Does Sociolinguistics need Social Theory? New Perspectives in Critical Discourse Analysis

Ruth Wodak

Keynote, SS2000, Bristol, 27^th April 2000

Comments welcome; please read the handout and diagrammes as well otherwise not understandable

Quote as Conference Paper (to be published in a revised version in Discurso and Sociedad [short summary] and Journal of Sociolinguistics [elaborated and extended version]); references in Handout

1. Introduction:

On the 3^rd of October, Austria had a national election. In this election, the Freedom Party under the leadership of Jörg Haider won 27% of the votes. On November 12^th, the first huge demonstration in Vienna took place, with over 100000 participants protesting against racism and the programme of the FPÖ. Many members of the Peoples Party who are now in a coalition with the Freedom Party took part in this protest. Nonetheless, on February 4^th, after negotiations with the Socialist Party had failed, the Peoples party formed a coalition government with the Freedom Party. On the same day, the 14 other member states of the EU announced bi-lateral sanctions which they had already predicted earlier. In contrast to what is often wrongly reported, these sanctions come from the 14 member states and not from the EU. The main reaction from the new Austrian government consists of statements denouncing these sanctions as part of a “socialist conspiracy” or even a “Jewish World conspiracy” in Europe. The so-called “Waldheim effect”, namely a chauvinistic discourse that Austria does not need or want any interventions from foreign countries, has led to massive anti-EU emotions. Since February 4^th, Austrian public life has polarized. Never have there been so many debates, so much talk everywhere, so much activity on both sides. New public spaces of debate have been created, for example after every theater performance in Vienna´s big theaters discussions with prominent figures, writers, intellectuals, journalists, take place. Two demonstrations a week by the Widerstand, the resistance, have become the routine. Instead of meeting in the famous Viennese coffee houses, people now meet at the demonstrations. On February 19^th, 300000 people gathered on the Heldenplatz, and – in contrast to 52 years ago – protested against racism, exclusion and discrimination.

My everyday life has also changed. Now more than ever is it important to apply the results of my 15 years of researching, teaching and writing about political activity. It is a huge challenge for critical scholars. I have also been regularly publishing critical editorials against the FPÖ in various Austrian newspapers, and have received much positive feedback from readers. This is – of course – nice but also to be viewed cynically. Many scholars of racism have written about right-wing populism for years. It obviously needs a Jörg Haider to get heard!

When I announced the topic of my lecture this was long before the political change and the new dynamics were to be seen and felt. I had a very good plan about how I wanted to construct my arguments, and how to integrate social theory into sociolinguistics, all in a very academic kind of way. Now, I feel different after these experiences and my involvement in the everyday life of Austrian politics. So, I have decided to change the structure of my lecture: I would like to pose some questions which are occupying all our thoughts nowadays and provide first attempts at some answers while retaining the thread to the overall question of how sociolinguistics relates to social theory, and I would like to add, to Linguistics.

These questions are: Why is the Austrian Freedom party so successful? Is this a purely ‘Austrian’ populism or a more general European phenomenon? What kind of theories do we need to answer such a question? How should sociolinguists approach such an issue? Is this a question for CDA and Sociolinguistics at all? Does CDA have a research programme to offer? Which methodologies do we use? Which linguistic theories and indicators are adequate? And lastly, how can we apply the results?

To come back to the title of my lecture: Does Sociolinguistics need Social Theory? The first and almost trivial answer is – of course - “yes”: we need social theory. But then it gets much more difficult because we have to find the theories which we can apply to do research on such complex problems. Thus, I would like to change the title: What KIND of theories does Sociolinguistics need? The old problem of mediation poses itself immediately: we have to relate micro and macro levels with each other, text and context, structure and discourse, insider and outsider perspectives. At this point, I would like to emphasize that I do not view macro and micro as pure oppositions, following Bruno Latour, Michael Callon and others. These scholars view the distinction between these so-called extremes as cline, as dialectics. Thus, it does not suffice to illustrate a Grand Theory with some pieces of text as an attempt to bridge macro and micro because – as Aaron Cicourel was able to show – this does not explain anything. Grand Theories are often used metaphorically but the operationalization is not valid. The jump from a concept like the Bourdieu`an “habitus” to some piece of discourse is too fast. Many steps in between, Middle Range Theories in Craig Calhoun`s terminology are needed to perform such a relationship. Moreover, we have to justify the linguistic analysis in terms of the social theories which we apply and vice versa. The theory should be necessary and useful when analyzing concrete sequences of conversations or written texts.

In my talk, I would first like to present our own Discourse Historical Approach and our theory of context, in answering the previously mentioned questions. Politics is mainly based on discourse, thus the problem – why does the FPÖ have such success- immediately implies the investigation of the FPÖ’s rhetoric in many public and private domains. My main claim in this lecture is that “context”, probably the most misused term in linguistics, is the big challenge for our sociolinguistic theories. We need theories about the specific context we investigate in our research, and this is exactly the place where social theories must come in. Specifically, I would like to elaborate four levels of theorizing. Furthermore, I will propose a research programme in CDA and then apply this programme and the four levels of theorizing in trying to answer my questions that were posed at the beginning: how can we explain Haider’s success? How important is the rhetoric of the FPÖ? And what could the contribution from Sociolinguistics and CDA be in investigating this complex issue? I will analyze different examples from several genres of political discourse and present a short ethnography of the present political situation in Austria. Theories about populism, about coming to terms with the Nazi past (“Vergangenheitsbewältigung”) and about neo liberalism and globalization have to be applied and integrated to explain some of the facets of the Haider phenomenon. After my lecture, we will have time in the following ad hoc panel to discuss the Austrian situation in detail. In my lecture, I see the analysis of Haider´s populism as an example for the relevance of social theory in Sociolinguistics and CDA.

