Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 42 no. 8 (2025)

Philippine Political Hashtags: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Jennifer Payot-Lanoy | Ana Helena R. Lovitos

Discipline: Politics

 

Abstract:

Social media plays an important role in today’s generation, providing more opportunities for the nation to be more involved in socio-political matters in the Philippines. Facebook is one medium, and the use of hashtag activism on this platform provides people the discursive opportunity to express their sentiments towards a political regimen. The researcher of this study aimed to understand hashtag activism by analyzing discursive strategies and pragmatic functions of 150 politically driven Facebook posts about the Duterte administration. Using Fairclough’s Three-Dimensional Model, the researcher identified discursive strategies such as informational, productive and unproductive arguments, and miscellaneous. Meanwhile, three functions of hashtags emerged: experiential, interpersonal, and textual. It was also found that these linguistic features are a containment of political ideologies that reflect public sentiments about the Duterte administration. The conduct of this study is deemed important as this reflects the rich narratives and mechanisms of political involvement of the public in the Philippines, showcasing heightened awareness of socio-political concerns that truly matter.



References:

  1. Adachi, K. (2024). Securitisation, scapegoat, identity politics: Why did President Duterte mark record-high approval ratings despite his failure to combat the COVID-19 pandemic? Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 20, (2),1–16.
  2. Alingasa, A.P. & Ofreneo, M. A. (2021). Fearless, powerful, Filipino: Identity positioning in the hashtag activism of #BabaeAko”, Feminist Media Studies, 21(4), 587-603, doi: 10.1080/14680777.2020.1791927
  3. Anwar, S. & Fabio G. (2024). Facebook reactions in the context of politics and social issues: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Sociology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1379265.
  4. Arugay, A. & Baquisal. J.K. (2023). Bowed, bent, and broken: Duterte’s assaults on civil society in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 8, (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034231209504.
  5. Arugay, A. & Mendoza, M.E. (2024). Digital autocratisation and electoral disinformation in the Philippines. ISEAS Perspective, 53.
  6. Bonilla, Y. & Rosa, J. (2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States.  American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4-17. doi.org/10.1111/amet.12112
  7. Cahapay, M. (2020). Trending phrases, names, and hashtags related to COVID-19 in the Philippines: The language of social crisis. Muallim Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 4(4), 1-9. doi.org/10.33306/mjssh/91
  8. Caleffi, P.M. (2015). The ‘hashtag’: A new word or a new rule?” Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 12(2). 46-69.
  9. Calosa, J.R., Crystal, J. & and Rona, C. (2023). Social media use, social media behavior, cognitive biases, and political awareness among student voters. International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, 6(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2023.6506.
  10. Curato, N. (2016). Politics of anxiety, politics of hope: Penal populism and Duterte’s rise to power. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341603500305.
  11. Demata, M. (2018). I think that maybe I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Twitter: Donald Trump’s populist style on Twitter. Textus, 31(1), 67-90. doi:10.7370/89446
  12. Esguerra, D.J. (1 Jan 2020). #OustDuterte trends as gov’t belies ‘relaxed’ approach to nCoV scare. Inquirer.
  13. Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities’ discourse & society. SAGE Journals. doi:10.1177/095792659 3004002002.
  14. Griffith Asia Institute. (Oct. 2020). Social media and democracy in the Philippines” Griffith Asia Insights
  15. Himelboim, I., et al. (2015). Tweeting apart: Applying network analysis to detect selective exposure clusters in Twitter. Communication Methods and Measures, 7, 169–197. doi:10.1080/19312458.2013.813922
  16. Hitching-Hales, J. & Calderwood, I. (24 Aug. 2017). 8 Massive moments when hashtag activism really worked. Global Citizen.
  17. Jost, J., Federico, C. & Napier, J. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
  18. Kuntjara, E. (29-30 Nov 2006). Using qualitative method in doing linguistic research.
  19. Kushin, M. & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11).  doi:10.5210/FM.V14I11.2645
