The legitimising force
A Critical Discourse Analysis of the American presidential
discourse concerning the Syrian civil war
Daan Heijmen (10550275)
Supervisor: dr. F.F. (Floris) Vermeulen
Second reader: dr. D.W. (David) Laws
June 2019
MSc Conflict Resolution and Governance – University of Amsterdam
Abstract
The United States of America has been involved in the Middle Eastern region for decades. This research seeks to understand how this involvement is discursively legitimised by conducting a Critical Discourse Analysis on the American
presidential discourse concerning the Syrian civil war (2011-2018). The research describes the way the U.S. continuously discursively legitimises its involvement in this constantly changing conflict. By analysing the presidential discourse, the research shows how this is done by adapting the discourse to the changing
dimension of the conflict in order to constantly find ground to legitimise or justify any current or future actions of the U.S. in the conflict. In doing so, the research focusses on the construction of a dichotomy between the American ‘self’ and multiple Syrian ‘others’ as part of the identity construction taking place in the presidential discourse.
Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, the United States, Syria, the Middle East, identity, legitimacy
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 5
Theoretical framework ... 9
Critical Discourse Analysis ... 9
Political discourse ... 11
Identity ... 12
Constructing a dichotomy ... 14
Looking critically at critical discourse analysis ... 16
Labels ... 20 Method ... 22 Avoiding subjectivity ... 22 The methodology ... 24 Statistical data ... 29 Methodological framework ... 31 Analysis ... 33
The context of the discourse ... 33
The diachronic dimension ... 35
The construction of identity ... 49
The 'self' ... 49
The 'others' ... 54
Different degrees of otherness ... 59
The 'other' as a threat to the 'self' ... 63
Conclusion ... 67
Introduction... 67
The diachronic dimension of the American presidential discourse ... 68
The 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy ... 70
The diachronic dimension of the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy ... 72
in the presidential discourse ... 72
Discussion ... 73
Bibliography ... 76
Introduction
"States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction,
these regimes pose a grave and growing danger" - George W. Bush on January 29, 2002
Although the statement above is a statement about the Hussein regime from President George W. Bush during his state of the union address in 2002, it might as well be a statement from President Barack Obama in 2014 concerning the Assad regime or a statement from President Donald Trump in 2019 about the Iranian regime. As such, this statement is an example of the similar ways the U.S. has been discursively legitimising its involvement in the Middle Eastern region for decades. In this statement, the vivid words that are used, create a gap between two groups: us and them. On the one hand, there is an evil group-out group (them) that threatens the peace of the world. On the other hand, there is a good in-group (us) that wants to fight for the peace of the world. Such framing by the president of the United States of America constructs a dichotomy between the 'self' (us) and the 'other' (them). And constructing a dichotomy, the process of defining of a 'self' and an 'other', is an important part of one of the main functions of presidential discourse: the construction of identity.
Although this is a statement from President George W. Bush more than a year before officially announcing the start of the Iraq war in 2003, one can see how Bush already started framing the regime of Saddam Hussein as an actor that had to be dealt with in order to keep the United States of America safe. Framing the Hussein regime as such, by starting to create a dichotomy and emphasizing the need to act, already made the Iraq war gain in legitimacy. And this discursive rhetoric used to create legitimacy, so called American presidential crisis and conflict discourse, has a long history in American presidential discourse and it is
dominated by a speech template that constructs an 'us' ('self') versus 'them' ('other') dichotomy (Austermühl, 2014: 167). And over a decade later, during "the greatest human disaster of the twenty-first century" (Phillips, 2016: 1), the Syrian civil war, this discursive rhetoric has been used again to legitimise the U.S.' involvement in a conflict. On 19 December 2018, the U.S.' President Donald Trump announced the U.S.'s military withdrawal from Syria. And although the conflict is arguably long from over, this announcement marked a new chapter and opened up the possibility to look back at the U.S.' involvement in the conflict.
Over the years, the conflict has evolved into a highly complex conflict with an
enormous international dimension. As Phillips (2016) argues, the Syrian civil war "cannot be explained without a detailed understanding of this international dimension" and this
dimension "shaped the war in crucial ways" (2016: 3). And although the U.S. is often viewed as "the declining hegemon", it still is "the most powerful actor" in the Middle Eastern region. Also, it has been one of the most important international players involved in the Syrian civil war up to today (Phillips, 2016: 5; 236). Partially due to the complex and changing dimension of the conflict, the reasons for the U.S.' involvement have changed over time - from the Assad regime and the democratic transition, to the regime's alleged usage of chemical weapons, to ISIL (Phillips, 2016). In other words, the 'other' (the them) in the dichotomy changed throughout the conflict. As a result, the Syrian civil war did not only require the presidents of the U.S. to decide on the identity of multiple actors while creating a dichotomy. It did so over a time spawn of over eight years.
In this research, attention is paid to the changing nature – the diachronic dimension – of the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy in the U.S.' presidential discourse concerning the Syrian civil war between 2011 and 2018. This research aims at showing that, despite the diachronic dimension of the conflict, the U.S.' involvement in the Syrian civil war is continuously discursively legitimised. This is done by adapting the discourse to this changing dimension, in order to constantly find ground to legitimise or justify any current or future actions of the 'self' in the conflict. In this research, a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is conducted, as CDA can provide "the ground for awareness of a delicate aspect of the discourse of politics and the rhetoric of politicians in shaping public consent and projecting an always-legitimate image of even contradictory political positions, decisions, and actions" (Mirhosseini, 2017: 706). Such research on the changing dimension of the U.S.’ construction of identity in the Syrian civil war has both academic and social relevance.
There is still little academic research on the ongoing Syrian civil war's discourses, especially on the U.S.' political discourse. Moreover, CDA as a field of study has become more and more popular in the last few decades due to an upsurge of critical interests in language in contemporary society. This research contributes both to the understanding of the discourses concerning the conflict and to the understanding of the role of language in
contemporary society. Moreover, it sheds light on how the U.S.’ presidents decided on the identity of different actors involved in the Syrian civil war in their speeches. By doing so, it helps understanding the U.S.’ involvement and (in)actions in the conflict.
Furthermore, although the U.S. is sometimes said to be a declining hegemon, it is still heavily involved in the Middle Eastern region. As Austermühl argues, "to avoid a discursive pattern turning into a political clash, the discursive model underlying American foreign policy speeches [...] needs to be recognized, properly analysed, and possibly countered" (2014: 219). This research adds insights to the understanding of the discursive model underlying the U.S.’ foreign policy with regards to the Middle Eastern region. The resulting insights in the discursive model underlying American foreign policy discourse can help recognizing, analysing and countering this rhetoric.
Lastly, the Syrian civil war is a highly complex conflict with an important
international dimension. As Mirhosseini (2017) argues, an in-depth scrutiny of the American presidential discourse could illustrate the position of an important international player
regarding Syrian civil war. Insights in this position are “important in understanding aspects of U.S. politics from internal as well as international perspectives" (Mirhosseini, 2017: 708). The results of this research add to the available knowledge concerning the U.S.’ position with regards to 'the greatest human disaster of the twenty-first century'. By doing so, it
informs discussions with regards to the U.S.' foreign policy concerning the Middle East. In conclusion, this research attempts to add to the understanding of the puzzle named 'the U.S. in the Middle East'. Since 9/11, the U.S. has been increasingly involved in the region. Almost two decades since the start of the U.S.-led War on Terror, the situation in the Middle Eastern region is arguably way worse than before. The Syrian civil war is yet another episode contributing multiple complex layers to this puzzle. This research helps getting a better understanding of the way the U.S. continuously discursively legitimises its
involvement in a conflict with a constantly changing dimension like the Syrian civil war. As this research shows, this is done by adapting the discourse to this changing dimension in order to constantly find ground to legitimise or justify any current or future actions of the 'self' in the conflict. These insights are relevant as they can be used as a predictive value for the U.S.' foreign policy, especially while systematically investigating matters of identity construction. By paying attention to the diachronic dimension of the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy in the U.S.' presidential discourse concerning the conflict, this research strives to add knowledge to the understanding of how the U.S. legitimises its involvement in the Middle Eastern region. As such, it tries to put some pieces of the puzzle in the right place.
Throughout the research, these insights are provided by answering the following research question:
how does the diachronic dimension of the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy in the presidential discourse of the United States concerning the Syrian civil war
(2011-2018) look like?
In order to answer this question, some sub-questions need to be answered:
• How does the diachronic dimension of the American presidential discourse
concerning the Syrian civil war look like?
• How does the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy in the American presidential
discourse concerning the Syrian civil war look like?
Theoretical framework
In order to answer the formulated research question, an extensive theoretical framework is needed to introduce the needed theories and concepts. First, the concept of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and its relation to poststructuralism and identity construction are discussed. Next, the role of identity construction within political discourse and the concept of framing are dealt with. Third, the concept of identity is dealt with more extensively and the concept of an 'us' versus 'them' dichotomy is introduced. Fourth, the practice of constructing a
dichotomy within political discourse is discussed more elaborately. Next, previous relevant research on American political discourse is critically discussed to improve the overall process of conducting a CDA. Lastly, four labels and the concepts Accusation in a Mirror (AiM) and lesser evil reasoning are introduced to help understanding the discursive patterns used in political discourse to justify or legitimise certain actions or policies.
Critical Discourse Analysis
In recent years, the notions of text and discourse have been "subject to a hugely proliferating number of usages in the social sciences" (Wodak, 2008: 1). It is hard to find a paper or article that does not revisit these notions. And although systematic definitions and
operationalisations of these concepts are rare, "discourse analysis provides a general
framework to problem-oriented social research" and it is often used to study complex social phenomena. A discourse analysis allows for (1) the integration of different dimensions of interdisciplinarity and (2) multiple perspectives on the object investigated (Wodak, 2008: 2).
There are different approaches to a discourse analysis, depending on the research's aim and its object of analysis. One of these approaches is a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In the last few decades, there has been a growth of CDA as a field of study. This growth "corresponds to, contributes to, but also draws upon an upsurge of critical interests in language in contemporary society" (Fairclough et al., 2013: 81). CDA is "the analysis of linguistic and semiotic aspects of social processes and problems" (Fairclough et al., 2013: 90). By doing so, critical discourse analysts seek to explain "why texts might be the way they are and why they change the way they do" (Wodak, 2013: xxxviii). In order to answer such questions, CDA often look at the use of language by the actors in power. As a result, the concept of power plays a central role in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) (Wodak, 2013: xxix). CDS looks at how power is rhetorically realised in discursive practices. Critical
analysts view "discursive practices as an important form of social practice which contributes to the constitution of the social world including social identities and social relations" (Aydın-Düzgit, 2014: 135). As such, a CDA is useful when analysing the construction of identity in discourse, and this is the main aim of this research.
By viewing discourse as a form of social practice, CDS assume "a dialectical
relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s) which frame it: the discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them" (Wodak, 2013: xxv-xxvi). Discourses are, thus, not produced without context. Therefore, they can also not be understood without taking this context in consideration (Van Dijk. 2008). Also, "discourses are always connected to other discourses which were produced earlier, as well as those which are produced synchronically and subsequently" (Fairclough et al., 2013: 94). As a result, CDS also focusses on the idea intertextuality. This idea entails that "any text is a link in a chain of texts". They react to, draw on, and transform other texts (Fairclough et al., 2013: 83). Such links between texts can be established in multiple ways: (1) through continued reference to a topic or main actors, (2) through reference to the same events, or (3) by the transfer of main arguments from one text into the next
(Wodak & Kryzanowksi, 2008: 205-206).
Within CDS, there are multiple perspectives on how questions should be asked, and analysis developed. As a result, "theories rely upon a set of ontological assumptions and make a series of epistemological choices" (Hansen, 2006: 15). These assumptions and
choices depend on the object of analysis. As analysing the construction of identity in political discourse – by looking into the construction of a 'self' against multiple 'others' – is the main object of this research, a poststructuralist perspective is adopted. Identity is namely "at the ontological and epistemological centre of poststructuralist discourse analysis" (Hansen, 2006: 37). Poststructuralism's discursive ontology sees language as constitutive for what is brought into being. As such, language is “social and political, an inherently unstable system of signs that generate meaning through a simultaneous construction of identity and difference" (Hansen, 2006: 15). Moreover, a discursive epistemology implies that a
poststructuralist discourse analytical focus is "on the discursive construction of identity as both constrictive of and a product of foreign policy" (Hansen, 2006: 20).
Political discourse
As a result of this research's focus on the construction of identity within the American presidential discourse concerning the Syrian civil war, a poststructuralist perspective is adopted. Such a perspective opens "a discursive research agenda focused on the construction of identity and policy and the way in which the two are linked within political discourse" (Hansen, 2006: 28). During this research, discourse is approached as a socially constituted and socially constitutive "ensemble of ideas, concepts and categorizations through which meaning is allocated to social and physical phenomena" (Hajer, 2006: 45; Wodak & Reisigl, 2009: 89). Political discourse, then, is mainly defined as “who speaks to whom, as what, on what occasion and with what goals” (Van Dijk, 2002: 225).
An analysis of political discourse focusses on political rhetoric. This means analysing "the use of rhetorical means of persuasion by professional politicians" (Reisigl, 2008: 97). And although non-politicians can also produce political rhetoric in private contexts, this research focusses on prototypical political rhetoric (Reisigl, 2008: 97). More specifically, it focusses on American presidential rhetoric.
As Austermühl argues in his book The Great American Scaffold (2014), the
construction of identity is one of the main functions of American presidential discourse. Such a construction of identity always implies both inclusionary and exclusionary processes. A process of defining a 'self´ and an 'other' (Wodak, 2013: 394). This process of identity construction is often used in political discourse to underpin an legitimise (foreign) policies (Austermühl, 2014: 204; 216). Another function of political discourse is 'getting people on board' (Wodak et al., 2011) through political rhetoric. In order to do so, the language of politics and the rhetoric of politicians is engaged with "the management of public attitudes and social tides" through discursive practices (Mirhosseini, 2017: 707).
This process of constructing an identity by defining a ‘self’ and an ‘other’
within political discourse links it with the concept of ideology. Ideology is a systemic body of ideas and ideals, "organised from a particular point of view" (Hodge & Kress, 1993: 6). As such, ideology manifests itself via discourse, through which it is explicitly expressed and formulated (Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, 2016: 712). Such ideological discourse, as in Van Dijk's ideological square theory, is tactically formalised to "emphasize our [the 'self' its] good things and their [the 'other' its] bad things" (Van Dijk, 2000: 49). This process of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation (Van Dijk, 2005: 80) is not a new
especially American presidential crisis and conflict discourse is dominated by a speech template that constructs such an 'us' ('self') versus 'them' ('other') dichotomy (2014: 167).
Before looking more thoroughly at the concept of identity and the construction of a 'self' and 'other' dichotomy within American presidential discourse, it is important
to shortly look at the concept of framing as a tool within political discourse. This is a concept that applies to all kinds of social research, but it is particularly applicable to discourse
analysis. In Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm (1993), Entman states: “to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text” (1993: 52). As a process of selection and salience, framing calls “attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements” (Entman, 1993: 55). Within this process, frames make "a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences” while simultaneously directing attention away from other aspects of the reality described (Entman, 1993: 53). As such, framing determines how people
understand and remember a problem, as well as how they evaluate and choose to act upon it. The process of framing, thus, defines problems, diagnoses causes, makes moral judgements, and suggests remedies (Entman, 1993: 54). Frames can be reproduced in different texts, and this intertextuality of frames can be used in political rhetoric to manage public attitudes towards a certain topic.
Identity
After having discussed the theoretical practice of a CDA, the concepts (political) discourse and framing, and after adopting a poststructuralist perspective, it is now time to look more thoroughly at the concept of identity. The concept is intrinsically connected with political discourse. And it is even more important with regards to this research due to the focus on the construction of identity within presidential discourse.
In recent years, there has been an academic interest in the American presidential discourse (Yuan & Lin, 2016: 290). As argued, the concept of power is central to CDS, as "it often analyses the language use of those in power" (Wodak, 2013: xxix). And because it is hard to imagine an institution "with as much power as the American presidency and the consequence of its discourse is without equal (Austermühl, 2014: 191), American presidential discourse is an interesting and relevant genre of discourse to look at. It is, thus, not surprising that in recent years, much CDA has focussed on the U.S.' political discourse concerning the
Iraq war (for example: Paolucci, 2009; Sovacool & Halfon, 2007; Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, 2016, Austermühl, 2014).
Although it has been argued that identity construction plays an important role in political discourse, there is still a lack of research on the construction of identity within the American presidential discourse concerning the Syrian civil war. And this while civil wars are a particularly interesting case of analysis. Because as Hansen argues, “civil wars, and human rights violations more generally, confront the international community with situations where multiple others are trying to gain political, military, and discursive support, forcing politicians to decide on the identity on a number of subjects" (2006: 41). The Syrian civil war, as a conflict were actors from all sides committed or contributed to some form of crimes against humanity, has required politicians to decide on the identity of such actors. This research sheds light on the processes of identity construction against multiple ‘others’ in the American presidential discourse. By doing so, this research shows how the U.S.’ presidents have decided on the identity of different actors involved in the Syrian civil war.
Such insights can be of value as identity construction within presidential discourse is often used to underpin an legitimise (foreign) policies. This discursive process of identity construction is used within political discourse to legitimise foreign involvement by the ‘self’ and to delegitimise acts by an ‘other’ (Austermühl, 2014: 204; 216). It does so by
constructing an ‘other’ that is threatening the ‘self’ and by simplifying and dramatizing the nature of both the good in-group and an evil out-group (Hansen, 2006: 37-38). CDA can help show how such identities are contrasted and constructed within presidential discourse.
For decades, the construction of identity, and especially the ‘us’ versus ‘them’
dichotomy, has been one of the main discursive tools within American presidential discourse to frame external political events and justify foreign involvement (Austermühl, 2014: 191; 216; 218). Also, the construction of a good in-group and an evil out-group made up a big part of George W. Bush’s presidential discourse concerning the Iraq war, and the War on
Terror in general, during his presidency. It is, thus, important to analyse the construction of
identity, and how it has been applied to frame the conflict and its actors and
Constructing a dichotomy
As argued, identity construction is an important part of political discourse and it involves inclusionary and exclusionary processes that are used to justify certain actions of the 'self' and delegitimise actions by the 'other'. Approached from a poststructuralist perspective, within identity construction, language can be used to draw clear boundaries between the 'self' (the 'us') and the 'other' (the 'them') (Wodak, 2013: 394). By doing so, it creates a dichotomy - "a division or contrast between two things that are represented as being opposed or entirely different" (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019). As the construction of such a dichotomy between a 'self' and an 'other' is the main object of this analysis, it is important to look into this concept, and its process, more extensively.
The process of constructing a dichotomy between the 'self' and the 'other' can be theorised as "a dual process of linking and differentiation". This entails that meaning and identity are discursively constructed "through a series of signs that are linked to each other to constitute relations of sameness as well as through a differentiation to another series of juxtaposed signs" (Hansen, 2006: 42). As such, "definitions of identity depend heavily on contradistinctions" (Austermühl, 2014: 282). Often, this leads to a simplified and dramatized description of "the nature of the respective members of a good in-group and an evil out-group" (Austermühl, 2014: 204). Within this process, certain signs are, thus, linked to either the 'self' or the 'other'. The signs that make up the identity of the 'self' and the 'other' often contradict each other. For example: the 'self' is framed as being good and strong, and the 'other' is framed as being bad, sometimes even as evil, and weak.
As Fairclough argues, analysing and describing such a process is one of the tasks for a CDA. To show how antagonists (the 'other'/'them') are relatively explicitly framed as malign while the benign character of the protagonists (the 'self'/'us') is by contrast assumed or presupposed (2005: 47). Such analysis is of value because within political discourse, identity construction can underpin and legitimise (foreign) policies by constructing an 'other' as threatening the security and social fabric of the 'self' (Hansen, 2006: 37-38). Negative 'other' presentation within identity construction can also be used to delegitimise acts by the 'other' (Chilton, 2004: 47)
Although such constructions of a dichotomy tend to be radical of form, this does not necessarily need to be the case. Even if a radical 'other' is at the centre of the political
rhetoric, this is an 'other' constructed "through and stabilised by a simultaneous articulation of a number of other identities of a less radical and more ambiguous character" (Hansen, 2006:
41). This means that the existence of a radical, evil, 'other' does not necessarily exclude the existence of other, less radical 'others'. There can be different degrees of otherness. As a result, "a theory of identity whose ontological flexibility facilitates the empirical study of different degrees of radicalisation" (Hansen, 2006: 41) is needed in order to study the full range of identity constructions taking place in discourse.
When analysing the construction of identity by looking at the construction of a dichotomy within political discourse, attention also needs to be paid to "the importance of spatial, temporal, and ethical identities for the construction of identity and difference in foreign policy discourse" (Hansen, 2006: 46). This means that identity construction can have multiple dimensions. There is (1) a spatial dimension, where "the space of the national community is sharply differentiated from the anarchic international realm", and (2) a
temporal dimension, where "within this national space progress can unfold while it is deferred on the outside". Also, it can have (3) an ethical dimension, where "responsibility is situated between governments and citizens while 'international responsibility' is absent, perhaps even dangerous" (Hansen, 2006: 46).
The identity construction of the American 'self' and the un-American 'other' in
presidential discourse is not an isolated construction. As a rhetorical construct, the 'us' versus 'them' dichotomy and the construction of a good in-group and an evil out-group as part of American presidential discourse "existed long before the War on Terror" to frame external political events (Austermühl, 2014: 191; 218). As a result, there is a long tradition of
literature on this subject. In Orientalism (1978), for example, Edward Saïd dealt extensively with the history of the dichotomy between the West and the Orient. Moreover, Huntington argued that the interaction between the Orient (and its Islamic religion) and the West for both sides is viewed as a 'clash of civilisations' (1993: 32).
In line with what has already been mentioned, the frames used to describe the
American 'self' and the un-American 'other' take on the form of conceptual binaries. In other words, "these are mutually exclusive semantic units that find their lexical implementation in culturally powerful, positively and negatively charged god and devil terms" (Austermühl, 2014: 204). However, as argued, during the analysis of this research, a theory of
identity construction whose ontological flexibility facilitates the empirical study of different degrees of radical 'otherness' is adopted.
Nonetheless, most importantly within the logic of the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy in the American presidential discourse is "the question of the humanity, or the absence thereof, of its opponents”. The explicit or implicit answer to this question is “expressed through
oppositional terms such good vs. evil, humane vs. inhumane, and above all, civilized vs. savage". As a result of such stark conceptual binaries, within the logic of the
dichotomy "staying neutral is not an option, neither for the domestic nor the international public" (Austermühl, 2014: 209; 214). In other words: 'you are either with us, or against us'. Within such rhetoric, "political decisions are based on what needs to be done to overcome evil and preserve good". This 'us' versus 'them' logic within Americas presidential discourse functions as a way of justifying foreign involvement, including military action (Austermühl, 2014: 216).
