a handicapped girl who was abused for years by a local pastor. No one cares about children who are beaten daily and worse. It’s about the children. Really? (Arko, Citation2015)

The peculiarities of the liberal discourse on equality

The liberal discourse on equality of rights between heterosexual and same-sex couples is the next visible discourse we detected in the analysis. Overall, it appears in almost two-thirds of all media texts (58%), which is almost the same share as for the discourse on children’s rights. The largest share of media texts with traces of liberal discourse can be found on the public broadcaster RTVSLO.si portal, followed by SiOL.net, Nova24TV.si and 24ur.com (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Shares of media texts with the liberal discourse per portal.

Display full size

The liberal discourse is primarily concerned with justifying equal rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples in light of liberal arguments for equality and human rights. Reference is often made to official legal documents, e.g., the Magna Carta Libertatum, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Slovenian Constitution, etc. The latter is most often used as a reference:

Proponents believe that adoption of this proposal would eliminate the unconstitutional situation, as the Constitution commands equal access to rights regardless of personal circumstances and same-sex couples do not have equal access to rights in the current legal system. (Lukič, Citation2015)

Although the liberal discourse is based on arguments for equal rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples, it rarely reflects the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples, which, we argue with Crenshaw (Citation1991), weakens its power. Consequently, we found that this discourse reinforces the presentation of children as the central social group to whom the proposed legislative change should apply. The results show that not only are the contexts of exclusion of same-sex couples not revealed in such discourse through stories or concrete examples from their lives but also that these contexts are not even mentioned.

The liberal discourse on equality is weakened not only by the marginalization of reflection on various contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples but also by its appropriation by the discourse on children’s rights: “The co-leader of the Children Are at Stake Coalition, Aleš Primc, described the Day of Love as the biggest rally for the human rights of children, parents and grandparents in the history of Slovenia” (Cerar, Citation2015b). Furthermore, we found that the liberal discourse was used to advocate against the equality of same-sex couples. For example, the fact that grandparents cannot adopt children but same-sex couples can is “unbearable, offensive and painful discrimination against grandparents” (Primc, Citation2015). Furthermore, “homosexuals […] are intolerant of heterosexuals” (Vodeb, Citation2015), the fight against the adoption of the amendment is, as Metka Zevnik and Aleš Primc emphasized, “a day of pride for the family and Slovenian democracy” (STA, & N.S., Citation2015), because the referendum will “protect children, family and freedom” (STA, & N.S., Citation2015).

By appropriating the liberal discourse, subtle homophobia is also legitimized, as intolerance and hatred of homosexuals are seemingly denied, along the lines of not being against homosexuals but only fighting for the rights of the child. Metka Zevnik, for example, states that they are intentionally portrayed as “hostile and homophobic” even though they “do not persecute or discriminate against anyone, but emphasize that they are children and fight for every mother and father” (STA, & V.L., Citation2015).

Social exclusion of same-sex partnership: neglected and appropriated

In contrast to the discourse on children’s rights, which can be found in most of the media texts in our sample, other contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples, which would go beyond problematizing adoption, are reflected only in a relatively small share (see Figure 5). Overall, they appear in 12% of all media texts.

Figure 5. Shares of media texts at the individual portals with traces of the reflection of different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples.

Display full size

The largest share of media texts with traces of reflection on different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples appears on the commercial portals 24ur.com (18%) and SiOL.net (16%), while it is present in a smaller share on the public broadcaster portal RTVSLO.si (12%) and the commercial portal Nova24TV.si (6%).

Not only in numbers but also qualitatively, the discourse on reflecting the different contexts of social exclusion is poor. Often, when these contexts appear in media reporting, they are merely listed, for example, in the column of the Slovenian journalist Alenka Arko:

Same-sex couples can register in our country, but they are far from being equal to other couples. They do not have the right to be absent from work when their partner is ill, they do not have the right to income compensation for the care of a family member, they do not have the right to health insurance for a partner… (Arko, Citation2015)

It should be emphasized that this discourse is poorly articulated. It rarely appears as a central topic and is usually briefly addressed in the last part of the text. For example, in the text entitled “The Children Are at Stake Coalition announces a new law, Primc enters politics”, we read about the reactions of representatives of parliamentary politics to the results of the referendum, and the conclusion briefly includes a reflection of social exclusion of same-sex couples:

Lawyer Neža Kogovšek Šalamon of the Peace Institute pointed out that a same-sex couple has no right to health insurance for their partner, sick leave due to their partner’s illness, compensation in the event of their partner’s death, or privileged witness status in court. In her opinion, these things should, therefore, be settled as soon as possible. (Janičijevič & Čebokli, Citation2015)

Another example that shows how the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex partnerships are not recognized as relevant in media reporting is the text summarizing the results of the research conducted by Rajgelj (Citation2015) on the legal status of same-sex partnerships in Slovenia. Although the text mentions that “the research on the legal status of same-sex partnerships in Slovenia revealed that discrimination against same-sex partnerships in legislation is much stronger than originally assumed” (Cerar, Blatnik Kozorog & Masten, Citation2015), the main focus is on the rights of children in same-sex families, ignoring other contexts analyzed in the research.