  20. Lacsa, J.E. (2021). COVID-19: Hashtags and the power of social media.  Journal of Public Health, 1-2. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab242
  21. Leftwich, A. (2004). What is politics: the activity and its study. Polity. https://lorojournals.com/index.php/emsj/article/view/1027/1018
  22. Limos, M.A. (9 Sept. 2020). What is cancel culture?. Esquire.
  23. Linog, H. (2023). Critical discourse analysis and political Facebook posts in Bangsamoro Tapatan Lane. European Modern Studies Journal, 7(4), 3. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.7(4).2023.3.
  24. Madarang, C.R. (20 Nov. 2020). Hashtag war? Looking into the battle of hashtags between admin supporters, critics. Interaksyon.
  25. Mahfouz, I. (2020). The linguistic characteristics and functions of hashtags: #Is it a new language?”. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (6). 84-101. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/call6.6  
  26. Maity, S. K., Ghuku, B., Upmanyu, A. & Mukherjee, A. (2015). Out of vocabulary words decrease, running texts prevail and hashtags coalesce: Twitter as an evolving sociolinguistic system. 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, 1681-1690. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.212.
  27. New Mandala. (2018). When illiberal social media takes over democratic Philippines. New Mandala. https://www.newmandala.org/when-illiberal-social-media-takes-over-democratic-philippines/.
  28. Ng, E. (2022). Cancel culture, black cultural practice, and digital activism.” Cancel Culture, Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 0.1007/978-3-030-97374-2_3.
  29. Ong, J. & Cabañes, J.V. (2019). Disinformation studies: Perspectives from the Philippines. University of the Philippines Press.
  30. Quitzon, J. (2022). Social media misinformation and the 2022 Philippine elections. Center for Strategic and International Studies.
  31. Rambukanna, N. (2015). FCJ-194 From #RaceFail to #Ferguson: The digital intimacies of race-activist hashtag publics. Fiberculture Journal, 26, 159-188. doi:10.15307/fcj.26.194.2015
  32. Salazar, E. (2017). An annotated history of the hashtag and a window to its future. Icono 14, 15(2), 16-54. doi: 10.7195/ri14. v15i2.1091
  33. Saint-Louis, H. (2021). Understanding cancel culture: Normative and unequal sanctioning. First Monday, 26(7). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i7.10891
  34. Shahin, S. & Hou, M. (2025). #StopAsianHate as hashtag activism: Provocateurs, celebrities, and fan practices of collective action against racism. Sage Publications. DOI: 10.1177/20563051241309701 journals.sagepub.com/home/sms
  35. Shapiro, A. (26 July 2021). How cancel culture became politicized-just like political correctness. NPR.
  36. Sinpeng, A. (2021). Hashtag activism: Social media and the #FreeYouth protests in Thailand. Critical Asian Studies, 53(2), 192-205. doi: 10.1080/14672715.2021.1882866
  37. Tsur, O. & Rappoport, A. (2012). What’s in a hashtag?: Content based prediction of the spread of ideas in microblogging communities.
  38. Tusalem, R. (2023). Authoritarian nostalgia and collective memory of the Marcos and Duterte regimes in the Philippines. Asian Politics & Policy, 15(1), 5–28. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12592.
  39. Vallejo, B. (2023). An assessment of the Philippines government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic based on policy response indices. Science and Engineering Journal, 16(2), 426–436.
  40. Van Dijk, T. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. Discourse as Social Interaction, 2, 1-37. doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008001001
  41. Van Dijk, T. (1997). Editorial: Analysing discourse analysis. Sage Publications, 8(1), 5-6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0957926597008001001.
  42. Van Dijk, T. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology. /https://discourses.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Teun-A.-van-Dijk-1995-Discourse-analysis-as-ideology-analysis.pdf
  43. Velasquez, A. & Hernando, R. (2017). Political expression on social media: The role of communication competence and expected outcomes. Social Media + Society, 1-13. doi.org/10.1177/2056305117696521
  44. Wikström, P.. (2014). #srynotfunny: Communicative functions of hashtags on Twitter. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 27, 127–152. http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2014/Wikstrom.pdf.
  45. Zappavigna, M. (2015). Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics, 25(3), 1-18. doi: : 10.1080/10350330.2014.996948

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic