Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience

ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 189 Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience Abstract Speculative fiction is based on one main question: what if? This paper addresses the question of how audiences interpret such interrogative. In particular, our main interest lies in knowing how the different political ideologemes that may inhabit speculative fiction are signified. Thus, in this study we have focused on the genre of dystopia. To this end, a total of five focus groups were carried out. Specifically, the ideologemes tested in the reception study belong to socialism, conservatism, neoliberalism, liberalism and religious fundamentalism. The significance of these ideological values is empirically grounded in extensive qualitative research. Keywords Reception, dystopia, audience, qualitative, politics. 1. Introduction This study is based on one specific interest, which is to reveal how different political ideologemes that dwell in speculative fiction are understood and interpreted. To this end, a genre especially known for being infused with ideology, which is the dystopia (Moylan, 2000), has been chosen as the object of study. The television series in question is part of a larger film franchise of the same name, called The Purge (Amazon Prime: 2018-2019). To offer a brief description, the series envisions the United States ruled by The New Founding Fathers, a political organisation that has legally stipulated that one night per year all crime, including murder, is allowed. The series was selected based on the relevance of the socio-political issues it addresses in its narrative, which can be extrapolated to other European contexts, such as neoliberalism (Sánchez-Gutiérrez & Pineda, 2021). Before delving into the empirical study, due to limited space we will briefly describe the characteristics of the genre that is the object of analysis –the dystopia. The definition or description of utopias and dystopias has generated widespread academic discussion, due to the fact that what is considered socially optimistic or disastrous may vary according to the socio-cultural context, as well as the different ideologies of the individuals in question (Claeys, 2022). Therefore, utopia may refer to an ideal society, as an example, yet the features that comprise such a society is still a point of disagreement (Greene, 2011). According to Sargisson (2011), as these are hermeneutical texts, both utopian and dystopian texts are useful for political workings, as they are realms in which we can envision alternative solutions to problems of the present: “The negative critizes while the positive creates or imagines something new” (pp. 41-42). Continuing this line of thought, Sargisson (2011) and Levitas (2011) argue that dystopian narratives are linked to political ideology, because they help us shape our hopes for the future, which occurs with utopian texts as well: “socialism contains utopias of egalitarism and Mayte Donstrup https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6236-4967 [email protected] Universidad de Sevilla Submitted July 7th, 2023 Approved December 6th, 2023 © 2024 Communication & Society ISSN 0214-0039 E ISSN 2386-7876 www.communication-society.com 2024 – Vol. 37(1) pp. 189-203 How to cite this article: Donstrup, M. (2024). Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience, Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203. doi.org/10.15581/003.37.1.189203 Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 190 liberalism seeks various (economic, social, and political) utopias of freedom. This aspect of utopianism (and this aspect of ideology) brings hope to politics: the hope and desire that things can be different” (2011, p. 42). Thus, there are utopias and dystopias of different political ideologies, such as the extreme right, socialists, and feminists (Levitas, 2011; Rosenfeld, 2020). In a utopia we make the correct political and ideological choices and create a free and prosperous society, while in a dystopia we are deprived of these benefits (Claeys, 2013). In the following sections we will elaborate upon the specific genre of the dystopia. The term dystopia has traditionally been attributed to John Stuart Mill (1868), yet the notion had already appeared in a letter to the editor in The Gentleman’s Magazine in September of 1748, when the word was coined to suggest the inverted and negative meaning of utopia in a poem praising Chesterfield’s administration in Ireland, and warning about the imminent sociopolitical disorder that would follow his departure (Budakov, 2010). Along these lines, dystopian fiction envisions an uncertain future based on contemporary events: “dystopian narratives are also historically aware, responding to present conditions and informed by knowledge of historical events and traumas” (Stock, 2019, p. 2). In the author’s view, dystopian narratives are politicised discourses which, as rhetorical structures, can help readers contemplate the political issues of their time: “grounded in anxieties of their present, these political engaged narratives mobilise knowledge of historic events and traumas to speculate upon consequences of current trends and actions for the future” (2019, p. 3). Specifically, Rosenfeld (2021) notes that the values denied by dystopias are the humanistic precepts of reason and debate. Along the same lines as Stock (2019), the most relevant feature of dystopia, according to Moylan (2000b), lies in its ability to make us reflect on the causes of wrongdoing: “Crucial to dystopian vision in all its manifestations is this ability to register the impact of an unseen and unexamined social system on the everyday lives” (2010, p. xiii). In short, dystopian narratives are an outgrowth of the terrors of the 20th century (Moylan, 2000a, p. xi): “exploitation, repression, state violence, war, genocide, disease, famine, ecocide, depression, debt, and the steady depletion of humanity through the buying and selling of everyday life provided more than enough fertile ground for this fictive underside of the utopian imagination” (Moylan, 2000a, p. xi). Dystopia is presented as the result of human wrongdoing (Tower Sargent, 2013). However, although the images of the future presented in dystopias can lead the reader to despair, the main purpose of this genre is didactic and moralistic. In the same vein, Stock argues that dystopias are politically engaged narratives and “mobilise knowledge of historic events and traumas to speculate upon consequences of current trends and actions for the future” (2019, p. 3). The future society is presented as a real possibility because the aim of a dystopia is to frighten the reader and make them understand that things can go well or badly depending on the moral, social and civic responsibility of the citizens (Viera, 2010): “these are not just ways of imagining the future (or the past) but can also be understood as concrete practices through which historically situated actors seek to reimagine their present and transform it into a plausible future” (Gordin, Tilley & Prakash, 2010, p. 3). Thus, the authors reviewed agree in pointing out the socio-political, speculative, and ideological components of dystopias. In particular, Trotta and Sadri define the genre “as fiction that explores social or political struggle” (2020, p. 4). These authors note that the power structures in these stories continue to function, at times in a way that seems orderly and efficient, yet at times they appear to be on the verge of collapse. According to Levitas (2011) and Rosenfeld (2020), there are dystopias of various political ideologies. Therefore, the undesirable power structure (or lack thereof) will vary according to the author’s values. Having mentioned the main precepts of the genre, we will now develop the methodological instrument of data collection that will enable us to reveal how the dystopia under study, The Purge, is interpreted. However, we will first explain the conceptual framework for the two key concepts in our study: political ideologies, and ideologemes. Ideologies are a set of deeply Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 191 rooted attitudes through which diverse social groups propose, explain, and justify their objectives, as well as the means they use to achieve them. Moreover, all of the above can also be used for the purpose of preserving, modifying, or destroying a particular social order (Seliger, 1976; Heywood, 2012). Ideologemes, on the other hand, are the different specific precepts that make up political ideologies (Voloshinov, 1986), such as the free market defence of neoliberalism. 2. Methodology With the aim of determining the ideological meaning that the dystopia The Purge transmits to audiences, we have chosen to use one of the quintessential qualitative techniques in television reception studies: focus groups. In this regard, as Kitzinger and Barbour (1999) point out, focus groups are ideal for exploring people’s experiences, opinions, desires and concerns: “a gathering of a limited number of individuals, who through conversation with each other, provide information about a specific topic, issue or subject” (Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2013, p. 375). As such, the authors of the present study would like to understand what the series The Purge means to audiences, specifically in Spain. Thus, although this study is based on the theoretical underpinning of the ideologemes that are the object of interpretation, the cultural factor becomes important, as we shall see in the results. To this end, as the participants were aware of the importance of genre at the time of reception (Jauss, 1988), they were recruited and grouped according to their series preferences, as well as their knowledge of the dystopian genre and familiarity with The Purge franchise. Therefore, after conducting a call on social media and in university settings, those interested were asked to fill in an initial survey in which they were asked various questions about their television preferences in order to group the participants according to five profiles: Group 1 was familiar with The Purge franchise; Group 2 was genre-savvy, naming two or more dystopias as favourites; Group 3 had considerable knowledge of audio-visual culture, and they followed large number of series and films, but not any particular genre; Group 5 was not familiar with series or films in general, as they were not avid spectators. In order to create a trusting atmosphere, participants were assured of the confidentiality of their data on the survey form. Although the participants of these groups had diverse academic and professional backgrounds, such as lawyers, IT specialists, and others, there was a certain prevalence of communication undergraduates. Finally, due to the socio-political nature of