Nowadays we live
in the media reality. We will know news of the antipodes just in a few minutes
after it has happened. The development of communication has made possible be
interconnected as never before. The communication technology is everywhere:
televisions, radios, computers, even mobile phones have become the most
powerful tool to be informed and connected every time and everywhere, but is
the information that we receive an objective one? Are we being manipulated by
the owners of the media?
The media has been
involved with politics since its origins, from papyrus to press. The rulers
have needed to publish the rules which have created and legitimize their power
against other individuals or to unite citizens against a common enemy. The
media is a political tool used in different forms to achieve different
objectives. The leader´s discourses has been ever reproduced and published by
the media. Discourses which have ever had intentionality, they were not
innocent; they pursued a goal although not ever the goal is achieved. How the
politicians use the discourse to influence politics?
What is Discourse
Theory?
“Discourse Theory
is concerned with the role of meaningful social practices ideas in political
life” (Howarth, 1995). Discourse Theory has been used to analyze the way
systems of meaning, discourses, speeches, images, even advertisement and films
shape the way people understand their roles on society and influence their
political activities. The importance of dominate the hegemon discourse in
democratic systems is a key to achieve the electoral success, whereas dominate
the hegemon discourse in dictatorial or totalitarian systems is the key to
avoid the collapse of the system as we can see in political regimes as North
Korea, Cuba or China, where the information is not free.
Discourses,
however, are not ideology. Discourses are the tool to influence individuals and
obtain legitimacy to support different policies or modify certain forms of
conduct. It includes all types of social and political practice as well as
institutions and organizations. However not all the political systems and
societies are the same one. Each one has differences from each other. Each
society and country has a different history, a different perspective of the
world, a different situation which is going to frame their vision about the
world. Each society or country has a different identity which is going to shape
their understanding.
Laclau and Mouffe
argued that all objects and practices are discursive (Laclau and Mouffe, 1987
cited in Howarth, 1995). It means that activities, words, actions and
expressions to be meaningful, must be part of particular discourses. They
argued that the identity confer meaning to the objects, words, speeches,
actions and institutions in relation with the context of which they form part.
Laclau and Mouffe (ibid) argued that discourses are historically contingent and
constructed politically. Meaning that one expression or act does not mean the
same in different times and places. The environment that surrounds us gives the
meaning to our world.
How is identity
created?
Identities have
different components which are going to define their main characteristics. Eric
Hobsbawn (1992) enunciated key characteristics to the
creation and the definition of national identity such as religion, ethnicity,
race, culture and language. But these are not the unique characteristics which
define an identity, the feminist perspective use sex and gender as elements to
create identities, the Marxism uses the social class, liberals use the
individual… Sometimes these identities are going to converge, creating conflict
between them.
Each identity is
going to create a framework where words, speeches and actions acquire different
meanings. Identity is created by common values, common characteristics which
cohesion the group into a compact identity. All the members of the group share
some defining characteristics and the actions of the group are going to be
around those main characteristics.
One useful tool to
create a new identity is the antagonism. Howarth (1995), pointed the antagonism
as an essential element in discourse theory. The antagonism plays a special
role in three respects: The first one, antagonism creates an antagonistic
relation producing an enemy or a different group with different and maybe,
mutually excluding goals. It produces a political boundary, a separation of the
others. The second respect is that this separation is central to create an
identity or social agents. The third one respect is the identity created by the
antagonism is going to be the basis of all the behaviors and policies against
the other group.
The semantic
speech follows a common structure when it wants to create identities. It
describes positively the group which we belong (in-group) and its members,
allies and followers while the external groups or foreign groups (out-groups)
are described in negative terms. Fiske and Taylor (cited in Van Dijk, 1999)
studied the inter-groups relations theory arguing that the negative description
and the attribution of negative values and actions to the out-groups will
reinforce the unity of the in-group and its identity.
The identity has
been one of the most powerful tools to mobilize individuals to achieve
political goals. Nationalism movements are a clear example of this question.
One time we have built an identity, how can we use for our goals? This question
will be answered by hegemony concept.
Howarth (1995:124)
said that “struggles for hegemony and the establishment of hegemony by
political projects are of the utmost importance”. The principal reason because
the hegemonic practices are central in political process is that hegemonic
mainstream is going to determine the creation, the meaning, the function, the
power and the dissolution of discourses. The hegemonic power will determine the
main behavior, the social context, the general way of think. If this political
force dominates the mainstream and the hegemon discourse, it will get the
support of the citizens to its politic goals. To obtain hegemony is
necessary the drawing of political frontiers, using antagonism, and require the
use of constant signifiers which are used to create and to set an identity,
supporting a political project which articulates the meaning to this discourse.
Van Dijk (1999)
defines the social power in control terms. He said that “groups have more power
if they are capable to control by own interest, the acts and the minds of
members of other groups”. These power means a privilege access to the media,
which are limited such as money, fame, knowledge, information, culture, et
cetera (Lukes 1986, cited in Van Dijk 1996). This premise means that if the
minds control the people´s acts, if we control the minds, we will influence the
acts and behavior of the people. Texts and speeches as advertisement and other
media are tools which are well served in the people´s minds and permit
manipulate and persuade them.
