Content uploaded by Harald Hornmoen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Harald Hornmoen on Feb 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Hornmoen, H., Hågvar, Y. B., Hyde-Clarke, N., Fonn, B. K., & Stuedahl, D. (2022). Media narra-
tives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam: An analysis of how young people communicate in digital
spaces. Nordicom Review, 43(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2022-0001
Media narratives,
agonistic deliberation, and Skam
An analysis of how young people communicate in digital spaces
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke,
Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
Department of Journalism and Media studies, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
Abstract
Increasingly, the means of engaging young people in constructive public debate and demo-
cratic society has shifted to online digital media platforms. This assumes that participants
have the necessary media literacy skills to engage in a meaningful way. We discuss how and
to what extent responses in an online blog elicited by two different scenes from the popular
youth television series Skam [Shame] demonstrate agonistic deliberation and media literacy
in digital dialogue spaces. Our study includes an analysis of the rhetorical characteristics
of the dialogues; the mapping of key themes that characterise reactions of blog commen-
tators in the online discussions; and a discussion of the characteristics of – and degree of
deliberation in – online comments. We propose that narratives which employ agonistic
deliberation around pertinent social themes are most likely to encourage and elicit public
engagement that moves beyond emotional outbursts, reecting a deeper consideration of
the themes and topics.
Keywords: digital media literacy, youth participation, democracy, agonistic deliberation,
Skam
Introduction
Media literacy facilitates young people’s participation in democratic life. For example,
critical thinking skills enhance their ability to understand and interact with media in
their everyday lives. This and other capacities – such as problem-solving, research skills,
creativity, collaboration, and exercising skills for working within social networks and
negotiating across cultural differences – allow youth to engage in public life (Jenkins
et al., 2009). The key goal of our study is to provide research-based understanding of
the different types of approaches that young people use to make sense of and share
perceptions or opinions within digital dialogue spaces. In other words, we dene media
literacy in this article as the ability to adapt to the cultural requirements of participation
and meaningful dialogue. This entails that we see young people as active knowledge
NORDICOM REVIEW
2
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
producers who accommodate to affordances provided by the digital media they use. We
focus on how young people’s participation as active knowledge producers requires the
appropriation of methods to handle dilemmas and controversies in a pluralistic society.
With this study, we contribute to the understanding of young people’s media literacy
competencies by examining how two vital scenes in the popular Norwegian youth televi-
sion series Skam [Shame] address and depict pressing social matters in ways that offer
different potential for deliberation. We consider how this is reected in the reception of
these scenes in commentaries on the series blog hosted by the Norwegian public service
broadcaster NRK P3.
Drawing on textual-intertextual analysis (Ceccarelli, 2001; Rønlev, 2020), we present
and analyse two scenes – aired in 2016 and 2017 respectively – and their related blog
commentaries posted on NRK P3. We consider how the participatory format employed
in those scenes inspired engagement with key narratives and social issues. By delving
into these, we illustrate two ways of engaging young viewers.
With this article, we seek to add to existing literature addressing knowledge gaps per-
taining to relations between digital media and civic, democratic, and social participation
as dimensions of public spaces. There is a need to explore dynamics through which digi-
tal dialogue spaces shape, and are shaped by, cultural activity and media participation.
In terms of actors’ participation in digital communication, innovative media studies have
already illuminated meaning-making and public participation in digital media production
(e.g., Carpentier, 2011) and how social media relate to contemporary media culture (e.g.,
Fuchs, 2014). In youth media studies, pioneering work has been conducted into how
networks support youth creativity (Drotner, 2018; Eleà & Mikos, 2018; Livingstone,
2009). The eld of digital humanities has focused on digital archives, computational
cultural analytics, textual mining, analysis, and visualisation (e.g., Manovich, 2013),
whereas recent co-design studies have explored media innovation and citizenship (e.g.,
Björgvinsson et al., 2012; Huybrechts et al., 2017). Similarly, important literature that
maps transmedia skills of production and consumption among young people emphasises
that while young people have content production and social management skills, they
may lack the ability to understand ideologies and media representations of stereotypes
(Scolari et al., 2018).
While Skam has received much attention in academia, media literacy – especially
as it relates to this popular youth series – is underresearched (Duggan, 2020). A series
is an interesting format to explore, as serial narratives are seen to offer a “sense of se-
curity which is particularly appealing to children whose literacy skills are developing”
(Kümmerling-Meibauer, 2017: 171). We begin by presenting an overview of research
conducted on Skam before we analyse the two scenes and related blog comments.
Previous research on Skam
Skam was a Norwegian television series produced by the Norwegian public service
broadcaster NRK that aired for four seasons between 2015 and 2017. Focusing on the
everyday lives of a group of high-school students, the series was designed to appeal to
and attract youth, and in particular girls, as a television audience (Sundet, 2020). Skam
turned out to be a tremendous success, not least because NRK let the story unfold in
real time via social media, in parallel with the weekly television episodes. When NRK
3
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
conducted a survey after the second season, it discovered that as many as 98 per cent
of Norwegian teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 knew about the series, and more
than 67 per cent had watched the show (Sundet, 2020). Gradually, the series went on to
attract a substantial international audience.
Being such a unique television phenomenon, Skam has received scholarly inter-
est from several scientic angles. First and foremost, media scholars have analysed
and discussed the innovative narrative structure of the show, often in the context of
Jenkins’s term “transmedia storytelling” (e.g., Jenkins, 2006). The show’s success
is often linked to the way the story unfolded seemingly in real time through updates
in social media and short clips on the ofcial Skam blog (Andersen & Linkis, 2019;
Bengtsson et al., 2018; Bom, 2018; Duggan, 2020; Lindtner & Dahl, 2019; Pearce,
2017; Rasmussen & Valtysson, 2017; Sundet, 2017, 2020; Sundet & Petersen, 2020).
Moreover, studies of the show’s format are sometimes interwoven with fandom studies.
Focus group interviews tend to emphasise how the series created a feeling of belonging
and taking part in a community (Rasmussen & Valtysson, 2017; Sundet & Petersen,
2020). Lastly, studies of the aesthetics demonstrate how the soundtrack and extensive
use of close-ups facilitated identication and empathy with the characters (Dahl &
Lindtner, 2018; Jerslev, 2017). Taken together, these studies suggest that the show’s
major success should be explained less by the fact that it is about teens and deals with
recognisable aspects of the audience’s own lives. Rather, it is the way the show invites
the audience to care for its characters combined with the continuous suspense of how
the story is going to unfold in social media, and the social aspect of the fan groups,
that propels the interest (see, in particular, Lindtner & Dahl, 2019). These ndings are
supported by several analyses of audience comments on the ofcial Skam blog or in
other social media. We review these studies in some more detail, as they provide the
closest foundation for our own empirical analysis.