the genre, with its high theoretical content, we created one final group of experts in communication, comprised of university professors of journalism, advertising and audio-visual communication, which was designated as Group 4. In summary, the groups consisted of five to seven people, totalling twenty-eight participants. In addition to audio-visual preferences, in an attempt to establish possible patterns in the responses, the survey included questions in which the participants were asked about their ideological leanings and the political party they voted for in the last general elections in Spain. The ideological labels were taken from surveys conducted by the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS) [sociological research centre]. It should be noted that we are aware of the difficulty of revealing precise ideological attitudes. This was due to the fact that the surveys were not completely anonymous, so although their personal information would not be published, it would be revealed among the participants during in-person meetings. Consequently, the participants may have tended to respond according to social desirability. Nevertheless, we believe it is important to have an initial image of the subjects, from which more information can be obtained later in the focus groups. Finally, it should be noted that our aim is not to establish correlations between ideologies and responses, which is more appropriate for quantitative-experimental techniques, but instead to provide more information for the analysis of the responses. To encourage conversation in the groups, a question sheet was designed in order to learn more about the different meanings of the genre, following the indications of Krueger (1997a; Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 192 1997b), who recommends separating the questions into four blocks: introductory, transitional, key, and closing, all preceded by the presentation of the group. Regarding the specific objectives of the study, the key and closing questions are highly relevant, as more specific issues are addressed in these blocks. Along these lines, we began the discussion by asking questions about the perception of the dystopian genre and then moved on to more specific questions about the ideological hallmarks of the series. For this purpose, five scenes were selected from the series, one per group, with different ideologemes: liberalism and neo-liberalism (Group 1); ethnic and civic nationalism (Group 2); socialism (Group 3); conservatism, liberalism, and nationalism (Group 4); and religious fundamentalism (Group 5). The in-person sessions worked as follows: participants were exposed to one of the scenes with the ideologemes indicated above, and once the scene was presented, we followed Krueger’s (1997a) recommendation for complex issues, like political ideologies, and provided participants with a sheet of paper where they were required to write down the stances of the characters in the scene. After the activity, participants were encouraged to share their ideas with the group and discuss the attitudes of the characters in the scene. Finally, the moderator gave two ideologemes, one of which pertained to the scene in question, and then asked the participants which one they thought was more appropriate based on what they had seen. 3. Results To present the results, we have addressed the answers according to the groups that were created. Following the methodological design, we have described the ideology that was selfassigned by the participants in each of their responses. 3.1. Group 1: Familiar with The Purge franchise The scene displayed involves a meeting of executives who are brainstorming possible types of masks to be sold during Purge night. The themes that emerge in the conversation revolve around those encoded in the scene: capitalism, social minorities, and liberalism. Accordingly, the ideologemes encoded in this scene are as follows: Tolerance and diversity (Liberalism): the willingness to accept views or actions with which one does not agree (Heywood, 2012). Deregulation and the free market (Neoliberalism): to obtain greater economic growth, no state should intervene in the private market, as entrepreneurs are fully capable of regulating themselves and benefitting the economy (Antón, 2020). The discussion is opened by Participant 3, who comments with a tone of outrage that the characters show values related to “capitalism, patriarchy, and individualism... all of them...” (Category 3 1 , feminist). According to what is written in her notes, the participant bases these assumptions on the value of corporate profits, as the actions of the characters in the scene are guided selfishly by this single purpose, even to the point of exploiting social minorities. Thus, for this participant, the prevailing individualism of the scene is relevant, because in contrast to the search for the common welfare of society, capitalism is seen as a cynical system that encourages the pursuit of self-interest. In this way, “capitalists, you know...” takes on a pejorative connotation for the participant, as capitalist characters, including everyone in the scene, “reflect privilege and exploit the market” (activity document of Participant 3). Later, she reaffirms her view by adding that the capitalist system itself has created the Purge: “They’re literally creating the Purge.” Furthermore, this commodification of the LGTBI movement, a collective historically vilified by the patriarchy, implies that the movement has been non-ideologized for the benefit of the market. While Participant 3 places all the characters under the same capitalist banner, the other participants start a debate about the ideological implications of the Employee in the scene, 1 This data signifies the ideological position that the participant assigns to him/herself. Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 193 who is a hesitant character. One example is Participant 6, who changes his opinion after listening to Participant 3: “In general, I had written a lot about capitalism and so on, but I thought that this Employee character didn’t really agree, and then I felt fooled” (Category 6, progressive). In this regard, in his notes he considers that the Employee behaves according to more noble convictions than others: “He’s more socially aware, wants to donate, and is concerned about the problems of others” (Category 6, liberal). Moreover, Participants 1, 2 and 4 also change their opinion about the character, as they write in their comments adjectives such as “sensible” (activity document, Participant 1), as well as “sensitive and conscientious” (Participant 4). However, in the conversation after the comments made by Participant 3, they are convinced that the character acts just like everyone else: “Finally, everyone ends up having same preferences, in a sense, and if the majority of the people think this is the normal thing to do, they just follow the crowd” (Participant 5, Category 5, apolitical). Thus, market implications are the common denominator of the comments made by all the participants. Along the same lines, Participant 1 (Category 6, liberal) explains that she has based her evaluations on the emotions conveyed by the scene: the fear of having to conform to the system (the male employee as a person who suppresses his own personality); frivolity (the female employee who uses the LGTBI movement for financial gain); and a sense of unease in the presence of power. In similar terms, Participant 5 describes the scene as a “capitalist world” (activity document, Participant 5) where businesspeople use the standardised tastes of the “crowd” to open up new markets, regardless of the messages they deliver: “they say we’re not going to support a serial killer and... [mocking laughter] they’ve got a face like Hitler’s; I mean, come on...” Participant 6 adds in his notes that the female employee is portrayed as “greedy” and “only cares about money,” like her boss, (activity document, Participant 6). Participant 2 notes that the female employee is depicted as using “cold” and “manipulative” techniques, while her colleague justifies the means: “She doesn’t care what means is used, as long as the goal is achieved” (activity document, Participant 2). In short, the capitalist system is collectively noted with negative adjectives, such as frivolous, dehumanising, and manipulative. In the comments of Participant 4, this consensus is broadened, as he introduces the term “liberal” and “conservative.” In this regard, although he does not express it during the conversation, he notes that the boss is “conservative, greedy, and impartial, as he only wants profits” while the female executive is “transgressive, proactive, and liberal” (activity document, Participant 4). As stated in the notes, Participant 4 relates conservatism to the capitalist market, seeing the former as based exclusively on corporate profit, and the latter on economic profit plus innovation. Like his peers, it can be inferred that Participant 4 associates capitalism, and thus conservatism, with a frivolous value system. Regarding liberalism, if he describes the first character with adjectives that can be seen as positive in the business world, such as being proactive, the second personality is described in the following way: “liberal, insensitive, wants to be noticed” (description of Jimmy, Participant 4, activity document); therefore, Participant 4 also links liberalism to a business ideology which, despite being innovative, is still frivolous. Finally, the participants were presented with two ideologemes, from which they had to choose the one they thought was most in line with the scene: Freedom (Liberalism): the right of every individual to pursue one’s own interest (choice of religious belief, profession, etc.) without being persecuted (Heywood, 2012). Deregulation and the free market (neoliberalism): to obtain greater economic growth, no state should intervene in the private market, as entrepreneurs are fully capable of regulating themselves and benefitting the economy (Antón, 2020). They all concurred with the free market ideologeme, “since they vary their discourse until they say, well, this is what sells, and so on...” (Participant 6, Category 6, liberal). In short, competition in the free market “is a competition of egos, where everyone is trying to charm Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 194 the boss by selling what he wants” (Participant 6). Agreeing with Participant 6, Participant 1 makes the following comment: “In the end, the person who seems more reasonable is just the same; at the end of the day, what he wants is to support the interests of the company, and he doesn’t care... at least, that’s the feeling I get...” (Category 6, liberal). The importance of the scene is the supremacy of corporate profits and economic growth without any decree, whether legal or ethical, so companies are allowed to accumulate wealth, even during the Purge. 3.2. Group 2: very familiar with the dystopian genre Next, the second scene was shown to the participants of Group 2 and the results have been described in detail. In this scene, Joe Owens is an advocate of ethnic nationalism, and he tries to purge Penelope Guerrero, who advocates civic nationalist values. The themes analysed by the participants are close to the theoretical postulates: racism, multiculturalism, and patriotism. Before discussing the results, we would like to define the two ideologemes in the scene: Ethnic nationhood (nationalism): this indicates the importance of ethnic unity and a shared history, implying that nations are characterised by a common ancestry that creates powerful bonds among the population. The inhabitants of a certain nation share a set of values that differentiate them from other nations: a language, a religion, and traditions (Heywood, 2012). Civic nationhood (nationalism): this refers to the importance of civic consciousness and patriotic loyalty. From this perspective, nations can be multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multireligious, etc. What is important is the loyalty of the individual. Moreover, the distinction between nation and state, or between nationality and citizenship, is blurred (Heywood, 2012). Participant 9 begins the conversation in this block by describing the opposing views of the two characters in the scene: Penelope, described as a girl who “believes in a change in a country through the reconciliation of its inhabitants, regardless of their culture or intercultural background” (Category 2, feminist); and Owens, a man who proposes a return to the original United States, with citizens who share blood ties. Participant 9 quickly grasps the two ideologemes in the scene and offers a more detailed explanation. Moreover, she links Owens’ attitude to patriotism, social-Darwinism, and the American dream. As Owens is a character whose personality is already noted by his being dressed as a soldier, in the opinion of Participant 9, he pursues “a regeneration of the country and a return to a golden age by removing the discordant elements” (Category 2, feminist) through the Purge, thus achieving a racially homogenous country. Regarding Penelope, Participant 9 underlines the fact that she is from the United States and her parents are immigrants, a fact that drives the character’s civic nationalist philosophy, as she defends a country where all citizens, regardless of their origin, have a place in her words, she seeks “the improvement of the country by reconciling its intercultural and racial differences [...] with a new generation that is committed to pacifism” (activity document, Participant 9). Following her example, Participant 11 highlights everything stated by Participant 9 and goes on to say that the scene shows two “very opposite ideas” (Category 1, progressive). While P9 defends the possibility of belonging to a nation regardless of origin, P11 sees progress as an authoritarian vision. Thus, while Penelope is guided by dialogue and conciliation, Owens stands out for his use of violence and exclusion, “believing that in this way he is helping the advancement of the nation to which he has sworn allegiance” (Participant 11, activity paper). Furthermore, he writes that Penelope “stands for life, support, and collectivism in order to foster general improvement” so she “trusts in the will of the people.” P11 also stresses that for Penelope, freedom does not imply a threat to other people. Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 195 In short, Participant 11 portrays Owens as an authoritarian character who imposes his nationalist racial vision, while Penelope advocates an idea of civic cooperation. Participant 7 shares these views, although with slightly divergent nuances. P7 identifies Owens as a “flattering racist” (activity document, Participant 7), who is an advocate of the system “that is imposed” (Category 2, progressive and feminist), while Penelope’s ideological foundation is socialism, as she is “a person who is progressive and non-conformist.” In the written document, Participant 7 describes Owens as a Republican, or extreme right-winger, and Penelope as a Democrat. In the discussion, Participant 7’s use of the term “flattering” sparks a discussion between Participants 11 and 9, as they reassert their agreement with the indoctrination of Owens, who instantly halts his Purge attempt at the sound of the siren announcing the end of the night. More lenient interpretations are found in Participants 8 and 10. The latter comments that both characters agree on the idea that improvement is needed, or in other words, “they both agree with the idea that change is needed, but they do not agree with the direction of that change,” nor with how to implement it. Owens “seeks progress from his own perspective” (Participant 10, activity paper), which implies taking justice into one’s own hands regardless of the means used. Penelope, on the other hand, “defends freedom” (Participant 10, activity paper), as she tries to redeem the enforcer by convincing him to embrace a calmer “and more conservative” demeanour like hers. Participant 8 intervenes in the conversation by affirming what was stated by Participant 10, and she merely expresses the two positions of the characters regarding the Purge: Owens defends it as freedom, while Penelope believes