Insert Diagramm about four levels of Theorizing (see attachment)

2.What kind of theory?

In investigating complex social problems, we need a theoretical framework, which labels, systematizes and explains our ethnographic experiences which first form a kind of “symptomology”. Our task as critical scholars is, inter alia, to relate relevant “symptoms” and “phenomena” with each other and to offer theoretical explanations for such relationships. By doing this, I am taking up a suggestion by the sociologist Gilbert Weiss.

Accordingly, we have to justify explicitly why we relate certain “symptoms” with each other and how we come to understand them in a certain way. This entails an hermeneutic approach in the sense of the Frankfurt School which does not mean that we do not want to explain social phenomena. The difference between “verstehen” (understand) and “erklären” (explain) is important. In my opinion, we can not aim at any kind of mono- causal explanation in the sense of the Natural Sciences. Social phenomena are much too complex and historically embedded to be explained in such uni-directional ways. ( I have listed some definitions on my handout which I do not want to read out due to time restrictions).

Let me illustrate these claims with some examples: I assume that very many instances in every day conversations need a lot of background information to be understood. When we return home from our holidays, we often enough do not understand short news items in TV or radio broadcasting. The intertextuality is missing and we can not update the information. Or, take an example like the following: In the Election campaign of the FPÖ, in September 1999 in Vienna, a poster was displayed with the slogan “Two real Austrians”, showing Jörg Haider and Thomas Prinzhorn, who was the main candidate of the FPÖ for the election and is the current vice president of the Austrian parliament. How should such a slogan be understood? Sociolinguists needs theories and methodologies to be able to analyze such texts. In this case, many factors are relevant such as the election rallye and the discussion about “real” Austrians and Foreigners, which touches on a presupposed and ideologically constructed Germanic-Aryan tradition of German-speaking Austrians; moreover, this poster alludes to an incidence that happened a few years ago in which a similar slogan was used by the Austrian Peoples Party against Bruno Kreisky who was defined as a “non-real” Austrian, because he was Jewish etc. etc. How do we theorize all this, what kind of fieldwork is needed and which methodologies can help us analyze, understand and explain such complex and multilayered social interaction and social practices? What is obvious, in any case, is that we need interdisciplinarity.

A more pragmatic approach, like the one of Nicos Moutzelis, seems adequate. In his 1995 book Sociological Theory: What went wrong? (1995), Moutzelis introduces the idea of “conceptual pragmatism” as a possible way out of the theory crisis in the social sciences.

According to Moutzelis, social theory “has as its major task to clarify conceptual tools and to construct new ones by following criteria of utility rather than truth” (1995: 9). Such a pragmatic approach to theory would not purport to provide a catalogue of contextless propositions and generalizations, but rather relate questions of theory formation and conceptualization closely to the specific problems that are to be investigated. In this sense, the first question we have to address as researchers is not: Do we need a Grand Theory? but rather: Which conceptual tools are relevant for this or that problem and for this and that context? Although the former question might invite exciting speculations, it leads away from problem-oriented science.

In the following, I would like to take up Moutzelis´suggestions, and at the end of my lecture attempt an integration into a more general framework about the discursive construction of national and supranational identities in a time of globalisation. Questions of identity, difference and globalization are addressed in our new book which was recently published in EUP 1999, “The discursive construction of national Identity” and concepts of globalization are mainly drawn from the work of Ulrich Beck and Jürgen Habermas, published in 1998. These issues are a prime research focus at our Center for “Discourse, Politics and Identity” at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna (see handout).

I will – unfortunately – not be addressing theories on mass psychology nor on charismatic leaders and would like to refer you to recent publications on Haider listed on my handout.

3.Theoretical background[1]

Struggles and contradictions characterize our modern world and Western societies. Nowhere is homogeneity to be found; quite to the contrary: ideological dilemmas (Michael Billig) , fragmentation (Stuart Hall) and multiple identities seem to be the answer to the challenges of globalisation and neo-liberalist economies and ideologies (Muntigl, Weiss and Wodak 2000, Wodak et al. 1999, Mouffe 2000). These tendencies are accompanied by the rise of nationalism, xenophobia as well as populist movements. Complex phenomena seem to need easy answers; and populist parties claim to provide those answers. The challenge for the Social Sciences, however, is to grasp such complexity and to allow for contradictions and multicausality.

Thus, I assume, that the complexities of modern societies can only be grasped by a model of multicausal, mutual influences between different groups of persons within a specific society. Briefly, I would like to introduce some main characteristics of the discourse-historical approach, developed in multiple interdisciplinary studies on organizational, political and racist discourses. At this point, I would like to mention and thank Martin Reisigl, Peter Muntigl and Gilbert Weiss who have all been very much involved in planning and creating previous versions of the model with me (see handout of publications).

In investigating historical, organizational and political topics and texts, the discourse-historical approach attempts to integrate much available knowledge about the historical sources and the background of the social and political fields in which discursive "events" are embedded. Further, it analyzes the historical dimension of discursive actions by exploring the ways in which particular genres of discourse are subject to diachronic change (Wodak et al., 1990; Wodak et al., 1994; Wodak 1996). Lastly, and most importantly, this is not only viewed as “information”: at this point we integrate social theories to be able to explain the so-called context. I will not take the time to define our model and the relevant terms because this would be too abstract and dull; all this is integrated into the handout and in our publications.

One methodical way for critical discourse analysts to minimize the risk of critical bias and to avoid simply politicizing, instead of accurately analyzing, is to follow the principle of triangulation: one of the most salient distinguishing features of the discourse-historical approach is its endeavour to work interdisciplinarily, multimethodically and on the basis of a variety of different empirical data including background information (v. for example Wodak et al. 1998 and Wodak et al. 1999). Depending on the respective object of investigation, it attempts to transcend the pure linguistic dimension and to include more or less systematically the historical, political, sociological and/or psychological dimension in the analysis, theory and interpretation of a specific discursive occasion.

Our triangulatory approach is based on theorizing a concept of "context" which takes into account four levels; the first one is linguistic, based on the choice of a specific grammar, while the other three levels are part of our social theories on context:

(1) the immediate, language or text internal co-text, (2) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses (discourse representation and allusions or evocations) (see model on handout); (3) the extra linguistic social/sociological variables and institutional frames of a specific "context of situation" (Middle Range Theories) and (4) the broader sociopolitical and historical context which the discursive practices are embedded in and related to, that is to say, the fields of action and the history of the discursive event as well as the history to which the discoursal topics are related (Grand Theories) (see also Cicourel 1992, Wodak 1996).

Before providing concrete examples for all these abstract notions, I will summarize the major 11 points of our Research Programme for CDA.

3.2. The Research Programme

1) The approach is interdisciplinary

2) Interdisciplinarity is located on several levels: in theory, in the work itself, in the research teams, and in practice, applying results.

3) The approach is problem-oriented, not focused on specific linguistic items

4) The theory as well as the methodology is eclectic; i.e., theories and methods which are adequate in understanding and explaining the object under investigation are integrated (this is why Moutzelis is so relevant)

5) The study always incorporates fieldwork and ethnography to explore the object under investigation (study from the inside) as a precondition for any further analysis and theorizing. Large data corpora are gathered (in contrast to recent criticisms f.ex. by Michael Stubbs).

6) The approach is abductive: a constant back and forth between theory and empirical data is necessary;

7) Multiple genres and multiple public spaces are studied and intertextual and interdiscursive relationships are investigated. Recontextualization is the most important process in connecting social practices and their representation in these genres as well as topics and arguments (topoi).

8) The historical context is always analyzed, theorized and integrated into the interpretation of discourses and texts.

9) The categories and tools for the analysis are defined according to all these steps and procedures as well as to the specific problem under investigation (see handout).

10) Our Research is conducted on four levels of theorizing, from a micro level to a more global level; not in a uni-directional way, but in a dialectic manner.

11) Practical application of the results is aimed at.

4. Populism and globalisation

Let us now start our journey to Austria. I would like to introduce the main figure we are talking about by showing one of the posters used in the FPÖ election campaign:

Insert “Menschlich”FOLIE (see attachment, picture)

This poster has several symbolic meanings which serve to touch many emotions: Haider as “one of us” – one of the ordinary people but also a hero who can help. “One who´s handshake counts” Simply compassionate FPÖ”. We do not know exactly who the other person is and what his profession is. In any case, he seems to be wearing a Wehrmacht helmet painted white. The “people” are addressed!

Theories on “populism” have tried to grasp these kind of political movements and their rhetoric. Pierre Taguieff (1998), as well as Paul Taggart (2000) both summarize the main characteristics of the populist movements well. I am particularly grateful to Jessika Terwal who has discussed this extensively with me and whose research – comparing the FPÖ discourses with the discourses of the Allianza Nationale – has helped me to gain an overview over this phenomenon :

Taguieff defines populism as the following: “ Populism may be understood as an ideology according to which legitimacy resides in the will of the people, therefore embodying the ideal of “direct democracy”. Populism is thus inherently ambiguous, moving between the polemic and a style aimed at the take-over of power”. This definition covers the rhetoric very well, but not the contents, except for the proposals for direct democracy. Tagueiff also emphasizes the inherent ambivalence and ambiguity, but not the contradictions as I will illustrate later on. I have also put Taggarts eight characteristics of populism in the handout which I will neglect now due to time restrictions. (please include from Handout)

Populist movements are usually defined primarily as opposition groups. At present however, the FPÖ is part of the Austrian government; the discursive construction of past, present and future as core issues of national identity which government parties provide are not covered. I will come back to these claims and their validity later on. It is important, though, to stress that few of the political science approaches offer any adequate qualitative methodology to investigate such movements empirically. This, I assume, is the big chance for critical discourse analysis and sociolinguistics.

The ethnography - The Coalition programme

After these first theoretical thoughts, let us now examine the prevailing discourses in Austria and the electoral groups whom the Haider party addresses and who have elected the FPÖ, following our four levels of theorizing and the research programme of CDA. I have no time here to sketch out a history of the Haider party and have to refer you to my most recent publication in D&S as well as to the book with Martin Reisigl, Discourse and Discrimination.

As a first ethnographic step, let us look at several sequences of the new coalition programme of the new government in Austria, which was introduced on February 4^th , 2000.