Our analysis points out that same-sex rights were primarily reduced to the discussion of children’s rights in the context of adoption. Other topics, among them, issues of social exclusion of same-sex couples, have largely been missing and have been appropriated by the children’s rights discourse, as shown in the following example:

In conclusion, Primc promised that when the law is rejected—which they firmly believe it will be—they will draft law within a month that will regulate all social rights of same-sex persons as they are regulated for heterosexuals. With the exception of those relating to adoptions and the freedom to decide whether to have a child. (N.K., Citation2015a)

Discussion

The first research question we asked was what identity categories were used to represent the identity of same-sex couples and whether these identities were intersectional. We found that only the “gender” and “sexual orientation” identity dimensions appear, while other identities are not reflected in media reporting. Moreover, both identity categories appear in separate contexts, mirrored in media discourse from legal discourse, and there is no reflection on their possible intersection. Failure to recognize in media texts that the identity axes of gender and sexual orientation are inherently intertwined is non-intersectional and also heteronormative since what makes same-sex couple identity non-normative for the dominant society is that two individuals of the same gender and the same sexual orientation seek equal rights as committed couples.

Within the prevailing context in which the gender identity category emerges, we identified the dynamic between two types of discourse using Crenshaw’s concept of “representational intersectionality”. On the one hand, the deletion of gender to equal rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples, and on the other hand, the rejection of the deletion of gender from the existing law by linking it to, for example, to the danger of the loss of gender and the free choice of gender by children. In contrast, we found no such dynamics with the identity category of sexual orientation, as it did not appear in the existing law and was, therefore, less viral.

The second research question we asked was how the status of reflecting different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples affected the dynamics between the prevailing media discourses. The first most visible is the discourse on children’s rights, which foregrounds the alleged struggle to protect the rights of the child. The second most important is the liberal discourse on equal rights for heterosexual and same-sex couples. In addition, a discourse on the reflection of different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples was also noted. However, the latter is present in a relatively small share (12%) of media texts compared to the discourse on children’s rights (59%), and the liberal discourse on equality of the rights between heterosexual and same-sex couples (58%). Drawing on the concept of representational intersectionality, the results of our media analysis show how power relations are reproduced through the dominance of the discourse on children’s rights and the subsequent marginalization of discourses that would address same-sex partnerships by acknowledging different contexts of social exclusion. The analysis shows how the liberal discourse that does not articulate localities and hierarchies of exclusion works to even strengthen the discourse on children’s rights, thereby losing the potential to work as an efficient strategy for countering discrimination.

Comparing the media reporting of the different portals, we found that the lower the proportion of discourse on children’s rights, the higher the proportion of discourse on the reflection of different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples (although the share of the latter is overall low). For example, on 24ur.com, we detected the lowest share of media texts containing the children’s rights discourse (53%) and the highest share of media texts containing the discourse on the reflection of different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples (18%) compared to other portals in the sample. The highest share of texts with the children’s rights discourse was found on the Nova24TV.si portal. However, the reporting of the Nova24TV.si portal does not come as a big surprise, as it is a partisan portal supporting the right-wing political parties and is financed by their private capital. On the other hand, it is surprising that the two commercial portals, 24ur.com and SiOL.net, even though they report less extensively compared to the public broadcaster RTVSLO.si, reflect more often on the social exclusion of same-sex couples than the public broadcaster. This indicates that a medium of public provenance is not necessarily also a guarantor of an anti-discriminatory position in reporting on disadvantaged social groups.

From the perspective of intersectionality theory, the most notable finding of our study is that reflection on racial, ethnic, class, age, religious, and other differences of same-sex partnership is not addressed at all in media reporting. Our analysis revealed a complete homogenization of LGBTIQ+ persons portrayed in the media texts without any intra-group differences. Moreover, whiteness is tacitly assumed, as racial or ethnic differences, a core element of intersectionality theory, are not addressed in media texts. How is it possible that the homogenization of non-binary identities in media texts is so normalized and taken for granted? A plausible explanation for the complete ignorance of intra-group differences of LGBTIQ+ persons, as well as the lack of reflection on their potential racial or ethnic differences, is related to the prevailing “national imagination” (Anderson, Citation1991) in Slovenia, which is based on the ethnonationalist view of Slovenia as a blood-related white community rather than a community of all its inhabitants that includes people of other race or ethnicity. The ethnonationalist national imagination of Slovenia prevails both in political discourse (Pajnik et al., Citation2016) and media reporting (Mihelj, Citation2004; Pajnik Citation2019), where Slovenianhood is claimed against ethnic and sexual minorities. In our case, LGBTIQ+ persons are portrayed in media texts as internal Others in Slovenia and are, therefore, uncritically assumed to be white. Moreover, the absence of identity intersections in Slovenian media texts is in line with existing research on the intersection of representations (e.g., Stern, Citation2012; Meyers, Citation2013; Nölke, Citation2018).