in helping the “desperate people” (activity document, Participant 8) who do not want to live in the USA. Moreover, in the conversation Penelope says that “regardless of the fact that she is a citizen of the country, she doesn’t feel like she belongs to it, and she doesn’t agree with the Purge” (Category 5, apolitical). Therefore, P8 has not interpreted that Penelope argues in favour of her US citizenship with Latino ancestry. As can be seen, this scene has not raised any doubts and, to a greater or lesser extent, both characters have been qualified according to the ideologeme present in the text. In the first part of the activity, Participants 8 and 10 had a more lenient interpretation of the content. Finally, the participants were presented with two ideologemes in order to discuss which of the two was more indicative of the scene, an activity that was the second part of the block: Ethnic nationhood: this indicates the importance of ethnic unity and a shared history, implying that nations are characterised by a common ancestry that creates powerful bonds among the population. The inhabitants of a certain nation share a set of values that differentiate them from other nations: a language, a religion, and traditions (Heywood, 2012). Social Darwinism: life is a constant conflict where the weak must be eradicated (Heywood, 2012). At the beginning, Participant 7 comments that Penelope is more associated with ethnic nationalism, based on her comment about “nationality regardless of origin” (Category 2, progressive and feminist). When P7 correctly describes Penelope as arguing that nationality should not depend on ancestry, the moderator repeats the definitions, leading to a rectification by Participant 7 and a reflection by Participants 11 and 9, who comment on the paradox that two people born in the same country might not be considered fellow nationals because they have different traits. Furthermore, in line with the above, the P11 and 9 associate Owens with the social Darwinist ideologeme, as he pursues a racial purge, seeking to “eliminate whatever is necessary” (Participant 9, Category 2, feminist), to build a nation that is similar to that of the golden age (Participant 11, Category 1, progressive) by violent means: “I think in this sense, he really believes that these people are dragging the nation down, and he thinks that for the country to return to the golden age, it has to be without them...” (Participant 11). These Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 196 arguments put forward by Participants 9 and 11 are reaffirmed by Participant 7, who relies on the framing of the scenes to guide the interpretation: “Also, even the camera shots, like the high and lowangle shots of Owen, give him more authority...” 3.3. Group 3: considerable knowledge of audio-visual culture In this section, we will analyse in detail the participants’ comments and thoughts on the flashback scene of Owens, who was a union worker in a factory before it was offshored to another country. In general, the comments point to values associated with communism for factory workers, while the boss, who appears in the scene, has a more authoritarian personality. As with the other groups, below is a reminder to the reader of the ideologeme present in the text: Working-class community (socialism): the idea of the collective is manifested in a unified vision of human beings as social creatures, capable of overcoming their problems by relying on the power of the community rather than solely on individual effort (Heywood, 2012). The discussion is started by Participant 16, who describes the foreman Owens as “a bit like the boss,” and as a person who displays brotherhood with the employees. P16 goes on to say, “I see him as closer; he cares about others’ health; he reminds them that they have health insurance, and that the company will have to pay for it” (Category 0, communist). Thus, in line with the ideologeme of the working-class community, Participant 16 perceives Owens as a caring person who fosters a bond among his fellow workers. In fact, Owen tries to help one worker in particular by reminding him that he has the right to receive medical services: “So he seems more human. He is at the bottom with all the other employees, and the woman is the one who is always at the top” (Category 0, communist). Participant 18 considers Owens to be indoctrinated by the corporate discourse, believing that his boss is looking out for his interests, while John (the worker) is more aware of the false promises of industry, endorsing communist values “because he appears resigned, and defeated” (written document Participant 18). As for the female boss, she “represents capitalism, luxury, and power” (written document Participant 18). In this way, you could say that Owens has a false consciousness and “seems oblivious to reality” (Category 3-4, feminist), as he is deceived into believing that “the union and the company are looking out for his welfare” (written document Participant 18). As such, the participant lumps together the union with the company, which is a lack of trust that may be due to the context, because in the discussion she comments that communism in the US must be put “in quotation marks.” Following on from the previous comment, Participant 13 points out that Owens’ speech should be invalidated because of the existing class inequality; however, she accuses John of being a conformist. In fact, Participant 16 