No abstract

The article examines micro-argumentative patterns in 12 debate-like political interactions to account for the discursive construction of victimhood and disenfranchisements used to legitimize ethno-sectarian conflicts for power in Iraqi media interactions across traditional and new media. The analysis found that the interlocutors employed a limited number of argumentative patterns to voice their (dis)agreement and legitimize their viewpoints; these argumentative patterns were either action-oriented or actor-oriented. Action-oriented (de)legitimizing patterns tended to be short-ranged in nature, focusing on the efficiency of the actions (de)legitimized. Alternatively, actor-oriented argumentative patterns were used to legitimize the long-rooted ideological biases about self and others and, therefore, seemed to have a panoramic focus on the ethno-sectarian conflicts for power in the country. The analysis showed that even the interactions that focused on discussing the efficiency of specific political actions and agendas tended to evolve into ideological debates about ethno-sectarian identities and communally biased interpretations of the political scene. This kind of identity politics seems to be motivated by, and to concurrently enhance, the sentiments of disenfranchisement and victimhood, which may further deepen inter-communal rifts in the country.