Not ever are the
individuals going to be influenced by the media. It depends if they share
values and interest with the speaker or the emitter legitimate the message
which is sending. The individuals use to accept the arguments and ideas of
sources (speakers, scientist, politicians, newspapers, et cetera) which are
thinking as valid to emit that message.
Depending political
systems will not exist other sources of information which provide other
information and create another belief or the individuals will not have enough
knowledge to affront the mainstream or the information which they are exposed
(Nestler, 1993, Downing, 1984 and Wodak, 1987 cited in Van Dijk, 1996).
However, there are checks and balances in the democratic societies which avoid
the complete mind control by the powerful groups who fight for the power.
Mind control
strategies.
Powerful,
credible, expert and handsome speakers will be more influent, independently the
message they send, than other speakers who do not have those qualities (Van
Dijk, 1999). The individuals use to believe that speakers who are thinking with
special features are more credible. It will relate with Weber´s charismatic
legitimacy.
Reading texts or
listening speeches will build social mind models about history, social beliefs,
et cetera. The social mind models belong to groups when they are shared jointly
(Farr y Moscovici, 1984, cited in Van Dijk, 1999). These mind models control the
social discourse although each individual has a history, beliefs and personal
values which are going to shape the discourse and the ideologies.
Van Dijk (1999)
has put in order different types of speeches and argument which are used
depending on the situation. Some examples are:
Auto-identity
descriptions which are used to define the in-group in relation with another
groups constructing the identity based in differences.
Activity
descriptions which are normally used by groups which define itself by what they
do.
Purpose
descriptions try to justify its actions by a final purpose. The discourse of
the group will be ever positive, never negative. It is a ideological legitimacy
which will not be right.
Values and norms
descriptions which are used in a lot of ideological speeches. They are used to
define the in-group´s values, which value is correct and which one is wrong.
The enemy is described as a person who breaks the in-group´s rules making
appear as intolerant, antidemocratic, et cetera.
Resource
descriptions are of vital importance to the existence of the group. If these
resources are threatened the in-group will defence them. The minority groups
will use the absence of these resources as discourse.
Is the discourse
analysis a valid tool?
There are some
criticisms about discourse theory. The philosophical critique argued that the
approach of discourse analysis is idealist, means that discourse approach does
not deny the existence of a reality outside our heads, and it is claimed that
the approach is a variant of relativism. The assumptions of discourse theory
suggest that we are always part of a particular discourse and tradition. The
substantive critique argued that the discourse theory results in the complete
fragmentation of social structures and relations, and inability to analyze
social and political institutions.
Illustrating the
discourse analysis.
The creation of
identities and the transmission of values are really important in politics when
politicians seek to obtain the support of the citizens. The International
Relations has been marked by the American War on Terror during the last ten
years. 9/11 was an historic event which changed the world and the international
conflicts. Below we can see two examples, an antagonistic between them, of how
the identities are constructed across speeches and how in-group values are used
to legitimate policies, war policies in this case. The speeches analyzed belong
to George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden, the main political actors during the
first years of the War on Terror.
After the 9/11
World Trade Center attack the American´s vision of the world changed
completely. America was vulnerable and its heart had been attacked and
destroyed. But the attack not only surprised America, the rest of the countries
were really impacted by the events in the World Trade Center. The terrorist
attack opened a new era where the United States pretend to be the leader
against the terror and defender of liberty, democracy and human rights. George
W. Bush, the then president of the US, used all the American military force and
intelligent resources to defeat the new threat to the US and the free world.
His speech on twentieth of September of 2001 reflects his determination to
begin a new war, this time, against “the Terror”.
The Bush´s speech
is directed to American citizens and American politicians, but not only them.
The international community, the Taliban and the terrorist are objective of
this speech too.
The creation of
identity and political/values boundaries along all the speech are a constant.
Bush tried to cohesion all the Americans and its allies against a “devil enemy”
using antagonism and universal values as common link. Bush defined the enemy
and later he describes it to get the citizens and chamber´s support.
Bush described the
terrorist as “enemies of freedom”, criminals comparing them with the mafia
“Al-Qaida is to terror what Mafia is to crime”, a global enemy who threat all
the countries “There are thousands of these terrorist in more than 60
countries”.
Bush tried to
separate the radical Islamic terrorist and the governments who support the
terrorism, of the common Muslims to avoid confrontation with Muslim world.
Bush presents the
American society as innocent and without fault of the attack “Americans are
asking, why do they hate us?” denying all the suffering that the United States
has created along the last decades with its foreign policies. Americans
as benevolent people even radical Muslims as terrorist and antidemocratic
persons.