says that John reminds her of the character of Horse, from 1984, because even though he has health problems, he is determined to continue working, “saying what else can I do, this is the life I’ve been destined for... and, well, it seems like he just wants to continue working and doesn’t want to stop” (Category 0, communist). In similar terms, Participant 17 mentions that John is a person who is defeated, and who accepts subordination, while Owens has a spirit of “camaraderie and optimism” (Category 6, progressive liberal). Finally, a more indicative interpretation is found in Participant 15, who says the following: “The woman has a more distant authority, but the other character has a closer type of leadership, so the latter character feels disdain...” (Category 5, social democrat). Even though this participant expresses doubt, we find a more elaborate interpretation of John in the writing of P15, because she crosses out right wing and replaces it with communism, presumably as a result of the comments made by her colleagues. In this regard, she notes a certain “mistrust that the company will provide her with health insurance” (written document, Participant 15). We also find an opinion that has not been mentioned so far, which qualifies Donstrup, M. Speculative fiction and political ideologies: meanings given by the audience ISSN 2386-7876 – © 2024 Communication & Society, 37(1), 189-203 197 John as sexist because of his rejection of the female boss. Finally, we must point out a completely contradictory opinion given by Participant 14, who writes “fascism” on his sheet (written document Participant 14). Although the moderator asked for further detailed feedback on the activity document, the participant did not want to continue with his explanation. At this point, the last part of the focus group was carried out with the following ideologemes being presented to the participants: Fiscal counter-reform (neoliberalism): linked to the above, neoliberalism advocates the abolition of taxes. The economy, and by extension society, progress properly when citizens have more money in their pockets to spend in the private market (Antón, 2020). Working-class community (socialism): the idea of the collective is manifested in a unified vision of human beings as social creatures, capable of overcoming their problems by relying on the power of the community rather than solely on individual effort (Heywood, 2012). Participants 13 and 17 perceive the value of the working-class community. P13 relates it to John, because of “his attitude, although he doesn’t encourage people to take action...” (Category 0, communist), while P17 interprets it in both characters: “I do see a bit of community among the workers. I see a relationship of leadership and team spirit, of camaraderie...” (Category 6, progressive liberal). On the other hand, Participants 16 and 14 interpret the fiscal counter-reform as “related to the insurance issue” (Participant 16, Category 0, communist). Thus, P16 believes health insurance is mentioned in order to make it known that without the company, the employee would not have such benefits. In a broader sense, Participant 14 makes a personal judgement on the tax collection system. Specifically, P14 agrees and considers that lower taxes are equivalent to greater equality: “What it’s saying is that we’re all in the same boat... and the issue of all the money in your pocket; and naturally, here everyone has the freedom to spend that money on whatever they want, and no one can be above it” (Category 3, social democrat). Finally, Participant 15 remains distant from the aforementioned ideologemes and expresses that the woman seems to be liberal “in economic terms, believing that the market is above social welfare, and that everything should take second place to the economy.” 3.4. Group 4: communication experts In this section we detail the results concerning the scene, which is set on the radio programme of the secondary main character Bobby Sheridan, who is one of the strongest supporters of the Purge. In general, although the ideologemes have been interpreted, this was done without much explanation, as participants focused their attention on the issue of the media and social media. It bears mentioning that this may have been due to the limited time available to the participants, as well as the fact that more ideologemes came into play than in previous cases. As mentioned above, the last part that involves choosing between two ideologemes was not done in this group. Here are the ideologemes of the scene in detail: Tradition (conservatism): this refers to religious beliefs or to accumulated knowledge from the past. The institutions and practices of the past have stood the test of time and should therefore be preserved for the benefit of future generations (Heywood, 2012). Reason (liberalism): the ability of humans to define their own interests rationally and successfully (Heywood, 2012). Reason, in liberalism, makes the value of education paramount, and conflicts are resolved through dialogue and the rejection of violence (Rivero, 2008). Ethnic nationhood (nationalism): the denotes the importance of ethnic unity and a shared history, implying that nations are characterised by a common ancestry that creates powerful bonds among the people. The inhabitants of a certain nation share a set of values that differentiate them from other nations: a language, a religion, and traditions (Heywood, 2012).