Looking critically at critical discourse analysis
As said, in recent years, CDA has been extensively used to scrutinize aspects of political discourses and much research has focussed on the U.S.' political discourse concerning the Iraq war. As Wodak argues, CDA can best be approached as "a problem-oriented
interdisciplinary research programme, subsuming a variety of approaches, each drawing on different epistemological assumptions, with different theoretical models, research methods and agenda" (2013: xxi). This makes CDA an inherently subjective approach. As the nature, aim, scope and content can differ enormously between such analysis, there is no general structured template on how to conduct a CDA. Therefore, this research strives to look
critically at previous research on U.S.' political discourse. This not only helps getting a better understanding of the different ways a CDA can be approached, it also allows for improving the overall process of conducting a CDA. In order to do so, some relevant
researches are being critically discussed.
In their article Constructing the “self” and the “other” in Bush’s political discourse
before and after the Iraq war (2002–2008), Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan (2016) conduct an
analysis that initially functioned as an example for this research. In this article, they looked at the construction of the 'self' and the 'other' in Bush’s political discourse before and after the Iraq war (2002–2008). Among others, the results of the study indicate that before the invasion, Iraq was framed as an active entity in upgrading its WMDs’ program and
supporting terrorism. However, after the invasion, Iraq was framed as a beacon of hope in the Middle East, thus, justifying America’s illegitimate act of invading Iraq (Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, 2016: 710).
As the article has a seemingly similar focus compared to this research, in the start-up phase of this research the article functioned as an example. However, in the process, some
flaws in Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan research were detected, such as the absence of both an extensive context and an extensive summary of the considerations and decisions made during the data gathering process. As a result, in the end only a hand full of elements were used in this research – this process is extensively described in the method-section (starting from page 24 to 30). Nonetheless, due to its influence on this research the article is dealt with quite extensively/ Moreover, it is argued why certain parts of the article are viewed as defective and how this could be improved.
As stated, Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan use a way of presenting numbered sentences that allowed for a structured and easy-to-follow analysis. Throughout their
research, Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan use sentences from the speeches they analysed to build their argumentation around. They do so by (1) numbering all the sentences they talk about during their analysis and (2) they present groups of these sentences in their analysis, for example sentence 15 till 20. Next, (3) they discuss the sentences from this group of sentences individually in the text directly above or beneath the group of sentences. For example:
The mental processes that America is associated with, starkly exhibit the “self” as an influential (as in sentences 39 and 40), strong (as in sentences 41 and 42), compassionate (as in sentences 43–45), and honourable (as in sentence 46) entity in the world (Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, 2016: 718).
By doing so, by keeping description and interpretation apart, they allowed for some form of transparency and abductive reasoning (Wodak, 2013: xxiii; xl). This way of numbering sentences – and referring to them directly above or beneath the group of sentences in the analysis - is also used during this research's analysis.
Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan also use statistical data to back up their qualitative analysis. By counting the number of times certain relevant words got mentioned, they show the diachrony in Bush's presidential discourse. However, throughout the article there is no explanation whatsoever as to which criteria they used while counting the usage of certain words. Such a form of transparency is needed in a subjective method like the CDA. Therefore, this research not only adopts a somewhat similar statistical part to back up its analysis, it also includes a detailed explanation of the criteria applied.
Another part of their analysis where Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan did not allow for much transparency, is their process of selecting sentences from the speeches that they analysed and that they used throughout the research to illustrate certain findings. In their
analysis, for example, the use the sentence "America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights" to illustrate the construction of the American 'self' against the Iraqi 'other' in Obama's presidential discourse concerning the Iraq war. As their research focusses on the Iraq War, the American 'self' is preferably contrasted against an Iraqi 'other'. In the sentence above, it is not clear against which 'other' this American 'self´ is contrasted. It is assumable this is against the Iraqi 'other', but it is hard to know for sure based on the article itself.
The context of a sentence can allow for a convincing argumentation why the 'self' is in fact contrasted against the respective 'other'.The article by Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, however, does not provide a thorough macro-context of the conflict. While continuously talking and referring to the Iraqi war, and although discourses cannot be understood without taking its context into consideration, the article does not provide its reader with any
understanding of the context of the discourse that is discussed. Moreover, the article leaves too much room for interpretation and subjectivity concerning their selection of
sentences. First, they do not articulate from which speech their sentences are from, and two, they do not present any information about their criteria for selecting sentences. This research attempts to keep the subjectivity to a minimum were possible. One way of doing so is by only selecting sentences where a Syrian 'other' is explicitly or implicitly mentioned. The process and the considerations that went with it are extensively described in the method-section (starting from page 24 to 30).
Throughout their analysis, Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan use a two-fold methodological approach. The article's usage of Van Dijk’s ideological square theory is adopted as it shows that this theory allows for the effective analysis of the polarization between the 'self' and the 'other'. The other is their usage of Halliday’s systemic functional grammar, which they effectively use "to analyse the speeches and to designate the strategies that Bush utilises to differentiate between the protagonist (America) and the antagonist (Iraq)" (Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, 2016: 711). This is concept is not adopted as it does not truly help this research gaining a better understanding of the diachronic dimension of 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy. Also, the article could have paid more attention to the concept of identity instead of that of transitivity. As the article focusses on the articulation of the American 'self' against an Iraqi 'other', it implicitly talks extensively about the construction of identity in the
American presidential discourse concerning the Iraq war. However, the concept of identity is only mentioned once throughout the article.
A CDA that does provide its reader with both a thorough macro-context and
theoretical framework is the article Discursive double-legitimation of (avoiding) another war
in Obama’s 2013 address on Syria by Mirhosseini (2017). He explores the concept of
legitimacy-building in the United States President’s 2013 Address to the Nation on Syria. Among others, his CDA illustrates how the speech attempted "to legitimate the prospect of a direct American military engagement in Syria on the one hand, and to justify avoiding another war that may prove too costly, on the other" (Mirhosseini, 2017: 706). It can be argued that the article by Mirhosseini shows an extensive macro-context and theoretical framework. Almost half of his article is dedicated to introducing the reader to the concepts used throughout the analysis and providing the reader with an understanding of the context. In comparison, the article by Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan is only dedicated to doing so by roughly a third. By doing so, Mirhosseini allows its reader to truly understand the discourse by knowing its context.