The American
values as freedom, liberty, democracy, equality, et cetera are constantly
mentioned to create the antagonism with the terrorists. Bush used the most
ancient American values to explain the terrorist actions in terms of enemies of
the democracy and American values; “They hate what they see…in this chamber: a
democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. The hate
our freedom: our freedom of religion our freedom of speech, out freedom to vote
and assemble and disagree with each other”.
Bush used the
American history and the most violent chapters of it to describe the enemy,
identifying them with precedent enemies, and legitimize the policies that the government
was going to take. “We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all
the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing
human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the
will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism.”
In a war there are
two groups which fight one against each other. Bush tried to create those two
bands using universal values as common ties of the in-group. He was speaking to
fight a global enemy around the entire globe. “Every nation in every region now
has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorist…any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be
regarded by the US as a hostile regime… This is not, however, just America´s
fight. And what is at stake is not just America´s freedom. This is the world’s
fights…This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism,
tolerance and freedom”.
Using universal
values which have not a concrete definition, Bush is trying to integrate the
major number of allies to his cause. Which democratic state does not believe in
progress, pluralism, tolerance and freedom?
We can find the
American exceptionalism across all the Bush´s speech, making an antagonism of
the American values with the terrorist values at the same time:
“We are a country
awakened to danger and called to defend freedom… This country (America) will
define our times, not be defined by them”. Bush defined America as
the world defender of peace and liberty “As long as US of America is determined
and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty
here and across the world…, the advance of human freedom…, now depend on us”.
Bush used the divinity as legitimacy factor of the War on Terror “Freedom and
fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is no
neutral between them”.
This speech was
recorded the seventh of October in 2001, after the terrorist attack of 9/11.
Bin Laden tried to
create a cohesion identity based in the Muslim religion to fight against
Occident and specially, against America. Bin Laden knew that the United States
were the most powerful military state over the world. He needed to obtain
allies, powerful and nuclear allies, as Muslims states as Iran or Pakistan.
Maybe it was one of the multiple reasons which Bin Laden pretends to achieve
with this speech.
The description of
the occidental culture, especially Americans, is based in the religious
cleavage as we can see in the speech: “The nations of infidels have all united
against Muslims”.
Osama Bin Laden
used the American actions as war actions against the Islam trying to encourage
to other Muslims to fight against these enemies, and maybe more important,
Osama identified himself with the Islam trying to create a new icon who guide
the arm fight, using the Muslim history to define this fight as a crusade: “The
war against Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden is a war on Islam. This is a new
battle, a great battle, similar to great battles of Islam, like the conquest of
Jerusalem”. Osama emphasized the cleavage opened by the US across the world, a
religious cleavage where the people were with them or against them as Bush did
before “These events have split the whole world into two camps: the camps of
belief and the camps of disbelief. Every Muslim should support his religion…”
God name´s had
been used to legitimize the actions against the Americans as in the Bush
speech, but in reverse. Maybe Osama wanted to attract the most fundamental
sector of Muslims: “They (Americans) support the murder against the victims so
God has given back to them what they deserve”
We can see as both
speeches tried to create a common identity, with definite values, to achieve
their political success. The use of metaphors and comparisons, even though
antagonistic, are constantly used to create the in-group and the out-group,
them and us.
Conclusion.
Discourse analysis
is a useful tool to analyse the creation of political and social imaginaries in
the society across the speech, text and different media. A tool, which is
usually used by the most powerful groups of a country, to achieve their goals
manipulating and modifying the social behaviour. However, the discourse
analysis does not explain clearly how the speeches and media manipulate the
people´s minds and when it does. Subjectivity is present during all the
discourse analysis, only a few things will be objective. In despite of
everything I think that discourse analysis will explain how the politicians and
powerful groups pretend to achieve their goals, what lens they want to be used
for us and what we must think. At least the democratic checks and balances as
thinking freedom, speech freedom and publish freedom avoid us to be more
manipulated than in other systems, or not?
Bibliography:
Howarth, D. 1995.
“Discourse theory”. First Edition. London. McMillan.
Teun A. van Dijk. 1999. “Critic Discourse´s analysis “.Anthropos
(Barcelona), 186, septiembre-octubre 1999, pp. 23-36.
Teun A. van Dijk. 1996. Análisis del discurso ideológico. Versión 6. UAM-X.
México. Pp 13-43
Townshend, J.
2002. Discourse Theory and political analysis: A new Paradigm. Political
Studies Association annual conference April 2002.
Laclau, E. 1993.
Discourse. Published in Robert, G and Pettit, P. The Companion to Contemporany
Political Thought. The Australian National University, Philosophy Program 1993.
Fairclough, N. 1992.
Doing Discourse Analysis and social change. pp 225-240. London: Verso.
7. George
W. Bush speech: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/gw-bush-9-11.htm (accessed
on 16 October 2013)
8. Osama Bin
Landen speech: http://www.rense.com/general14/CNNandAP.htm (accessed on 16 October 2013)
9. Hobsbwan, E.J.
1992. Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge University
Press.