Prøitz and colleagues (2019) analyse users’ comments about an Instagram post that
ofcially declared that the fourth season of Skam would be the nal one. Their analysis
indicates that the show had positively impacted a lot of viewers’ sense of belonging and
hope for the future – very much in line with the intentions of Skam’s production team
(Sundet, 2017, 2020). The affective aspects of the user comments are also addressed by
Rasmussen and Valtysson (2017), who nd that the comments on the Skam blog created
a community which affects the individual user’s emotional life and invites them to share
these emotions. Krüger and Rustad (2017) interpret this experienced community in light
of Winnicott’s (1953/1971, 1986) concept of “transitional objects”, showing how the
Skam blog allowed the users to link specic scenes to their individual challenges with
coming of age. The comment section works as a relatively safe place to discuss, for
example, female sexuality, and according to Krüger and Rustad (2017: 76), one of the
success factors is that the show itself “avoids coming across as a top-down, didactic,
and ‘preachy’ affair – a trap that public-service-oriented media products for children
frequently fall into”.
Some studies have looked specically into the democratic potential of comments.
Lindtner and Dahl (2019) point out that Skam combines elements from soap opera (twists
and cliffhangers that encourage continuous discussion) and melodrama (characters learn-
ing from their mistakes). Along with the complex characters in the series, this opens
up for sound moral debates that make viewers see their own feelings and experiences
4
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
as examples of more general phenomena. Lindtner and Dahl (2019: 67) claim that this
“contributes to an understanding of the conditions for the development of deliberative
democracy in modern media societies, insights relevant both for democratic theory and
democratic practice”. Similar points are made by the same authors in a chapter that
analyses readers’ responses to Isak, one of the main characters, coming out as gay in
the third season of the series (Dahl & Lindtner, 2018). Skam is seen as a democratic
resource in this instance because it generates an empathic understanding of “the Other”.
Closely related are the didactic possibilities of the series. An edited collection by
Lindtner and Skarstein (2018) examines the form, topics, and reception of Skam with
reference to how the series could be used as teaching material. In addition to Dahl and
Lindtner (2018), we put forward Skarstein’s (2018) analysis of the comment section as an
interpretative community. Following Bruner (e.g., 1986), Skarstein distinguishes between
two general modes when interpreting a text. One is the syntagmatic way of approaching
a narrative, which means being absorbed in the ctional universe and expressing feel-
ings and desires about what is happening or should happen. This kind of “intersubjective
closeness” is the most intuitive and everyday way of engaging with narratives. There
is, however, also a paradigmatic way of reading where users see the series from more
distance and interpret allusions, metaphors, and deeper messages. An important objec-
tive in secondary school education is to move students from syntagmatic to paradigmatic
reading. According to Skarstein (2018), both these readings occur on the Skam blog, but
they rarely mix – they are parallel interpretative communities, and notably the share of
paradigmatic comments does not increase across the four seasons. We therefore refer to
these readings when discussing and analysing reactions on the Skam blog.
As shown in this section, previous academic literature outlines three main themes:
personal development of viewers; didactical potential or educational value of content;
and democratic value development. We expand on the last theme in this article by em-
phasising media literacy and deliberation on pressing social issues.
Material and analytical approach
We analyse two scenes from Skam that were debated in the news media and which were
among the most commented upon on the Skam blog for their respective seasons. They
rst appeared in two video clips on the blog before they – like all the other Skam clips
– were assembled into full episodes and transmitted on prime-time television. The rst
clip was released on Thursday, 16 May 2016 with the title “Trussel” [“Threat”] and
received 652 comments (the last registered in 2017) (Andem, 2016). The second clip
was released on Friday, 2 June 2017 with the title “Fakker over vennene sine” [“Fuck-
ing over one’s friends”] and received 896 comments (the last ones registered in 2018)
(Andem, 2017). We have chosen to concentrate specically on written comments. While
we are aware that the use of “likes” is a form of interpassivity, and thereby a means of
virtual participation, our purpose is to evaluate how deliberation is affected by the nar-
rative devices employed in the selected clips. Since many of the blog comments are in
Norwegian, they have been translated into English, with effort made to ensure that the
translations are as true to the original meaning as possible. Given that commenters use
anonymous nicknames, thereby ensuring that respective posts cannot be traced back to
specic individuals, we deem it ethically acceptable to quote directly from the blog.
5
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
Our analysis is inspired by textual-intertextual analysis (Rønlev, 2020). This type
of analysis supplements close readings of inuential media texts (primary texts) with a
mapping of the reception in media forms that provide spaces, such as blogs, where users
have the possibility to comment on and discuss inuential texts (secondary texts). The
concept of text here is understood not in a limited sense as words on a page, but rather
as any object that can be “read”. It may therefore encompass forms such as video clips
and television series and their different modalities, whether visual or verbal, as presented
on different media platforms. However, in our mapping of the rhetorical strategies of
the primary texts (the clips), emphasis is placed on the interaction between the main
characters in the two scenes, and the way that this interaction may elicit deliberation on
social issues addressed in them. We therefore seek to analyse whether different types
of narratives require and elicit higher levels of engagement, the extrapolation of more
in-depth understanding and meaning-making, as well as the active questioning of ele-
ments of rhetorical device.
To this purpose, we nd Kent and Taylor’s (2018) conception of dialogue and mono-
logue along opposite ends of a continuum useful. Whereas monologue generates ad-
herence and obedience, dialogue places emphasis on meaning-making, co-creation,
and empathetic interactions. Dialogue includes features such as risk (e.g., openness to
unanticipated experiences and consequences), mutuality (collaboration with others in a
spirit of mutual equality), propinquity (e.g., awareness of the temporal ow of relation-
ships), empathy (conrmation of others, supportiveness, communal orientation), and
commitment (e.g., to maintaining open conversation and interpretation of what others
say and feel). Persuasion is nevertheless involved in dialogic interactions. Dialogue
participants with a history of tension have the potential to inuence others and develop
a new understanding of each other from the other’s perspective. The dialogic encoun-
ter may result in increases in critical reection skills, perspective-taking, and critical
awareness of social issues.