The article Representation of the Syrian Crisis in the American Political Speeches: A
Critical Discourse Analysis by Deygan Darweesh & Dhahi Muzhir (2016) shows that an
interesting CDA, with relevant findings, can become unreadable and incomprehensible if it does not obey to some 'CDA ground rules'. In this article, they conduct a CDA of the Syrian crisis in the U.S.' political speeches and the representation of this crisis in these speeches. Among others, they found that the American political discourse was not neutral. Rather, it was "manipulatively employed to express negative ideology towards the political crisis in Syria". Moreover, they concluded that different strategies were used "to show negative other-representation and positive self-other-representation " (Deygan Darweesh & Dhahi Muzhir, 2016: 47).
First, the article by Deygan Darweesh & Dhahi Muzhir does not provide the reader with any macro-context to relate its findings to at all. The article, for example, discusses a part of Obama's address to the nation on Syria in 2013. The article immediately starts with analysing the discursive practices used in the speech. However, the reader has not in any way been given information concerning the context of this speech. This makes the interesting analysis rather hard to understand for a reader that does not have sufficient knowledge of the context. Second, Deygan Darweesh & Dhahi Muzhir show extensive quotes from the
speeches, sometimes over 300 words long. Then, they discuss parts of these quote in a rather unclear and chaotic fashion compared to, for example, the work by Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan. A description of the macro-context and a clearer structuring of the data and its interpretation would have allowed for a much better reading.
In conclusion, a few ground rules concerning a CDA can be argued for. First, the research must provide its reader with an extensive macro-context both the research and the reader can relate the findings to. Second, the theoretical framework must be thorough. Third, a CDA must allow transparency and reduce subjectivity by providing an extensive summary of the considerations and decisions made concerning the data gathering process, and its subsequent criteria. Fourth, the presentation of the data and the data its interpretation needs to be clearly structured and must allow the reader to be able to see where the data is from.
Labels
In order to effectively show the discursive pattern used throughout the discourse, during the analysis, labels are used to indicate certain phases within this pattern. By doing so, it tries to provide insights with regards to the discursive model used in the identity construction underlying the legitimising practices of the U.S.’ foreign policy with regards to the Middle Eastern region. The labels, thus, help show the pattern that, as is shown in the analysis, is used in the discourse to justify or legitimise certain actions or policies. The usage of labels also allows for future research on political rhetoric that compares such results. By checking whether these labels are applicable to other situations as well, it could help understanding the recurrence of this discursive pattern that is used justify or legitimise certain actions or
policies from the U.S. in the Middle East.
In the by Zeher Abid's & Abdul Manan's analysed presidential discourse concerning the Iraq war, for example, one can see a certain discursive pattern exist. First, Bush frames the Hussein regime as being the scapegoat. This is the actor the 'self' frames as the actor which is to blame for (most of) the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults in the given context. Second, Bush frames the Hussein regime and the American 'self' as inherently different, mostly using binaries. The 'self' is good, the 'other' is bad. As such, the scapegoat is alienated. Third, Bush frames the alleged usage of weapons of mass destruction by the Hussein regime as an unforgivable act. Here, the 'self' frames the 'other' as conducting, plotting, or desiring an act so horrific, that it crosses a line. This act is used by the 'self' to justify certain actions. For example, Bush used it to get military involved in Iraq. Fourth, Bush frames America as having turned Iraq into a beacon of hope in the Middle East. The 'self' frames itself as bringer of virtue, which legitimises the actions of the 'self'.
Four labels can thus be deducted from the analysis by Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan on the American presidential discourse concerning the Iraq war, and applied to this research.
The scapegoat, the alienation, the unforgivable act and the virtue. During this research its analysis, it is investigated whether these labels are also applicable to the American presidential discourse concerning the Syrian civil war. Two concepts are particularly useful to help understand such discursive practices.
First, Accusation in a Mirror (AiM). The basic idea of AiM is simple: one (falsely) "accuses one's enemies of conducting, plotting, or desiring to commit precisely the same transgressions that one plans to commit against them" (Marcus, 2012: 359). So, by accusing someone of plotting to do something (such as killing you) it becomes easier to justify doing the same thing (killing the other before he or she kills you). This can be used as a discursive tool in political discourse. By framing the 'other', the scapegoat, as a threat to the 'self' - for example because it is plotting to use weapons of mass destruction - it becomes more legitimate to eliminate this threat - for example by getting military involved.
Second, the concept of lesser evil reasoning. This kind or reasoning is applicable to situations where one is faced with conflict-situations "where a greater evil can only be avoided when a lesser evil is caused or permitted (Spielthenner, 2010: 139). According to such reasoning, when confronted with two evils – or perhaps even more – the lesser, or least, evil is always to be chosen. This concept is also applicable to political discourse and relates to this research theory of identity whose ontological flexibility facilitates the empirical study of different degrees of radicalisation. By framing the 'other', the scapegoat, as being a bigger evil than other actors, a certain degree of otherness between the different actors involved is implemented. Moreover, by framing one actor as being a lesser evil, compared to another actor, it helps justifying certain policies that favour one actor over another.
Method
In the previous section, multiple concepts and theories applicable and relevant to the research question are discussed. Now, it is time to discuss the methodological approach that is used during the analysis of this research. But first, the way this research strives to keep the subjectivity of this CDA to a minimum is discussed. Then, before discussing the framework that is used to analyse the gathered data, the methodology of this research’s process of gathering data is described extensively. Lastly, the methodological framework that is used in the analysis is discussed.