· The Federal Government commits itself to the continuation of the policy of

sensitivity and critical confrontation with the Nazi past. The aim is to clarify things

without reservation, to dissect the patterns of injustice and to pass on this

knowledge to the coming generations as a warning for the future. As regards the

matter of Nazi slave labour, the Federal Government, in the light of the interim

report of the Austrian Historical Commission and with due regard to the primary

responsibility of the companies concerned, will work for appropriate solutions.

· The Federal Government will work for fair solutions to the questions of all persons

compelled to perform forced labour during the Second World War, Austrian

prisoners of war and the German-spekaing populations expelled to Austria as a

result of the Benes decrees and the Avnoj regulations..__________________________________________________________________(see handout for more)

The Linguistic Model in the Discourse-Historical Approach (Reisigl/Wodak 2000)

Discourse

In accordance to other approaches devoted to Critical Discourse Analysis, and this has already been touched upon above, the discourse-historical approach perceives both written and spoken language as a form of social practice (Fairclough and Wodak 1997). A discourse is a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective (Fairclough 1995: 14). As critical discourse analysts we assume a dialectical relationship between particular discursive practices and the specific fields of action (including situations, institutional frames and social structures) in which they are embedded: on the one hand, the situational, institutional and social settings shape and affect discourses, and on the other, discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. In other words, discourses as linguistic social practices can be seen as constituting non-discursive and discursive social practices and, at the same time, as being constituted by them.

To put it more precisely: "discourse" can be understood as a complex bundle of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts which manifest themselves within and across the social fields of action as thematically interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very often as “texts”, that belong to specific semiotic types, i.e. genres.

Text

We conceive “texts” as materially durable products of linguistic actions, as communicatively dissociated, “dilated” linguistic actions that during their reception are disembedded from their situation of production (v. Ehlich 1983, Graefen 1997: 26, Reisigl 2000 in print).

Genre

A "genre" may be characterized, following Norman Fairclough, as the conventionalized, more or less schematically fixed use of language associated with a particular activity, as "a socially ratified way of using language in connection with a particular type of social activity" (Fairclough 1995, 14).

Fields of Action

"Fields of action" (Girnth 1996) may be understood as segments of the respective societal "reality", which contribute to constituting and shaping the "frame" of discourse. The spatio-metaphorical distinction among different fields of action can be understood as a distinction among different functions or socially institutionalized aims of discursive practices. Thus in the area of political action we distinguish between the functions of legislation, self-presentation, the manufacturing of public-opinion, developing party-internal consent, advertising and vote-getting, governing as well as executing, and controlling as well as expressing (oppositional) dissent (see the figure below).

We can represent the relationship between fields of action, genres and discourse topics with the example of the area of political action in figure 1 below:

┌────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌────────────────┐ ┌────────────────┐

│Field of Action:│ │ Field of Action: │ │ Field of Action: │ │ Field of Action: │ │Field of action:│ │Field of action:│

│ LAW-MAKING │ │ FORMATION OF │ │ PARTY-INTERNAL │ │ POLITICAL │ │ POLITICAL │ │ POLITICAL │

│ PROCEDURE │ │ PUBLIC-OPINION │ │DEVELOPMENT OF AN │ │ ADVERTISING/ │ │ EXECUTIVE/ │ │ CONTROL │

│ │ │ & SELF-PRESENTATION │ │ INFORMED OPINION │ │ PROPAGANDA │ │ ADMINISTRATION │ │ │

└───────┬────────┘ └──────────┬────────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ └───────┬────────┘ └───────┬────────┘

┌───────┴────────┐ ┌──────────┴────────────┐ ┌────────┴─────────┐ ┌────────┴─────────┐ ┌───────┴────────┐ ┌───────┴────────┐

│ Genres: │ │ Genres: │ │ Genres: │ │ Genres: │ │ Genres: │ │ Genres: │

│ laws, │ │ press releases, │ │ party programs, │ │election programs,│ │ decisions │ │ declarations of│

│ bills, │ │ press conferences, │ │ declarations/ │ │ slogans, │ │ (approval/ │ │ oppos. parties,│

│ amendments, │ │ interviews │ │ statements/ │ │speeches in elect.│ │ rejection: │ │ Parliamentary │

│ speeches and │ │ (press, TV), │ │ speeches │ │ campaigns, │ │ asylum, │ │ questions, │

│ contributions │ │ talk shows, │ │ of principle, │ │el. announcements,│ │ stay, │ │ speeches of │

│ of MPs, │ │ "round tables", │ │ speeches on │ │ posters, │ │ work) │ │ MPs, │

│ regulations, │ │lectures/contributions │ │party conventions,│ │election brochure,│ │ inaugural │ │ petition for a │

│recommendations,│ │ to conferences, │ │ etc. │ │ direct mail │ │ speeches, │ │ referendum. │

│ prescriptions, │ │ articles/books, │ │ │ │ advertising, │ │ coalition │ │ press releases │

│ guidelines, │ │commemorative speeches,│ │ │ │ fliers, │ │ papers, │ │ of opposition │

│ etc. │ │ inaugural speeches, │ │ │ │ etc. │ │ speeches of │ │ parties │

│ │ │ speeches of MPs, │ │ │ │ │ │ minist./heads, │ │ etc. │

│ │ │ speeches of the head, │ │ │ │ │ │ governmental │ │ │

│ │ │ speeches of ministers │ │ │ │ │ │ answers to P.q.│ │ │

└───────┬────────┘ └───────────┬───────────┘ └─────────┬────────┘ └────────┬─────────┘ └────────┬───────┘ └────────┬───────┘

│ │ ┌───────────────────┘ │ │ │

└─────────────────────┐ │ │ ┌────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │

│ │ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │

│ │ │ │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

│ │ │ │ │ │

Discourse

Topic 3

Fig. 1: Selected Dimensions of Discourse as Social Practice

A "discourse" about a specific topic can find its starting point within one field of action and proceed through another one. Discourses and discourse topics "spread" to different fields and discourses. They cross between fields, overlap, refer to each other or are in some other way socio-functionally linked with each other.