We also draw on the agonistic model of democracy and consider how conictual
interaction may encourage deliberation amongst young people about social issues
more effectively than traditional hero-protagonist (moralising) narratives or consensus-
seeking dialogues and argumentation (see, e.g., Habermas, 1993). The agonistic model
of democracy (Keegan, 2021; Mouffe, 2005) sees conict and antagonism as constitu-
tive features of the social. A major task of democratic policies, according to Mouffe
(2005: 103), is not to eliminate passion from the public sphere “but to mobilize these
passions towards democratic design”. Building on Mouffe’s agonistic political theory,
Lo (2017) has proposed changes to the use of deliberative discussions in civic educa-
tion classrooms, for example, by coupling agonism and deliberation to “allow students
to draw upon their passionate responses to social injustice” (Keegan, 2021: 17). In this
article, we understand deliberation (from the Latin deliberare: consider carefully) as
young people’s engagement with media narratives in order to consider and discuss dif-
ferent positions on a social issue. The result of agonistic deliberation is envisioned here
as “negotiated action steps to address a social issue” (Keegan, 2021: 17), rather than
compromise or consensus.
The conceptions of dialogue referred to above are based on agonistic models de-
veloped within political theory or within critical affective literacy in civic education.
Furthermore, the understanding of dialogue presented by Kent and Taylor, and theorists
6
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
that they draw on (e.g., Cissna & Anderson, 1994; Pearson, 1989), is developed within
a framework of organisational rhetoric and strategic communication. We nd that the
characteristics of dialogue the different scholars present can also be used to analyse
mediated and representational dialogue (see Richardson, 2010) in television dramas such
as Skam. We furthermore nd that comments on the Skam blog are suited to evaluating
the inuence and deliberative potential the two scenes had on the followers of the series.
In analysing the reception of the series, we (in addition) draw on the categories of inter-
pretation, engagement, and consumption presented by Skarstein (2018), Andersen and
Linkis (2019), and Lindtner and Dahl (2019). Furthermore, we discuss to what extent
and how the responses in the comments – elicited by the two scenes – may contribute to
a critical and deliberative media literacy among young participants in digital dialogue
spaces. We are aware that NRK moderators may have removed some controversial
comments. However, according to Lindtner and Dahl (2019), their level of tolerance
tended to be high before interfering in the Skam discussions.
Our analysis is conducted along the following levels of interpretation:
• An analysis of the rhetorical characteristics of the dialogues (or lack thereof) that
unfold in the two Skam scenes.
• A mapping of key themes that characterise the reactions of blog commentators when
they discuss Skam online.
• A discussion of the characteristics of – and the degree of deliberation in – the blog
commenters’ comments about the two scenes.
We rst provide a detailed description of both scenes so that the reader may better un-
derstand the textual narratives employed in the comment section on the NRK Skam blog.
Narrative 1: “Trussel” [“Threat”]
Description and analysis of primary text
This clip is the culmination of the wider narrative of the second season. The episodes
revolve around the relationship of the protagonist – the independent and self-declared
feminist Noora Amalie Sætre – with William, whom Noora initially viewed as sexist,
but with whom she has since fallen in love. The episodes also address other feminist
issues, eating disorders, violence, and sexual assault.
Closely preceding “Trussel” (episode 10), Noora attends a party held by William’s
brother Niko (episode 8), and subsequently wakes up naked beside Niko and another
character, Mari (episode 9). Noora is unable to remember anything, but she suspects that
she has been raped. At the end of episode 9, Noora receives on her phone a nude picture
that Niko has taken of her. Throughout episode 10, Noora grapples with her feelings
and her understanding of what happened that night leading up to the “Trussel” scene,
where she meets Niko in a bar.
The scene unfolds over seven minutes and presents several different phases which
gradually build up to a dramatic confrontation. First, Noora is sitting at a table, d-
dling nervously with a pen, glancing at her phone, and nally grabbing her jacket to
leave. Niko arrives, clearly late, seemingly bursting with condence, and he orders two
beers before Noora reminds him that she has not turned 18 (the legal age to buy liquor
7
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
in Norway). Niko says he thought she would “chicken out” of the meeting, leading to
Noora saying that she remembers little of the party evening. Niko says that she blacked
out, and she agrees.
Noora increasingly takes control of the situation. She starts by expressing her wish to
know what happened that night and says she will leave if not told about it. Niko replies
that it is pretty “ballsy” to be rude towards someone who possesses nude pictures of
her. Noora asks if that was a threat, and a grinning Niko afrms that it was. She then
asks him what he studies in Stockholm, and Niko replies, “international nance”. Noora
comments that he ought to have chosen law instead.
This leads to a climax in the narrative, when Noora explains the situation Niko is in
– he will be convicted for child pornography. To a sarcastically laughing Niko, Noora
states:
According to the Penal Code paragraph 204 A, the penalty for producing and pos-
sessing an image that sexualizes children is imprisonment for up to three years.
And as I am under 18, I am still considered a child according to Norwegian law.
She goes on to inform him that not only was it illegal to take the nude photos of her
without consent, but also to store them on his phone. She says that other penal paragraphs
of the law will enter if he distributes the pictures.
Although starting to appear uneasy, Niko laughs at her mention of child pornography.
Unfazed, Noora shows that she is recording their conversation on her phone, pointing
out that he has just threatened her. She then refers to two other penal paragraphs – about
threat and force, respectively – and how this can add more years of imprisonment. She
also brings up, in an increasingly ironic tone, how his violations of the law paragraph
on serving alcohol to minors is really something to have on his CV. The scene ends with
Noora, who – apparently with Schadenfreude (“Enjoyment obtained from the troubles
of others”; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-a) – asks Niko what happens in prison to those who
are convicted for child pornography: “I wouldn’t pick up that soap in the shower if I
were you. To put it that way”. She leans triumphantly towards him, before leaving the
bar to the rising soundtrack of the artist Fergie rapping “Here I Come”. Niko is depicted
from the back, sitting alone by the table in the bar.
This scene depicts the characters after a critical incident of situational shame. Noora’s
“coming back” and confronting Niko is entertaining and engaging on an emotional
level. Its dramatic narrative corresponds well with Skam’s mission statement, to help
young girls “to strengthen their self-esteem by breaking taboos, make them aware of
interpersonal mechanisms and demonstrate the rewards of confronting fear” (Furevold-
Boland, 2016, cited in Sundet, 2020: 75). There are also elements of education here,
particularly tied to legislation related to the sexual violation of minors, as presented to
young viewers by someone with whom they can strongly identify. It is an approach that
helps the Norwegian national broadcaster NRK full a public service ideal of combining
the popular with the important, to create popular enlightenment (Sundet, 2017, 2020).