Avoiding subjectivity
In order to gather the data needed to answer the formulated research question, a CDA is conducted. A CDA does not study a linguistic unit per se, but rather social
phenomena. Such phenomena are necessarily complex and, thus, require an interdisciplinary and multi-methodical approach (Wodak, 2013: xxiii). Within an interdisciplinary approach, theoretical insights and concepts from different academic disciplines are interwoven in order to answer questions which complexity ask for insights from different academic fields.
A CDA is a method of analysis with a delicate line between on one hand some form of unavoidable subjectivity, and unreliability on the other. And although this applies to all academic work, a critical discourse analyst must be aware that his work is driven by social, economic and political motives one cannot exclude (Van Leeuwen, 2006). As this research understands the construction of identity as a process of linking and differentiating signs, it also poses the methodological questions whether different analysts would come to the same results if they worked with the same selection of texts (Hansen, 2006: 45). This means that the researcher's role of looking for and selecting signs for its analysis can be highly
subjective. As a result, some poststructuralism's critics argue that "poststructuralism sees any reading as equally valid". That 'anything goes'.
That 'anything goes' during a CDA with a poststructuralist perspective is, however, not necessarily the case. The methodology of CDS namely insists on readings "based on explicit discursive articulations of signs and identities” and “that one has to pay careful analytical attention to how signs are linked and juxtaposed, how they construct selves and others, and how they legitimise particular policies" (Hansen, 2006: 45). As such, if an analyst overlooks important signs, misinterprets the stability between linked and juxtaposed signs, or
exaggerates or downplays the degree of difference between the 'self' and the 'other', this makes a weaker reading (Hansen, 2006: 45). As a researcher, it is thus important to acknowledge this nature of a CDA. In order for a CDA be reliable, (1) "CDA researchers make their own positions and interests explicit while retaining their respective scientific methodologies and while remaining self-reflective of their own research process" and (2) it is important to keep "description and interpretation apart, thus enabling transparency
and abductive reasoning" (Wodak, 2013: xxiii; xl).
In order to avoid this research becoming a weak reading, choices are justified by substantiated argumentations. The research, for example, is conducted based on one primary genre of discourse: presidential discourse. Moreover, only speeches by the U.S.'s presidents (Barack Obama until January 20, 2017 and Donald Trump since then) concerning the Syrian civil war are analysed. Only presidential speeches are analysed because (1) the American presidency is one of the most, if not the most, powerful institution in the world and the consequence of its discourse is without equal, and (2) because Vice-Presidents and other high officials within the administrations normally speak on behalf of the President. Therefore, analysing their discourse as well would not add much depth to the analysis. Only analysing presidential discourse also (3) helps keeping the research do-able within the given amount of time for this research.
During this research, the transcript of presidential speeches were analysed. The transcripts of these speeches are retrieved from three different websites:
http://www.millercenter.org, www.presidentialrhetoric.com and www.americanrhetoric.com. In total, 34 speeches are used during the analysis. The process of selecting useful and relevant speeches is described in this section (starting from page 25 to 28). In order to ensure that the texts are solely dedicated to the presidential discourse, all texts need to be in the form of a speech. As a result, news conferences, reforms and presidential conversations are not
analysed (Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, 2016: 714). Moreover, during the time-frame within the analysis is conducted, two different presidents were in office: Barack Obama and Donald Trump. It is likely that both presidents have their own discourse(s). Since the aim of this research is to look at the changing nature of the presidential discourse of the U.S., the fact that both presidents probably have their own discourse(s) only adds an interesting dimension to this diachrony. If this factor is acknowledged, it is thus not at all problematic.
Analyst need to be critical on their sources. This means critically assessing to which extent the information they give is credible and accurate. Moreover, it means reflecting on what the sources enable this research to conclude and possible biases. All the transcripts of
the speeches include a video of the respective president giving the speech. As some speeches were also listened to and no inaccuracies in the transcripts were found, it was concluded that the transcripts are likely to be both credible and accurate. As this research’s object of analysis is presidential discourse, presidential speeches are a relevant and useful source of material. Also, there does not seem to be a form of selection bias where the analysed discourse differs from the discourse itself, as the entire available presidential discourse concerning Syria was analysed. Despite this research’s efforts at analysing all the presidential speeches that cover Syria to any extent, it can be possible that some speeches that cover Syria were not found or selected. However, the hypothetical changes of this missing data having a significant effect on the outcome of this research can be considered low as the analysed discourse is extensive.
Although the research did not pose much ethical dilemmas, there are some ethical considerations to make explicit. For example, "being a researcher does not place somebody outside of discourse" (Spratt, 2017: 20). A researcher cannot escape, to some extent, adding to or becoming part of a certain discourse – even with regards to the discourse he or she critically analysis. Although seemingly unavoidable, researchers need to be aware that as analysts, they are "just as embroiled in discourses as anybody else" (Spratt, 2017: 20).
Also, when critically analysing texts, there is always a risk of another bias: becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. This means “finding in one’s analysis what one expects to find – while ignoring or manipulating instances of presidential discourse that do not fit into the intertextual model” (Austermühl, 2014: 295). The chances of becoming such a self-fulfilling prophecy needed to be kept to a minimum. In order to achieve this, a small data sample was analysed before diving in all the texts that were analysed. This small data sample analysis was also used to collect initial observations, formulate general hypotheses, identify promising lines inquiry, and test the methodological toolkit (Mautner, 2008: 49). Furthermore, this research's phase of gathering data and going through all the speeches, was documented and can be found in the subsequent section.
The methodology
As a critical discourse analysist, it is important to remain self-reflective on the research process. In this case, this means providing the reader with an extensive overview of the considerations and decisions that were made during the process of gathering data. By doing so, by being transparent, a researcher opens the possibility for other researchers to truly understand the process and allow for substantive criticism. However, very little research
enables other analysists to really understand the thinking and considerations prior to the choices the researcher made. Therefore, during the data gathering phase, a journal of the process was kept. This journal was later rewritten into this extensive summary concerning this process, which is now discussed.