Interdiscursivity and Intertextuality

Figure 2 further illustrates the interdiscursive and intertextual relationships between discourses, discourse topics, genres (as types) and texts (as tokens):

genre u

genre x

genre y

genre z

text x

text u

text yz

time axis

Topic x1 Topic yz1

Topic u1

Discourse A

time axis

Topic x2 Topic yz2 Topic u2

Discourse B

Topic x3 Topic yz3

Fig. 2: Interdiscursive and intertextual relationships between discourses, discourse topics, genres and texts

In this diagram, interdiscursivity (e.g. the intersection of discourse A and discourse B) is indicated by the two big overlapping ellipses. Intertextual relationships in general - whether of an explicitly referential kind, a formally or structurally iconic (diagrammatical) kind, or in the form of tropological correlations, evocations, allusions or (direct and indirect) quotations - are represented by dotted double arrows. The assignment of texts to genres is signalled by simple arrows. The topics to which a text refers are indicated by small ellipses to which simple dotted arrows point, the topical intersection of different texts is signalled by the overlapping small ellipses. Finally, the specific intertextual relationship of thematic reference of one text to another is indicated by simple broken arrows.

Strategies:

(1) How are persons named and referred to linguistically?

(2) What traits, characteristics, qualities and features are attributed to them?

(3) By means of what arguments and argumentation schemes do specific persons or social groups try to justify and legitimize the exclusion, discrimination, suppression and exploitation of others?

(4) From what perspective or point of view are these namings, attributions and arguments expressed?

(5) Are the respective discriminating utterances articulated overtly, are they even intensified or are they mitigated?

By “strategy” we generally mean a more or less accurate and more or less intentional plan of practices (including discursive practices) adopted to achieve a particular social, political, psychological or linguistic aim. As far as the discursive strategies are concerned, that is to say, systematic ways of using language, we locate them at different levels of linguistic organization and complexity.

As far as the discursive strategies are concerned, that is to say, systematic ways of using language, we locate them at different levels of linguistic organization and complexity:

First, there are referential strategies or nomination strategies by which one constructs and represents social actors, for example, ingroups and outgroups. This is done in a number of ways, such as membership categorization devices, including tropical reference by biological, naturalizing and depersonalizing metaphors and metonymies, as well as by synecdoches in the form of a part standing for the whole (pars pro toto) or a whole standing for the part (totum pro parte).

Second, once constructed or identified, the social actors as individuals, group members or groups, are linguistically provided with predications. Predicational strategies may, for example, be realized as stereotypical, evaluative attributions of negative and positive traits in the linguistic form of implicit or explicit predicates. These strategies aim either at labelling social actors more or less positively or negatively, deprecatorily or appreciatively. They cannot neatly be separated from the nomination strategies. Moreover, in a certain sense, some of the referential strategies can be considered to be specific forms of predicational strategies, because the pure referential identification very often already involves a denotatively as well as connotatively more or less deprecatory or appreciative labelling of the social actors.

Third, there are argumentation strategies and a fund of topoi through which positive and negative attributions are justified, through which, for example, it is suggested that the social and political inclusion or exclusion, the discrimination or preferential treatment of the respective persons or groups of persons is justified.

Fourth, discourse analysts may focus on the perspectivation, framing or discourse representation by means of which speakers express their involvement in discourse, and position their point of view in the reporting, description, narration or quotation of discriminatory events or utterances.

Fifth, there are intensifying strategies on the one hand and mitigation strategies on the other. Both of them help to qualify and modify the epistemic status of a proposition by intensifying or mitigating the illocutionary force of racist, antisemitic, nationalist or ethnicist utterances. These strategies can be an important aspect of the presentation inasmuch as they operate upon it by sharpening it or toning it down.

Strategic aspects of self- and other-presentation:

Positive self-presentation &

Negative other-presentation

Reference

Predication

Perspectivation and involvement

Intensification or mitigation

Argumentation

Fig. 3: Strategies of self- and other-presentation

The discourse topics, inter alia, which we find in these short excerpts of the coalition programme are the following:

Dealing with the NS past, the victims mentioned are prisoners of war (Wehrmacht soldiers), the Sudeten Germans and forced labour.

In dealing with foreigners, there is a clear distinction between Austrians and “foreigners” who are defined by their mother tongue (not German) and not by citizenship; this means that Austrian citizens whose mother tongue is not German still fall under the label of foreigners.

In dealing with employment, we find a clear reflection of neoliberal theories (dominance of competitiveness, flexibility, cutting back of social welfare, privatization);

In dealing with women, they are encouraged to stay home and care for the children; but at the same time, networks for successful women are to be installed.