Questions, however, arise as to how well the educational intent is made clear in the
revenge narrative and the extent to which the scene triggers dialogue and deliberation
among dedicated Skam followers on the legal and ethical issues it raises.
There is clearly little dialogue of the kind conceived by Kent and Taylor (2018) in
the depicted exchanges between Noora and Niko. There is little risk in terms of the
8
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
characters projecting a sense of being “open to the unexpected”. Rather, they play out
prescribed roles of hero and villain in a narrative that does not allow for a spirit of mutual
equality, conrmation of others (empathy), or a commitment to maintaining an open and
ongoing conversation. The characters’ exchanges may, on the contrary, be interpreted
as a representation of one-way monologues. However, unlike Niko’s utterances, the
protagonist Noora’s monologue ultimately does not appear as primarily self-serving
in the context of a public service youth television series. It may rather be interpreted
as a model speech for empowering young girls to believe in themselves and be able to
tackle similar situations. Our expectation, then, was that in the Skam fan community,
the protagonist’s gleeful educational monologue would trigger expressions of praise and
condemnation of the two characters, respectively.
Analysis of blog reception
We expected Noora’s educational monologue to trigger expressions of praise and
condemnation, respectively, of the two characters – and the majority of comments do
exactly that. Most comments are euphoric outbursts like “YESSSS!” or “Noora is back
<333333”. Evidently, the clip released tension for a lot of viewers as Noora nally
managed to reclaim her position as a feminist role model. As with many other series, it
is common for viewers to address the characters directly in their comments, as if they
were talking to a real friend: “You should consider being a lawyer”, “Good work Noo-
ra”, “Hell Noora I love you”, and so on. One of the viewers even gives the character a
bit of advice:
Hi Noora. I think you were very tough today, and one can see that you have paid
attention in law class. Law is very important, because then one can be aware of
the rights one has as a Norwegian citizen. But enough about that. But my point is
Noora, you must not forget that you may have been raped!!!
Krüger and Rustad (2017) have pointed at similar ways of supporting and caring for
the characters on Instagram. However, while such posts may sustain and even increase
the viewers’ emotional investment in the show, they do not trigger much deliberation.
Most of these comments are left with no replies.
However, there are some signs of deliberation triggered by Noora’s use of law. Sev-
eral commenters argue that she is partly referring to an outdated law, which sparks a
discussion on whether the clip is supposed to give the viewers correct legal advice (an
educational reading), or if the actual law does not matter as long as Noora is able to use
it as a rhetorical device to retaliate against Niko (a more intersubjective, syntagmatic
reading, see Skarstein, 2018). This is demonstrated by the following thread, where four
commenters (C) discuss the scene:
C1: Go Noora! She should be a lawyer!
C2: Lawyer? Lying on the floor laughing!
C3: Apart from doing the major mistake among lawyers and referring to the
WRONG LAW, sure she should be a lawyer […]
C4: One doesn’t have to refer to the right law, as long as the effect on Nikolai is
the same (and of course that the content is correct)
9
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
The large number of expressive comments suggest that the latter interpretation is the
dominant one.
The clip was hailed by several Norwegian institutions – for instance, the police, who
pointed out that Noora’s conclusion was right even though she referred to the wrong
paragraphs (Lindtner & Dahl, 2018; Svendsen, 2016) – as well as several institutions for
rape victims who argued that the clip should be used in school for educational purposes
(Jørgensen, 2016). Interestingly, the nal comments on the Skam blog are indeed written
by pupils who appear to have been instructed to analyse the clip one year later. These
comments are far less enthusiastic:
Can someone tell me what the message in this video is? I have a school assignment
for tomorrow and could use some help.
In general, the comments suggest that what sparked the audience’s interest was not
the educational element (the legislation on sexual violation of minors), but rather
the narrative twist of Noora finally triumphing over Niko – a moment they had been
desperately waiting for over several episodes. This echoes Lindtner and Dahl’s (2019)
finding that the real appeal of the show lies in the transmedia format and feeling of
immediacy, as well as the intimate portrayal of the characters, rather than the spe-
cific teen topics raised. While top-down education of the viewers was integrated in
the storyline, it did not generate much fruitful deliberation on this subject. After all,
the legal and moral lesson in the clip does not really invite debate, as most viewers
would probably agree that sexual harassment is unacceptable, and the information is
presented in terms of the law.
Narrative 2:
“Fakker over vennene sine” [“Fucking over one’s friends”]
Description and analysis of primary text
The second clip chosen for study is from episode 7, season 4. The protagonist Sana Bak-
koush, a young Muslim woman, attempts to nd her place in a secular society. Sana is
determined and articulate but faces challenges in combining a Norwegian high-school
lifestyle with a traditional Muslim way of living. For example, tensions arise in her
relationship with the boy Yousef when it turns out that he is not Muslim.
Preceding the clip, the Muslim holy month of fasting, Ramadan, has been used as a
backdrop. Aarvik (2018) points out how Ramadan is a month for personal transforma-
tion for the Muslim individual, for example, by strengthening one’s empathy towards
those who have little of it. However, in this period, Sana discovers that she is about
to be excluded from a russebuss (a Norwegian cultural phenomenon where a group of
graduating students – russ – hire a party bus to celebrate graduation). She also believes
that Noora is about to steal Yousef from her and that her friend Isak is being harassed by
her brother because Isak is gay. Sana becomes more unapproachable to her peers. She
seeks religious relief, but then chooses to get revenge on her “foes” by unsubscribing
from the russebuss and exploiting her friendship with Isak to harm the reputation of the
bus leader. This, however, has unforeseen consequences for people she did not mean to
target, such as her friend Vilde. Sana nds that she is not living up to the ideals of being
a good person in her religion and philosophy of life.
10
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
The introductory 7-minute-long scene in this episode addresses cyberbullying and
displays Sana’s bad conscience resulting from putting Vilde in a difcult situation. Sana
meets Isak, who asks her what she thinks she is doing. As the two sit on a park bench,
Sana’s facial expressions signal tenseness. Isak continues to confront her, rst when
he reminds her that she had recently said that the one thing she dislikes is when people
“fuck over” their friends. He brings up her relation to the leader of the russebuss, Sara,
asking Sana what she has against her. Sana replies that she is a “racist bitch” who tried to
squeeze her off the bus. Then Isak comments that maybe Sara removed her from the bus
because Sana is a “condescending bossy bitch”. Isak goes on to ask why she is so hard on
people, and Sana replies that it is because of how she is treated as a Muslim in Norway.
