Toxic Toxteth: Understanding press stigmatization of Toxteth during the 1981 uprising

Abstract

This article investigates how the press stigmatized Toxteth during, and immediately following, the disturbances in 1981. It builds upon a body of literature on territorial stigmatization where there is a gap in understanding surrounding the production and formation of stigma. Drawing on the acceptance in literature that the media is a key contributor to territorial stigma, I delve further to understand some of the techniques that the media uses to stigmatize place. I engage in a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis of 496 newspaper articles from five British newspapers to examine how the press reports on Toxteth, and who constructs Toxteth’s identity. I show that the name of ‘Toxteth’ was largely defined by the media and that the residents of Toxteth were denied a voice in the press coverage in 1981 with fewer than 10 per cent of all articles quoting a resident. I refer to this process as ‘stranger-making’, and it underscores the way that the media denied residents an ability to construct their own identity and the identity of their area. While stranger-making involves obfuscating the unique contours of Toxteth and silencing voices, the press simultaneously impose aspects of identity from a position of power through the techniques of naming, negativity, and oppositionality.

#WeAreBeneficiaries: Contesting Poverty Stigma Through Social Media

“…While stigmatisation can be perpetuated by social media (e.g. Butler ), the case presented here suggests that it also has potential as digital counterpublic space(s) within which poverty can be destigmatised. Through the We Are Beneficiaries case, we can identify at least three factors that appear important to the apparent political purchase of social media as counterpublic spaces.…”

Belonging and the intergenerational transmission of place identity: Reflections on a British inner-city neighbourhood

“…Powerful and all-consuming discourses that have pathologised, labelled and stigmatised neighbourhoods as deviant and ‘threatening’ (Butler, 2019; Devereux et al, 2011), particularly by those in positions of power and authority (McKenzie, 2015; Wacquant, 2008), can have a destructive impact on individuals and communities, causing even greater social exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination. Such processes attempt to silence or distort alternative and marginal narratives, so that the task of making more visible such voices continues to be a challenge.…”

“…Grassroot voices add an important local empirical study to existing ones. In doing so, this increases the voices of those that offer alternative and ‘authentic’ narratives that serve to enrich and enhance the material gathered, and significantly challenge ‘some of the assumptions and accepted judgments …’ (Butler, 2019; Rogaly and Taylor, 2009; Thompson, 2000: 29).…”

Territory and territorial stigmatisation: On the production, consequences and contestation of spatial disrepute

“…Territorial stigmatisation can be an integral stage in the legitimation of both broad reform agendas and particular interventions -a form of 'soft power' that is 'central to moral and economic class projects' (Paton, 2018: 921). It is exercised by a range of actors within the state, including elected representatives and public servants (Kornberg, 2016;Paton et al, 2016;Sakizlioglu and Uitermark, 2014), as well as outside the state, including business people (Kudla and Courey, 2019), think tanks (Slater 2014(Slater , 2016(Slater , 2018, journalists and commentators (Butler, 2019;Kearns et al, 2013;Liu and Blomley, 2013;Sisson and Maginn, 2018), and many others. In particular, territorial stigmatisation has been key to the legitimation of neoliberal welfare reform agendas, which have often been accompanied by stigmatising discourses that portray welfare recipients as 'undeserving' and intervention as therefore fair and just (Gray and Mooney, 2011;Jacobs et al, 2003;Paton, 2018;Slater, 2014;Wacquant, 2008Wacquant, , 2009.…”