The linguistic analysis of these texts follows the discourse-historical approach most recently elaborated in the forthcoming book by Martin Reisigl and myself. We employ the following categories focusing foremost on the construction of US and THEM, thus on the construction of political identities as a basic theme of political discourse; this is usually done by positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation (see handout). In our methodology, we rely on Functional Systemic Linguistics (M.A.K. Halliday) and on an elaboration of Theo van Leeuwens Actors Analysis; and most importantly on argumentation theory, mainly on Manfred Kienpointners work and Classical Rhetoric .

To sum up the overview of selected strategic aspects of self- and other-presentation:

Positive self-presentation &

Negative other-presentation

Reference

Predication

Perspectivation and involvement

Intensification or mitigation

Argumentation

Fig. 4: Strategies of self- and other-presentation

Let us take one example from the many text sequences I have chosen from the coalition programme between FPÖ and ÖVP: dealing with the Nazi Past:

The main social actor in this paragraph is the “Federal government”: In a relational process, the aim – probably of the government, but the agent is not specified-, is to commit itself, clarify, dissect, pass on, and work. These are all embedded clauses, far away from any social actors. Material, verbal and mental processes are applied. If we continue our analysis, we find abstract nominalized processes, actually grammatical metaphors, like the “continuation of the policy of sensitivity”, “critical confrontation”, “patterns of injustice” and “appropriate solutions”. I will briefly comment on each of these: what is a policy of sensitivity? As we do not know what the policy was up to now, this remains very vague. “sensitivity” can mean several things in this co-text: it can mean that one should approach this topic carefully, consider the victims and perpetrators, or not go into detail or other possibilities. At this point, our theoretical assumptions would have to guide the analysis. Our theories about the official Austrian way of dealing with the Nazi-past (which I will elaborate very soon) suggest that the last meaning will be chosen. This provides a good example for the necessity of integrating social theory into the microanalysis. But, in any case, we are not informed about any details, nothing in this whole paragraph is spelled out precisely. The material verbs which do imply activities have no goal-participants which would serve as more detailed information. “To clarify things without reservation” again leads to many questions: which “things”? Implied are – most probably- war crimes, but this is not said. It could also mean Austrian participation in Nazi crimes, it actually could mean anything. “without reservation” serves as moral legitimation. Readers should get the impression that Austrians would really confront the Nazi-past. But, to repeat, only “things” are supposed to be clarified. The next verb is “dissect” – “dissect patterns of injustice”. This presupposes that there were “patterns of injustice” and this embedded clause is the first more precise evaluation of the past. But again, we do not know which patterns, since they are not enumerated in any way. At this point, one could also argue, that the vagueness is necessary because the genre of a coalition paper implies such a programmatic style. On the other hand, one could also argue, that a new government should make its policies as clear as possible. And comparing this paragraph with others in your handout, it is striking that other policies are much more detailed in their implementation than this one. Thus, we have to include intertextuality into our analysis. Intertextuality on several levels: comparisons with previous coalition papers, comparisons with other parts of the coalition paper, with speeches of government politicians and so on. Finally – and of course, there would be much more to say – one explicit issue is proposed: “Nazi slave labour”. A commission of historians who are to investigate all the documents concerned with slave labour has been formed one year ago. This means that no precise solutions can be suggested yet, only “appropriate” solutions. The attribute stays vague – appropriate for whom, who decides? When we take into account the opinions of the FPÖ in this matter – and I will document them shortly – then we should be quite concerned what these measures might be. We need to investigate other genres to be able to interpret this piece of text. And, looking back at our main question, we need theories about “dealing with the Nazi past” to be able to understand this text as a typical “symptom” of Haider’s success!

If we look at the macro structure of this one paragraph, there are several macro arguments and strategies involved: first, convincing everybody that nothing will change, thus reassuring people who might be frightened. Second, a strategy of camouflage because Haiders utterances about the Nazi-past contradict the statements about “injustice”. Thirdly, a de-contextualization of all the demands on restitution. Restitution is restricted to Slave labour, prisoners of war (Wehrmacht) and the Sudeten Germans. Jews, Roma and Sinti and other victims are not mentioned. Thus, the government is able to argue that they are in fact coping with the important demands of some victims, and through silence, they neglect the other victims. The claims of survivors which are voiced nowadays are then pronounced as not valid and have led to serious debates and lastly to explicit anti-Semitism (“they have survived anyway, what more do they want?”).

To understand the rhetoric of the coalition paper better, we continue by considering the functions of the genre of a coalition paper :

A coalition programme is supposed to unite the voters and make a clear political statement in contrast to the last government and last coalition programmes. Changes, therefore, should be clearly marked, and the language will be used to construct certain ideologies and political positions. A coalition paper has identity creating and reproducing functions, marking the distinctions between US and THEM. It should be precise but also vague allowing different ways of implementation and allowing for surprising changes in global economies and politics. It has to be innovative and also implement the promises made during the election. It has to legitimate unpopular measures in terms of the party ideologies. And lastly, it has to be persuasive and well comprehensible.

This coalition paper is even more complex. It contains a preamble which the president required before swearing in the new government (see handout); a statement which emphasizes Human Rights and all explicit European Values from Maastricht and Amsterdam. Thus, of course, the following sections should not contradict this beginning in any way (which also accounts for the vagueness).