Isak responds by saying he has grown up gay in Norway, to which she replies that it is not
the same thing, because he does not get the same stares that she does. This is followed by
the following excerpts from their exchange, which gradually take on a different character
when the discussants start relating their experiences and views to a wider cultural context:
Sana: Do you know what people think when they see my hijab? They think I wear
it because I’m forced to, not because I want to. If I say it’s because I want to, then
I’m brainwashed. I do not have my own opinions. We are talking about religious
freedom and all kinds of freedom here in Norway, but to be allowed to wear an
extra garment, is there something wrong with that? […] Do you know how tiring
it is to walk out the door and know that this is another day you have to prove that
you are not oppressed?
Isak: Do you think that’s what people think?
Sana: Try a day with the hijab and you will realise that most Norwegians are racists.
Isak: That’s bullshit.
Sana: Huh?
Isak: That’s bullshit. Most Norwegians are not racists. Most Norwegians are
interested in freedom, peace, are interested in other cultures and want to learn
about it. They are concerned that other cultures should be fine here. But it is not
so strange that many are afraid of Muslims when you read in VG and Dagbladet
about female genital mutilation, IS, terror, and foreign fighters. You know that
most people are not like that. There are damn few who are like that. When you
first meet a Muslim face to face, you do not know what to say. Can one say “for-
eigner”, or “multiethnic” or “multicultural”? What is correct? You do not know
if you can handshake with one with a hijab. Is it disrespectful to ask about Allah?
Then you end up not asking about anything because…
Sana: Maybe that’s just fine. I’ve had a hell of a lot of stupid racist questions in
my life.
Isak: No, Sana! The stupid questions are damn important! People must not stop
asking stupid questions. If they stop asking stupid questions, they start coming up
with their own answers. Now, that’s dangerous. You just have to stop looking for
racism in stupid questions. Even though they are damn annoying and feel racist,
it is crucial that you respond to them. You have to answer them.
11
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
Sana: Who the hell are you, really? I swear, you sound like my Imam or something.
Isak: That one is new. Imam Valtersen, I like it. I am not saying that there are no
racists in Norway. There are probably a hell of a lot of them. I did not grow up
as a Muslim girl, but believe me, I have been where you are. As soon as you start
looking for hate, you will find it. When you find hatred, you begin to hate yourself.
Isak goes on to correct Sana’s misconceptions about her brother and his friends being
homophobic before the two agree that they are “buds” (friends), if not “best buds”.
The scene ends with Sana expressing she is not so sure that she has any best friends
any longer, leading to Isak assuring her that of course she does. In the overall narra-
tive of season 4, this encounter with Isak marks a turning point for Sana, who decided
to admit and address her own unfortunate actions and reconcile with friends and the
outside world.
We find that this scene displays narrative propulsion in the way the dynamics of
the represented dialogue between the two characters leads to conflict resolution. The
dialogue may also be more indirectly viewed as contributing to resolving tensions
Sana has experienced towards other persons with whom she has socialised. We further
interpret this dialogue as being characterised by a willingness of both parties to reach
a higher level of abstraction and insight on the cultural and social issues raised. In
this regard, the narrative’s dialogue may appear as a mediated materialisation of the
conception of how dialogues may produce insight by, and for, the participants which
transcends what each of them could be capable of on their own. To achieve this insight,
both activity and passivity are required of the participants; one must both influence
and allow oneself to be influenced. This conception aligns with Kent and Taylor’s
view of dialogue as ideally being characterised by co-creation of reality and a spirit
of mutuality, with interactions being built on an equal footing (Kent & Taylor, 2018;
see also Bakhtin, 1975/2010).
However, we also note how agonistic confrontation and expressions of emotions play
out in the portrayed scene. For example, the characters’ use intensiers such as “damn”
in “damn annoying” and “damn important”, or voicings of disagreement, such as “That’s
bullshit!” The exchange is not – at least not initially – marked by a consensus-seeking
rhetoric. Rather, there are two strong individual voices with seemingly opposing views
on Norwegians’ (in)tolerance for religious minorities, each trying to persuade and inu-
ence the other.
In contrast to the first scene, “Trussel”, there is no clear winner and loser here.
However, like the rst scene, there is still a public service educational intent in the
dramaturgy and way of informing viewers about conict resolution, in that the two
characters reach a point of acceptance and understanding of each other’s perspective.
But the “enlightenment” of young viewers in this scene concentrates more on how a
willingness to challenge your dialogue partner in constructive discussion may be a good
thing. In this scene, the courage to confront another person’s point of view through ver-
bal exchanges appears as a precondition for productive deliberation. We expected that
the way this scene is dramatised would trigger deliberative responses from the larger
fan communities on the Skam blog.
12
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
Analysis of blog reception
We expected more deliberative responses to be triggered in the fan communities by
this second clip – again, this was the case. While a substantial amount of the comments
include emotional outbursts (“ISAK ISAK ISAK ISAK <3 <3 <3”), many posts follow
up on the discussion between the characters, often from a paradigmatic point of view.
While comments about the rst clip had a lot of viewers syntagmatically addressing
the characters as friends in real life, the second clip tended to provoke paradigmatic
meta-readings that discuss the moral message of the series. Several commenters point
out that the two characters do not represent one right and one wrong answer, but that
they see the subject from different points of view. There are viewers who clearly identify
with Sana:
So tired of Isak now. No, he is technically not wrong but he is not right either.
The alternative to stupid questions is not hate. I have a lot of stupid questions,
but I choose not to pose them loudly every time. There is a lot of info not com-
ing from racist people. Everyone can choose what to do, no person is forced to
educate you because you are too lazy to find the answers yourself. It is possible
to have conversations like the one Yousef and Sana had about religion. One may
ask questions, but one cannot always expect an answer.
Others embrace Isak’s philosophy:
What Isak says about questions, that people who stop asking questions make up
their own answers, which is dangerous, that applies not only to racism but to all
non-existing communication in this season. It is kind of the theme for this sea-
son. All the times Sana has drawn her own conclusions instead of asking (e.g.,
lastly with Noora, when she believes she knows what Noora is about to tell about
Yousef). Still, it was Sana who said wisely in season 2 that misunderstandings are
what triggers war and violence. There is a lot of communication going on, in all
channels, but the most important things are seldom said. <3 nice clip!
There are also comments that address or question the role of Julie Andem, the creator
of the series:
Thanks. Just thanks, Andem?! Among the finest, most important and best I have
ever seen!
