Discursive practice dimension

71

In terms of ranking frame, the 2013 special issue subordinates Sub-Saharan African to the West and in general, to the rest of the world. Most often, the comparison is not directly made, but happens through the framing of Sub-Saharan Africa as less developed, unable to take care of itself and as a consequence, in need of foreign intervention or guidance. In general, two different sorts of frames are visible. The first type of linguistic devices frames Sub-Saharan Africa and its civilizations as ‘failed’, such as in the following example:

“Guinea-Bissau fits the picture of an African state rendered dysfunctional by violent disorder,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). The second type embraces the inferiority of Sub-Saharan Africa, as established by the first type, and subsequently suggests what Sub-Saharan Africans should do to develop: “Africa’s lot would be hugely improved if landlocked countries became less isolated. That means persuading neighbours to remove transport barriers. A lack of trade seems to spur violence and undermine governance,” (Appendix II, article nr. 13).

72

In terms of information provision, all articles contain some form of contextualisation.

Instead of referencing to socio-cultural factors that influence the events happening in Sub-Saharan Africa, The Economist uses the practice of domestication to make the events comprehensible, relevant and appealing to its Western readers. According to Joye (2017) this form of contextualisation frames news events in such a way that they fit the cultural perception of the audience (Joye, 2017: 52). Journalists can perform domestication through different linguistic choices. In the opening article of the special issue, the authors write that the elections in the Sub-Saharan African country are recognisable for Western voters (Appendix II, article nr. 10). By mentioning this, the journalists make the democratic process in a culturally and physically distant country, more familiar and understandable to the audience. The special issue also shows the use of other domesticating strategies. In one article, the journalists write that Western people have been kidnapped in Nigeria and Niger (Appendix II, article nr. 13), thereby describing how compatriots of the audience are affected by the events in Sub-Saharan Africa. Joye (2017) recognised the use of these domesticating practices as a feature of an Afro-optimist discourse. It is important to write that all articles in the 2013 issue use this form of contextualisation, but not all events within these articles have been put in context. The article on the reduction of fighting across Sub-Saharan Africa, discusses the war in Liberia and gives a detailed account of the committed war crimes, without any references to the historical, economic or social-political circumstances to the war (Appendix II, article nr. 11). Ogunyemi (2018) defined the linguistic use of such decontextualization as an Afro-pessimist feature.

In terms of sourcing, both Western and Sub-Saharan voices are quoted in the special issue of 2013. Irrespective of origin, all sources in this issue are quoted by means of the verbs

‘say’ and ‘explain’. Nothias (2014) characterised these quotation verbs as ‘neutral’; they do not strengthen the credibility of a source, nor do they provide any judgmental or evaluative value (Nothias, 2014: 142-143). Instead, they present the interviewees as actors that deserve a stage to express themselves. In line with the theoretical exploration of the literature, this thesis has established the use of neutral quotation verbs as a feature of an Afro-optimist discourse.

When looking at the voices themselves, a few things stand out. Firstly, The Economist has included sources from all over the world, but mostly local Sub-Saharan African and external Western sources. While the latter are only cited for their knowledge and expertise, the former are cited as well for their experiences on the ground. In this way, The Economist has provided the local inhabitants with a stage to speak for themselves instead of being talked

73

about (Nothias, 2014: 137). While this sourcing practice indicates the use of an Afro-optimist discourse, it is important to take into account that many of the local voices, that have been mentioned in the special issue, have some sort of relationship with the West. They are e. g.

educated in the West or have been working in the West: “a former Wall Street banker and staffer at the Gates Foundation,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). This discursive practice of citing local voices who are connected to the home of the audience can be interpretated as a form of domestication and therefore, be characterised as an Afro-optimist feature.