A second ethnographic observation concerns the entrepreneurs. While visiting the UK, Haider called himself the « Tony Blair from Austria ». Although Tony Blair quickly denied this comparison, we have to ask ourselves why Haider could use such an analogy. Clearly, he counted on triggering some associations: Blair was very successful in gaining a majority of votes, thus Haider claims to be equally successful although he “only” got 27% of the votes. Moreover, Blair is seen and perceived as a reformer. This image appeals to the FPÖ voters as well in relationship to changes of the Austrian society and economy. To understand the economic changes in Austria and the impact of new neo liberal concepts, one has to know that up to now social partnership between employers and employees dominated Austrian policies. The trade unions are very strong, and every change has to be negotiated with them. The relationship between the social partners and the government has made it difficult to allow these necessary economic changes to take place. For this reason, many voters have become frustrated with the status quo. Austria is also the 6^th richest country in the world, and the country with one of the lowest inflation and unemployment rates in the EU. The fear of change because of EU enlargement is very big which we are studying right now in a new project by Verena Krausneker. This made it possible for the FPÖ to launch two discourses:

First, against the privileges and corruption of the leading parties who governed up until 1999 and against an almost paralyzed economy due to a form of social partnership in which no changes could be negotiated;

Second, against potential immigrants and low wage workers from the former eastern Bloc.

The first discourse appeals to many young entrepreneurs and people who are “against those up there” and against corruption and for some kind of change due to globalisation.

The second discourse which is racist appeals to workers who are afraid to lose their jobs, because of globalisation and are afraid of changes. As to be seen clearly, these two discourse contradict each other necessarily. One group endorses changes on a global level, the other group reacts negatively to global issues and looks for scapegoats.

Moreover, the second discourse leads to an interdiscursivity of neo liberal and racist discourses. A scapegoat is needed to legitimize the changes which are considered and which adhere to neo liberal policies. And those positioned as scapegoats are “foreigners”!

Let me give you some examples again:

„Against Overforeignization“ (Stop der Überfremdung“) was to be seen on yellow(!) posters all around Vienna in September. The term “Überfremdung” was coined by Goebbels in 1933 and is a lexical item imbued with highly negative connotations. It signaled that foreigners are threatening Austrian citizens and Austria. In the election rallyes, FPÖ politicians also stated: “We need to protect our Austrian population”. In the same vein, many slogans against Eastern European enlargement could be heard:

“We have to defend ourselves against a too rapid Eastern expansion, because the possible amount of immigrants would multiply and result in further foreign infiltration.”

Lastly, the FPÖ constructed a topos of fear: fear of unemployment caused by immigrants from the East.

According to opinion polls and analyses of the election, the FPÖ has become the workers party (47% of workers voted for the FPÖ). Another characteristic is the majority of male voters. Thus, the FPÖ started a campaign to solicit ‘female’ votes by promising financial aid for each new born child (of course not fundable).

I would like to mention another important discourse that is constructed in the coalition programme and in the paragraph which I analyzed previously: A revisionist discourse., and come back to the paragraph I analyzed before.

Several times, Jörg Haider has made remarks that the German army was an army as all others, that the SS were respected men and most recently, that the biggest war criminals in the 20^th century were Stalin, Hitler and Churchill. All these remarks belong into a revisionist discourse. Moreover, the FPÖ addresses the Wehrmacht generation and exculpates it. One of the voter groups of the FPÖ- we can conclude and opinion polls prove this – are the men of the Wehrmacht generation, and their families. I will address the problems of “collective guilt” and “coming to terms with the past” later on. Some examples:

Haider knows “respectable” men: “This is why I believe that it is necessary to establish a counter balance. Otherwise we would end up in a world reigned by chaos. You have fought and risked your lives so that the next generation of our children will have a future within a community, in which order, fairness and respectability are still sound principles. (. . .) Because the only valid argument (in opposition to a meeting of Waffen-SS veterans, Author) is that one is upset about the fact that there are still people with character in this world, who stand up to their convictions even in the toughest storm, and who have remained true to their beliefs to this day.” (Address in Krumpendorf/ Kärnten 1995, FPš’s quick-info, series 30/96, p.10ff). For him, the future belongs to those “respectable” men – again a statement that is full of rhetorical catchwords. So this is a model Haider imagines for the youth!

Haider’s implicit conception of history has been scrutinized in Profil, August 21, 1995:

Haider: “I have said that the Wehrmacht’s soldiers have made democracy in its existing form in Europe possible. If they would have resisted, if they wouldn’t have been in the East, if they would have not conducted military campaigns, we would have . . .”

Profil: “What does that mean ‘resisted’ . . . after all, it was a war of conquest of the German Wehrmacht.”

Haider: “Well, then we have to ask what really happened.”

In the interpretation of the paragraph from the coalition paper, I had stated that we have to include theories about the Austrian past and the opinions of the FPÖ to be able to interpret the vagueness of the text. The fact that prisoners of war are explicated stated but not other victims like Roma and Sinti, Jews etc is easily to be understood after reading these quotes by Haider. The Wehrmacht, he claims, fulfilled their duty and also saved Western Europe. This example illustrates the necessity of intertextuality and social theory in the concrete linguistic analysis.