However, as intersectionality theory emerged from Black feminists’ critique of the lack of consideration of issues of race and racism within feminism and gender studies, a controversial polemic arises in the literature about whether or not studies that do not consider race are legitimately “intersectional” (see Davis, Citation2020). In this regard, we stress that we acknowledged the historical and epistemological origins of the concept of intersectionality inherently related to the processes of racialization, and have referred to the important role of race and ethnicity in intersectionality theory. The results of our analysis are proof of the point. It is precisely the absence of a reflection of the race (or ethnicity) in media texts that points to prominent hidden racism (or ethnocentrism) in Slovenian media reporting.

As a result, the complete absence of intersectional identities with the assumption of whiteness derived from the dominance of the ethnonationalist national imagination is a notable finding, as studies that rely on intersectional theory to examine discourses of same-sex marriage typically identify the intersection of multiple identities (e.g., Wadsworth, Citation2011). In addition, our study is also distinctive due to its focus on how the lack of reflection on different contexts of social exclusion contributes to the weakening of the anti-discriminatory position in media discourse. Closest to this research agenda are Burke and Bernstein (Citation2014), who show how opponents of LGBTIQ+ rights are taking over queer discourse, causing it to disappear from mainstream and alternative LGBTIQ+ newspapers in Vermont.

On the other hand, our analysis confirms some known findings. For example, the discourse on children’s rights has already been debated, for instance, in the case of Hawaii (Hull, Citation2001) and Latin America (Corrales, Citation2020). In the latter case, it was launched by the evangelical church, which has played a prominent role in using the institutions of liberal democracies to block progress on LGBTIQ+ rights. The situation in Slovenia was similar, as the discourse on children’s rights was initiated primarily by the Children are at Stake Coalition, a satellite organization of the Roman Catholic Church, the leading religious institution in Slovenia. Moreover, like other movements against gender theory in the EU and globally, the Children are at Stake Coalition has adopted specific political tactics and discourses that, like gender equality politics, invoke human rights and adopt strategies and language previously used by feminists and LGBTIQ+ activists (Paternotte & Kuhar, Citation2018).

Combining the results of the first research question, which refers to “identity intersectionality”, and the second research question, which follows the assumptions of “representational intersectionality”, the following becomes clear: the acknowledgment of different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex partnerships as a result of “fundamental” identities (i.e., gender and sexual orientation) is very weak, while the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex partnerships as a result of intersectional identity are not addressed at all in the media texts. More concretely, a gay immigrant from the former Yugoslavia who is not ethnically Slovenian experiences the contexts of exclusion based on his intersectional identity differently than someone who is ethnically Slovenian gay. While the latter hardly addresses the different contexts of social exclusion, the different contexts of social exclusion are not addressed at all by the former in media discourse.

Crenshaw’s (Citation1991) concept of representational intersectionality, in conjunction with Anthias’s (Citation2013, Citation2020) hierarchies of social locations and Gopaldas and DeRoy’s (Citation2015) intersectional invisibility, has proven to be a promising conceptual tool. Not only have we exposed the minimization of various identity intersections in relation to LGBTIQ+ persons in media discourse in Slovenia, but we have also demonstrated how the lack of specification of various contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples in liberal discourse contributes to its weakening and the strengthening of discourses against it. In addition, we have identified the central dynamics between the child rights and liberal discourses, as well as the individual dynamics within these two main discourses. As for the broader implications of our findings, they confirm that the reasons for the rise and popularity of the anti-gender movement lie in its persuasive appropriation of the discursive terrain of the anti-discrimination position.

Conclusion

We focused on online media reporting on same-sex partnerships in Slovenia. Referring to the concept of “representational intersectionality”, we analyzed how power relations are reinforced when one type of media discourse fails to acknowledge the importance of other discourses. Results of the analysis of online media reporting on the legal changes in same-sex partnership in Slovenia show that the discourses that advocated equality between heterosexual and same-sex couples in Slovenia did not recognize the importance of specifying the different contexts of social exclusion of same-sex couples, and that this non-recognition weakened their power and strengthened the discourses directed against them.

We showed that the concept of representational intersectionality that is in congruence, as we argue, with the postulates of critical discourse studies (CDS) is a useful approach to analyze media reporting as it reveals how power relations operate through speech dynamics.

Future research could work with the concept of “representational intersectionality” in social media that, in addition to mass media, shape the contemporary hybrid media systems (Chadwick, Citation2013). Future studies could also expand the analysis of intersectional discrimination to research the “routine practices” (Tandoc & Duffy, Citation2019) of media to reveal other structural factors for the lack of recognition of the intersectional perspective of social exclusion in the media.