The 2013 special issue presents the future of Sub-Saharan Africa in both optimistic and pessimistic ways, but mostly with limited optimism. According to Eriksen (2015), an optimistic future perspective is driven by three pillars of progress: (1) economic growth, (2) a substantial middle class, and (3) political stability and democratic progress (Eriksen, 2015: 6-15). The articles in this issue show signs of this discursive practice, yet they present the pillars of progress with limitations. In the article “Tired of War”, the journalists write that the political situation in Liberia is at rest now, which is a positive development on the road to political stability. However, The Economist directly mitigates the optimistic perspective that has been created, by shifting attention to the vulnerability of the peace: “The government is democratically elected, but feeble,” (Appendix II, article nr. 11). Nothias (2014) explained that the pessimistic prediction of Sub-Saharan Africa’s future originates from the colonial depiction of Africa as the “Dark continent”, which stands at the basis of an Afro-pessimist discourse and does not provide any prospect of development (Nothias, 2014: 78). Yet, since the news items in the 2013 special issue do provide room for optimism, it is better to speak of the limited use of an Afro-optimist discourse.

A homogenizing identity frame is used in the 2013 special issue. The journalists working for The Economist generalise all inhabitants and civilisations of Sub-Saharan Africa into one entity. The article “Cheerleaders and naysayers” for example, speaks about “African economies” as if they are all the same (Appendix II, article nr. 16). In a similar manner, The Economist presents one single solution to generate economic wealth for all African countries:

“If Africa wants to emulate Asia, it needs to give a higher priority to manufacturing ,”

(Appendix II, article nr. 16). On the production side, these linguistics show that the journalists perceive and present Sub-Saharan Africa as a single actor, thereby ignoring the differences between the countries and its inhabitants. On the consumption side, the audience is handed an one-sided and incomplete picture of the region. Scott (2017) characterised this practice as a feature of an Afro-pessimist discourse (Scott, 2017: 162).

74

The special issue of focus contains both racial and non-racial ethnic frames. In the opening article, the journalists write about “Africa” and clearly refer to the 53 countries of the continent; each inhabitant is included, irrespective of race (Appendix II, article nr. 10). The linguistic choice to use the term in this way, indicates an Afro-optimist discourse, as an antonym to Nothias’ (2017) conceptualisation of racialised ethnic framing. Except for the first article, there is only one other article in this issue, that refers to the entire continent of Africa when writing about Africa (Appendix II, article nr. 13). The other five articles use the words

“Africa” or “Africans” to refer to the region and inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa. The article “Tired of War” for example: “This is the picture in much of Africa. The allocation of power is becoming fairer and its use more competent as in Ghana, through there is more to do, especially in resource-rich nations like Nigeria,” (Appendix II, article nr. 12). In this sentence, it is not clear whether “Africa” is written to refer to the continent or to Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, only examples of Sub-Saharan African countries are given. The label “African” is racialised: it only refers to the so-called “Black Africa”, as defined by Nothias (2014) as an Afro-pessimist discursive practice (Nothias, 2014: 76).

Lastly, an unequal ranking frame is used in the 2013 special issue, which subordinates Sub-Saharan Africa to the West. The Economist portrayes Sub-Saharan Africa and its development as “failed”. In one article, Guinea-Bissau is mentioned as an example of “an African state rendered dysfunctional by violent disorder,” (Appendix II, article nr. 14). This depiction shows how the journalists who have written this issue, maintain and reproduce a stereotypical image of Sub-Saharan Africa as a place that is inferior. This newsroom practice fits De B’béri and Louw’s (2011) Afro-pessimist ranking frame, according to which Sub-Saharan Africans are dehumanized and deemed incompetent in light of their failure to fulfil the postcolonial expectations of economic prosperity and political stability ( De B’béri &

Louw, 2011: 339). The journalists go a stap further, by proposing what the region should do to achieve progress:

“Africa’s lot would be hugely improved if landlocked countries became less isolated.

That means persuading neighbours to remove transport barriers. A lack of trade seems to spur violence and undermine governance,” (Appendix II, article nr. 13).

75

In sum, the special issue “A hopeful continent”, published in March 2013, contains features of both an Afro-optimist and an Afro-pessimist discourse. An analysis of the eight communicative events shows how the journalists of The Economist produce a knowledge framework that provides limited optimism regarding the future of Sub-Saharan Africa, while continuing to subordinate its civilization and inhabitants to the West.