However, others seem to interpret Isak’s point of view as the preferred reading of the
clip, and hence as Andem’s point of view. As the comments develop, the dominant rhe-
torical topos moves away from discussing Isak’s deliberative ideal towards a “racism
does exist” topos and eventually a more woke -oriented topos addressing Isak’s right
to say these things, being a white male himself. (The term woke is primarily US slang,
meaning “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially
issues of racial and social justice)”; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b).
On a basic level, there is a debate about what Isak actually says in the clip. A number
of commenters argue that he has claimed there is no racism in Norway, while others
point out that he merely rejected Sana’s claim that most Norwegians are racist, and that
he indeed admits that there are surely a lot of racists. In other words, the general impres-
sion left by the clip is discussed versus what was literally said.
13
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
Quite a few commenters interpret the very scene as disrespectful towards Sana’s
experiences and argue that the narrative naturalises existing power hierarchies, which
is another example of how Julie Andem’s position as script writer and director is
discussed:
Hmm. A beautiful and important clip. BUT – also a bit too close to neglecting
racism / whitewashing. Indeed, it is Isak’s view, but hard not to see it as JA’s view.
And can’t avoid thinking that you will have to be a white, ethnic Norwegian (like
Julie Andem) to fire off something like this. There IS racism and xenophobia.
Even in Norway. It is NOT just made up. And it is NOT ok! And NO ONE shall
accept it. Not even Sana. THAT would be great to hear Isak say loud and clear.
By season 4, Skam had turned into an international cult phenomenon (Sundet, 2020).
We therefore also found several comments from non-Norwegians. The above quote is
originally in Danish, whereas the harshest critique comes in English and seems to be
initiated by American viewers. “Victim blaming”, “whitesplaining”, and “mansplaining”
are recurring concepts:
But the worst is the quote “If you look for hate, you will begin to hate”. WTF.
How can you possibly victim blame and stigmatize more. Julie Andem does not
get racism at all. You don’t go looking for hate. It comes to you. It’s not volun-
tary. Victims don’t go out looking for it. […] Andem really does not get it and is
just preaching a very white, very navel gazing, self-congratulatory and victim
blaming take on racism.
I know, this gave me a stomach ache. It is true that people should keep talking
to each other. But what Isak said is so bad because he puts the responsibility for
education on the victim of racism/ micro aggression. […] Isak can’t have the last
word on this. He has no right to tell Sana to rise above. He is white and male. It
is too sad and unfair.
Page one of the “How to justify low-key racism” handbook x( I thought this
show was better than this. It’s even more sad how the comments are filled with
people praising Isak for this. […]
A disappointed Dane writes: “I thought this was a woke show?” Many commenters use
quite internal concepts from the current woke rhetoric – like “PoC” (people of colour)
– and frequently reproach each other for using the wrong terms: “the term ‘c*loured’
is racist. so i guess we know what side you’re on”. Commenters who try to argue that
“white gay boys” are not in the position to educate Muslims, risk facing the objection
that “white gay boys” is in itself a stigmatising category.
Many of the comments are quite extensive and elaborate, indicating that the authors
of them may be considerably older than the series’ primary target group. At rst glance,
this might look like a group of activists hijacking and polarising the debate. However,
several Norwegian commenters engage to nuance the activists’ interpretations:
As for the definition of racism, it is clear that you are defining that word as it
currently is used in the USA. If you spend time in pretty much any other country
in the world, you will learn that racism is defined and understood very differently
from place to place. This may help explain why Norwegian-speakers (including
14
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
Norwegians of color) seem to be reacting very differently to this clip than English-
speakers on this site.
In this way, an intercultural topos is introduced in the debate, which among other things
addresses how the word “race” is interpreted in different cultures and even triggers
comparisons between the American and Norwegian history of slavery (and denitions
of slavery). Despite some angry voices and tendencies to polarisation, the overall de-
bate ends up addressing the questions raised in the clip from a range of viewpoints and
cultural backgrounds without turning overtly hateful. Overall, it is fair to say that the
spontaneous debate amongst the viewers was quite deliberative and even addressed in-
tercultural understandings of a controversial societal issue. As a Norwegian commenter
concludes after one of the “whitesplaining” comments:
And the whole discussion below this comment is why this is a so important topic
to illuminate.
If everything Isak said in this clip had been perfect and politically correct, it would
not have been realistic.
Isak is not perfect.
Sana is not perfect.
The discussion here is important.
Closing discussion
As mentioned in the opening section, by taking a media literacy perspective on participa-
tion, we see young people as active content producers who adapt and accommodate to
affordances provided by the digital media they use. They are frequent users and contribu-
tors to social media platforms and are familiar with the freedom and constraints of those
formats and genres. They therefore navigate and interpret narratives across platforms
and are accustomed to “real-time” communication.
Both clips present the viewer with moments of personal discomfort that require
constructive confrontation and conict resolution with another. However, the narrative
devices employed in the two scenes are quite different. The rst confrontation takes the
form of a monologue where resolution is found in “besting” the other within a legal
framework, whereas the second takes the form of a dialogue where resolution is reached
through a better understanding of both parties’ positions and perspectives. The rst is
more informative, the second more deliberative. Both are educational. Both address
important social concerns. However, it is the second clip that elicits more paradigmatic
discussion and debate on the Skam blog.
Arguably, in comments about the second clip, commenters also demonstrate a higher
level of engagement with the content and extrapolate the deeper meanings and implica-
tions of that content through social contextualisation and ethical consideration of the
central themes. They more actively question elements of rhetorical device, from both
the creators of the series as well as other contributors. There is clearly an increase in
democratic deliberation in this discussion. As with the script that elicits those responses,
15
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
in this case dialogue, critical reection and understanding is the goal, not necessarily
the reaching of consensus or common agreement.
The character of unfolding discussions about social issues on a blog is necessarily
different from the carefully scripted dialogue appearing in a scene of a television series
by a public service broadcaster. The discussions on the blog follow a different logic,
with various voices spontaneously engaging with the moral message of the series. What
we witness in the discussions about the scene with Sana and Isak is more in line with
Mouffe’s (1999) conception of “agonistic pluralism” in the realm of politics than the
scripted dialogue in narrative 2. According to Mouffe’s model of agonism, politics aims
at “creating unity in a context of conict and diversity” (Mouffe, 1999: 755). Compro-
mises are part of processes of politics, but they should be seen as “temporary respites
in an ongoing confrontation” (Mouffe, 1999: 755).