4. Conclusions and discourse model of populist discourse

If we summarize the different discourses from our short analysis and ethnography as requested in the research programme for CDA presented earlier (and there are many more), we find the following:

Revisionism as motor to deal with the Nazi past

Exculpation of Wehrmacht and SS from war crimes

Neo liberal economies which support young entrepreneurs

Pro family discourses

Discourses which support carreer women

Racist discourses

Anti-EU enlargement discourses

Anti privileges discourses

Pro “Austrian” discourses

Populism is not an ideology (if we follow Mannheim’s definition for example): it is not a clear and causally connected edifice but a mixture of often contradictory measures which appeal to very different voters and also reflects social tensions and changes in the respective society, as mentioned by Taguieff and Taggart. The FPO is a party which has at least 10 different motives for potential voters: all those which are against privileges; against those “up there”; for flexibility and privatization; for yuppies; for old soldiers and former Nazis; against trade unions; for young people; for all those afraid of losing jobs; for mothers and employed women; for all “true Austrians”, to mention just a few. Another important issue is their different notion of democracy; they are not anti-democratic but propose a different kind of democracy which is similar to Switzerland. As can be easily seen, the abstract theories about populism (and the one I chose is typical for political sciences) do not adequately grasp this complexity. Neither does it allow for the specificities of Austrian history and culture and most importantly, the question of memory and guilt which we are studying together with Theo van Leeuwen in an interdisciplinary project.

The specific Austrian past and theories about collective memory and legitimation are necessary for our explanation of Haiders success. In Austria, the past of the Wehrmacht has to be mystified and justified because most men of the older generation and fathers of the younger generation were part of the Wehrmacht. As already stated before, to accuse them means accusing a huge part of the population. Karl Jaspers´1946 essay Die Schuldfrage distinguished four different kinds of guilt: criminal, political, moral and metaphysical. In our context, his second category ´political guilt` has become used as ´moral´or ´historical´ responsibility. “Everybody,” he argued, “is co-responsible for the way he is governed”. (1979, 21). And he continues “A Volk is responsible for the quality of its policy” (1979, 44). But, as our 1990 study on the Waldheim affair illustrates, Austrians (and probably nobody) is happy to be confronted with guilt. As argued by the historian Richard Mitten (2000), there are several ways out of this dilemma, and this can be linked to our analysis of a “justification discourse”: if accused or attacked, one denies, plays down, relativizes or turns the tables (“identification with the aggressor”; Anna Freud). And this theory is well illustrated by the rhetoric of the FPÖ.

For an understanding and explanation of all these – at first glance – unrelated issues we need an approach which is historically oriented and context-sensitive. Moreover, we need to analyse different genres and different groups of texts, all points mentioned in our research programme for CDA. Thus, coming from below and an ethnography, we need different linguistic tools and also grounded middle-range theories to explain this European and Austrian phenomenon.

Let me now come to the final point, in an attempt to propose a larger framework which could explain the emergence of right wing populist parties at the beginning of the 21^st century (the fourth level in theorizing mentioned earlier). Many overtly contracting tendencies can be grasped by recent research on employment policies in the EU as well as the problems of searching for new “European identities” (Muntigl, Weiss and Wodak 2000). Globalization rhetoric emphasizes – as one central discourse figure - the deconstruction of the nation state. Nationalistic parties apparently tend to react to such economic changes with chauvinistic discourse. In our study it was shown how globalization rhetoric functions and what central role it takes in neo-liberal economism in general. Basically, globalization rhetoric constructs one global economic market where everybody has to compete with everybody. It is, however, not only individuals and enterprises that are constructed as worldwide competitors by this rhetoric but also states, national economies and supra-national federations such as the EU. The problem here is that the concept of competition and competitiveness is taken out of its original context, namely a market situation where economic actors compete with each other for profits, and put into a new context where fundamentally non-economic actors, like governments or states, are submitted to the principles of a universal economism. Political actors are then reduced to economic actors and states to big corporations. Politics becomes ersatz economics just as, from the contrary perspective, economics becomes ersatz politics. As described in our study and specifically by Gilbert Weiss, the rhetoric of globalization and competitiveness has little to do with either economic or political reality. It neglects the real economic facts and political problems in many respects. Nevertheless, and Krugman does not forget to mention this point, it serves certain functions:

“Finally, many of the world’s leaders have found the competitive metaphor extremely useful as a political device. The rhetoric of competitiveness turns out to provide a good way either to justify hard choices or to avoid them.” (1998: 16) This is indeed the crucial point when analysing today’s political discourse. The rhetoric of globalization and competitiveness has become an argumentative vehicle for disciplining the aims of social justice and welfare by ‘economic’ arguments. Global competitiveness is the key; and, in order to become competitive states have to use all available means to keep their currency strong and they must be flexible – flexible in any respect. At the end of the twentieth century, we have to jump again into the ‘Darwinian Ocean’ – as Lester Thurow (1996: 166) puts it.

Globalisation and nationalism imply tensions and contradictions. It is not possible to discursively construct one homogenous identity, neither in the nation state nor supranationally. Nowadays, we are dealing with fragmentations, struggles and contradictions; multiple identities seem to develop, both on individual as well as on national and global levels. Certainty and security are no longer the concepts which accompany our life. Moreover, flexibility has become the basic catchword for all dimensions of our daily interactions. The divisions between micro and macro are blurred, not oppositions, as Bruno Latour and other postmodern sociologists have suggested. Right-wing populism is one answer to these developments, a turn backward on the one hand, a turn forward, on the other hand, as illustrated by the conflicting discourses of the FPÖ concerning the diverse responses to globalisation.

To summarize all these observations and first attempts of systematization, I have tried to apply our model to illustrate the complexity of the object under investigation:, the success of the right-wing populist discourse in Austria and Europe