Parts of the blog discussion of narrative 2 may be seen within this framework. En-
gaged and affective discussions do not necessarily reconcile differences as much as they
display disagreements and conicts between adversaries, who may continue to struggle
with the perspectives of “the Other”, while possibly also reaching an understanding of
the other’s views in deeper ways.
Considering how the analysed responses to the Skam scenes are voiced on a blog
hosted by a public service broadcaster with popular enlightenment ideals, we may see
the function of this dialogue space as partly analogous to that of the aforementioned
civic education classrooms (Keegan, 2021; Lo, 2017). The blog provides participants
with a space to voice and exchange opinions in ways that may contribute to developing
their critical affective literacy skills. This, again, may help participants develop a critical
awareness of the role emotions and conict play in politics – which may empower them
to act. The Skam blog can be viewed as an example of a digital space that allows young
people to hold on to their passions while participating fruitfully in political discussions.
At this stage, we must acknowledge two reservations in the ndings of this study.
The rst is that we are unable to determine the age of participants commenting on the
blog. We cannot claim that all comments are made by young people nor that the more
participatory narrative devices employed in the second clip were necessarily better at
eliciting paradigmatic media literacy competencies and democratic deliberation within
that age group. We can only state that the series was designed with young people in
mind, and that previous studies have shown that it was extremely popular with viewers
in that group. We can therefore anticipate that many of the commenters are young people.
However, the show was undeniably watched by people of all ages, and therefore anyone
could contribute to the discussion. Secondly, we acknowledge that there are shortcom-
ings when extrapolating media literacy out of comments or short public documents, as
we do not have insight into the context or personal experience or competences of the
contributors. We interpret their views based on our own understanding of the texts, and
do not know the extent of their knowledge of the content (series), their motivations, or
purpose for posting. We do not know if they have even watched the scene or the whole
series.
It is also apparent that several comments are responses to earlier comments, and
not necessarily based on knowledge of the scene at all. These are merely discussing
the discussion, a trait often found in online comments, and that may lead to a kind of
monologic interaction instead of dialogue. Also, for this reason, we cannot be certain that
16
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
the narrative devices employed in the second clip were better at eliciting paradigmatic
media literacy competencies and agonistic deliberation leading to an acceptance of the
opposing parties’ views. A prerequisite for productive deliberation is that the partici-
pants agree on what they discuss, and the notion of media literacy does not only entail
technological and transmedia competencies, but also the dialogical skills we mentioned
above: risk, mutuality, propinquity, empathy, and commitment. These are therefore skills
we must look for when we study media literacy.
Despite these reservations, we are still able to determine that the two clips have
generated a sharing of pluralistic views, and therefore contribute to democratic delibera-
tion to some degree. It is clear that narratives where characters engage in dialogue and
work towards accepting conicting philosophies of life in a reasonable and consultative
manner through agonistic deliberation seem more effective in eliciting a higher level of
media literacy where critical and ethical competencies are more apparent.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript has been enabled by external funding from The Research Council of
Norway (project number: 301896).
References
Aarvik, S. (2018). Sanas islam [Sana’s Islam]. In S. S. Lindtner, & D. Skarstein (Eds.), Dramaserien Skam:
Analytiske perspektiver og didaktiske muligheter [The drama series Skam: Analytical perspectives and
didactic possibilities] (pp. 111–131). Fagbokforlaget.
Andem, J. (Scriptwriter & Director). (2016, May 19). Trussel [Threat] (Season 2, Episode 10) [TV series
episode]. In M. Magnus (Producer), Skam. NRK. https://skam.p3.no/2016/05/19/trussel/#comments
Andem, J. (Scriptwriter & Director). (2017, June 2). Fakker over vennene sine [Fucking over one’s
friends] (Season 4, Episode 7) [TV series episode]. In M. Furevold (Producer), Skam. NRK.
https://skam.p3.no/2017/06/02/fakker-over-vennene-sine/#comments
Andersen, T. R, & Linkis, S. T. (2019). As we speak: Concurrent narration and participation in the serial
narratives “@I_Bombadil” and Skam. Narrative, 27(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2019.0005
Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed., Trans.; C. Emerson, Trans.).
University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1975)
Bengtsson, E., Källquist, R., & Sveningsson, M. (2018). Combining new and old viewing practic-
es: Uses and experiences of the transmedia series “Skam”. Nordicom Review, 39(2), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2018-0012
Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.A. (2012). Agonistic participatory design: Working with marginalised
social movements. CoDesign, 8(2-3), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.672577
Bom, A. K. (2018). På tvers av grenser og lag: Skam i et transmedialt og multimodalt perspektiv [Across
borders and layers: Skam in a transmedial and multimodal perspective]. In S. S. Lindtner, & D. Skarstein
(Eds.), Dramaserien Skam: Analytiske perspektiver og didaktiske muligheter [The drama series Skam:
Analytical perspectives and didactic possibilities] (pp. 53–71). Fagbokforlaget.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.
Carpentier, N. (2011). Media and participation: A site of ideological-democratic struggle. Intellect.
Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. The
University of Chicago Press.
Cissna, K. N., & Anderson, R. (1994). Communication and the ground of dialogue. In R. Anderson, K. N.
Cissna, & R. C. Arnett (Eds.), The reach of dialogue. Conrmation, voice and community (pp. 9–30).
Hampton Press.
Dahl, J. M., & Lindtner, S. S. (2018). Skam 3 – empati som demokratisk ressurs [Skam 3 – empathy as a dem-
ocratic resource]. In S. S. Lindtner & D. Skarstein (Eds.). Dramaserien Skam: Analytiske perspektiver
og didaktiske muligheter [The drama series Skam: Analytical perspectives and didactic possibilities]
(pp. 181–196). Fagbokforlaget.
Drotner, K. (2018). Meeting change with creativity: Interview with Kirsten Drotner. In I. Eleá, & L. Mikos
(Eds.), Young & creative: Digital technologies empowering children in everyday life (pp. 221–225).
Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-10061
17
Media narratives, agonistic deliberation, and Skam
Duggan, J. (2020). Revitalizing seriality: Social media, spreadability, and SKAM’s success beyond Scandina-
via. The Journal of Popular Culture, 53(5), 1004–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.12954
Eleà, I., & Mikos, L. (Eds.). (2018). Young & creative: Digital technologies empowering children in everyday
life. Nordicom, University of Gothenburg. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:norden:org:diva-10061
Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446270066
Habermas, J. (1993). Further reections on the public sphere. In C. Calhoun (Ed.). Habermas and the public
sphere (pp.421–461). MIT Press.
Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Institutioning: Participatory design, co-design and the public
realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1355006
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Puroshotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A. J. (2009) Confronting the challenges
of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MIT press. https://library.oapen.org/
bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/26083/1004003.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Jerslev, A. (2017). SKAMs ‘lige her’ og ‘lige nu’: Om SKAM og nærvær [SKAM’s ’right here’ and ’right
now’: About SKAM and presence]. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Informationsvidenskab og Kulturformidling,
6(2/3), 75–81. https://tidsskrift.dk/ntik/article/view/99080/148191
Jørgensen, K. K. (2016, May 23). Mener «Skam» burde være pensum [Believes “Skam” should be on the
reading list]. NRK. https://www.nrk.no/livsstil/mener-_skam_-burde-vaere-pensum-1.12959025
Keegan, P. (2021). Critical affective civic literacy: A framework for attending to political emo-
tion in the social studies classroom. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 45(1), 15–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2020.06.003
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2018). Understanding the rhetoric of dialogue and the dialogue of rhetoric. In Ø.
Ihlen, & M. Taylor (Eds.), The handbook of organizational rhetoric and communication (pp. 315–327).
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119265771
Krüger, S., & Rustad, G. (2017). Coping with shame in a media-saturated society: Norwegian web series Skam
as transitional object. Television & New Media, 20(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476417741379
Kümmerling-Meibauer, B. (2017). Series: Prequels, sequels, trilogies, and other concepts of serialization.
In C. Beauvais, & M. Nikolajeva (Eds), Edinburgh companion to children’s literature (pp.167–178).
Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpcu.12954
Lindtner, S. S., & Dahl, J. M. (2018). “Håpar Noora vaknar opp og gjev eit tydeleg signal til norske jenter”:
Mediepanikk og debatten om Skam i norsk media [“Hope Noora wakes up and gives a clear signal to
Norwegian girls”: Media panic and the debate about Skam in the Norwegian media]. In S. S. Lindtner,
& D. Skarstein (Eds.), Dramaserien Skam: Analytiske perspektiver og didaktiske muligheter [The drama
series Skam: Analytical perspectives and didactic possibilities] (pp. 155–180). Fagbokforlaget.
Lindtner, S. S., & Dahl, J. M. (2019). Aligning adolescents to the public sphere: The teen serial Skam and
democratic aesthetic. Javnost: The Public, 26(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1529471
Lindtner, S. S., & Skarstein, D. (Eds.). (2018). Dramaserien Skam: Analytiske perspektiver og didaktiske
muligheter [The drama series Skam: Analytical perspectives and didactic possibilities]. Fagbokforlaget.
Livingstone, S. (2009) Children and the internet: Great expectations, challenging realities. Polity.
Lo, J. (2017). Empowering young people through conict and conciliation: Attending to the political and
agonism in in democratic education. Democracy and Education, 25(2), 1–9.
Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. Bloomsbury Academic.
Merriam- Webster. (n.d.-a). Schadenfreude. Retrieved January 10, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/schadenfreude
Merriam- Webster. (n.d.-b). Woke. Retrieved January 10, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/woke
Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971349
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870112
Pearce, C. (2017). Reality and ction in contemporary television: The case of Skam. TDR/The Drama Review,
61(4), 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1162/DRAM_a_00700
Pearson, R. (1989). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dia-
logue. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 111–131). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prøitz, L., Carlquist, E., & Roen, K. (2019). Affected and connected: Feminist and psychological emotion in so-
cial media. Feminist Media Studies, 19(8), 1114–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1546210
Rasmussen, I., & Valtysson, B. (2017). At føle meget. Affektive relationer i SKAM fanfællesskaber [To feel
a lot: Affective relationships in SKAM fan communities]. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Informationsvidenskab
og Kulturformidling, 6(2/3), 99–104. https://tidsskrift.dk/ntik/article/view/99092/148202
Richardson, K. (2010). Television dramatic dialogue: A sociolinguistic study. Oxford University Press.
Rønlev, R. (2020). Tekstlig-intertekstlig analyse [Textual-intertextual analysis]. In M. Bengtsson, K. M. Berg,
18
Harald Hornmoen, Yngve Benestad Hågvar, Nathalie Hyde-Clarke, Birgitte Kjos Fonn, & Dagny Stuedahl
& S. Iversen (Eds), Retorik og metode [Rhetoric and method] (pp. 49–69). Samfundslitteratur.
Scolari, C. A., Masanet, M.-J., Guerrero-Pico, M., & Establés, M.-J. (2018). Transmedia literacy in the new
media ecology: An international map of teens’ transmedia skills and informal learning strategies. The
Information Professional, 27(4), 801–812. http://hdl.handle.net/10230/42762
Skarstein, D. (2018). Lesingar av Skam – seriens kommentarfelt som tolkingsfellesskap [Readings of Skam
– the series’ comment eld as a community of interpretation]. In S. S. Lindtner, & D. Skarstein (Eds.).
Dramaserien Skam: Analytiske perspektiver og didaktiske muligheter [The drama series Skam: Analytical
perspectives and didactic possibilities]. (pp. 197–219). Fagbokforlaget.
Sundet, V. S. (2017, June 25). «Det er bare du som kan føle det du føler» – emosjonell investering og engasjement
i nettdramaet SKAM [“Only you can feel what you feel” – emotional investment and commitment to the
online drama SHAME]. 16:9 lmtidsskrift. http://www.16-9.dk/2017/06/det-er-bare-du-som-kan-foele/
Sundet, V. S. (2020). From ‘secret’ online teen drama to international cult phenomenon: The glob-
al expansion of SKAM and its public service mission. Critical Studies in Television, 15(1), 69-90.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1749602019879856
Sundet, V. S., & Petersen, L. N. (2020). Ins and outs of transmedia fandom: Motives for entering and exiting
the SKAM fan community online. Poetics, 84, 101510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2020.101510
Svendsen, M. (2016, May 23). Kripos hyller “Skam” – Noora [Kripos pays tribute to “Skam” – Noora]. VG.
https://www.vg.no/rampelys/tv/i/B8aRv/kripos-hyller-skam-noora
Winnicott, D. (1971). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. In D. Winnicott (Ed.), Playing and
reality (pp. 1–31). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1953)
Winnicott, D. W. (1986). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena: A study of the rst not-me. In P.
Buckley (Ed.), Essential papers on object relations, 254–271. New York University Press.
© 2022 Respective authors. This is an Open Access work licensed under the terms of the Crea-
tive Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public licence (CC
BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/