The first step consisted of selecting a small sample of speeches fit for the CDA. By searching for the terms 'Syria' and 'Al-Assad', five presidential speeches in which the
President talked about the Syrian conflict were selected from the database of the Millercenter. These speeches were subjected to an initial analysis. By looking at some speeches that led up to America's military involvement in Syria, the first scan found that the 'self' and 'other' were being addressed and contrasted while Obama also seemed to take different degrees of
otherness into account. Moreover, the Assad regime was first framed as being next in line to fall. The concept of democracy and the expected democratic transition were mentioned, as well as the moderate 'other' in Syria in need of help from the 'self'. The presidential discourse changed when Assad did not leave office. After drawing a red line (the usage of chemical weapons) and Assad allegedly crossing this line, Obama framed the stakes in the Syrian conflict as a matter of national security. By doing so, he seemed to justify America's military involvement in the conflict.
Sentences from these speeches were selected using three categories: the 'self', the 'other' and the 'different degrees of otherness'. Here, only sentences in which the American 'self' or a Syrian 'other' were explicitly or implicitly mentioned, were selected. This already seemed to remove some form of interpretation, although this still meant that decisions about whether a sentence was fit for the CDA were made on somewhat subjective grounds.
Moreover, as argued, a radical 'other' is constructed through and stabilised by a simultaneous articulation of a number of other identities of a less radical and more ambiguous character. As a result, sentences were selected in which the President mentioned a Syrian 'other' taking these different degrees of otherness into account.
In line with the work of Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan, the selected sentences were coded as being either 'material', 'mental' or 'relational' transitivity structures. This was more difficult than expected. Some sentences did not seem to fit either one of them. Moreover, this research began to question whether these categories would truly help gaining a better
understanding of the diachronic dimension of 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy. After some considerations, it was decided to drop the concept of transitivity altogether. The fact that Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan used this concept was no reason to blindly follow them.
Next, the sentences were coded among the categories of ‘spatial’, ‘temporal’ and ‘ethical’ identity construction. This was probably as hard as coding them accordingly to the different transitivity structures. Some sentences could be coded accordingly, but clearly only a relatively small part of them. The value that these concepts added to the needed
understanding of the identity construction within the presidential discourse remained evident, nonetheless. As a result, the categories of ‘spatial’, ‘temporal’ and ‘ethical’ identity
construction were kept, since they did seem to help getting a better understanding of the diachronic dimension of the 'self' versus 'other' dichotomy. Coding all the sentences accordingly, however, seemed impossible and unnecessary. Therefore, the concepts were used during the analysis to specific sentences.
After these decisions, the research began analysing as many speeches as possible for the data set. Due to the changing 'other', also searching for terms like 'ISIL' and 'terror' was needed in order to look find relevant speeches. After all the speeches available at
the Millercenter were looked at, it was concluded that this site had too little speeches available for the analysis. As a result, two other websites were also used looking for usable speeches (www.presidentialrhetoric.com & www.americanrhetoric.com). From this point, sentences were being selected from usable speeches from 2011 to 2018.
Year Number of speeches
2011 2 2012 3 2013 6 2014 4 2015 8 2016 4 2017 4 2018 3 Total speeches 34
Average per year 4,25
Average every 12 months 4,58
Figure 1. speeches analysed.
Sources: http://www.millercenter.org, www.presidentialrhetoric.com & www.americanrhetoric.com.
In total, and as shown in figure 1, 34 usable speeches within this time frame were selected – from the moment Obama started talking about Syria in 2011 till the moment Trump
announced to withdraw American troops from Syria as a result of the defeat of ISIL in December 2018. 27 speeches were held by Obama, 7 by Trump. As shown in figure 2, taking their time respective time in office as presidents into account, this meant one speech every 2,41 months for Obama and one speech every 2,86 months for Trump. Because Obama was president during the period the conflict was at its peak, I decided this is an acceptable difference.
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
First speech: May 2011. First speech: February 2017
Last speech: September 2016. Last speech: September 2018
Months: 65 Months: 20
Speeches: 27 Speeches: 7
One speech every: 2,41 months. One speech every: 2,86 months
Average per year/12 months: 4,98 speeches Average per year/12 months: 4,20 speeches Figure 2. Average speeches Obama & Trump.
Sources: http://www.millercenter.org, www.presidentialrhetoric.com & www.americanrhetoric.com.
While selecting sentences from all the selected speeches, an important decision was made. Following the work by Zeher Abid & Abdul Maman, while selecting sentences from the speeches, there were numerous sentences concerning the American 'self that seemed to fit the criteria. Without surprise, Obama talked extensively about the American identity. But as argued, a 'self' is contrasted against an 'other'. In this case the American 'self' needed to be contrasted against a Syrian 'other'. As a result, more criteria were needed for selecting sentences concerning the American 'self'. Zeher Abid & Abdul Manan seemed to be talking about sentences concerning the identity of the American 'self' that were not necessarily contrasted against their research Iraqi 'other'. In other research as well, within the sentences used to show the identity of the 'self', the 'self' was not de facto constructed against the
respective 'other'. In some of these cases, based on the context of the sentences it could in fact be argued that the 'self' was implicitly constructed against the respective 'other'. Such
argumentation, that was not even given in the articles, however, still leaves too much room for subjective interpretation from the side of the researcher.
As CDA is already a subjective method, such 'unnecessary' room for interpretation should be avoided if possible. Therefore, only sentences concerning the American 'self' where the 'self' was explicitly constructed against a Syrian 'other' were selected. If the sentence did not explicitly refer to a Syrian 'other', this had to be made extremely clear by either a sentence before or after the sentence in question. If this was the case, I added the extremely clear implicit 'other' in the selected sentences. Take for example sentence: "It also presents a serious danger to our national security" (August 31, 2013). The context of this sentence made it extremely clear that 'it' referred to 'the alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government'. As a result, the sentence was selected and presented as: "It [the alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government] also presents a serious danger to our [America's] national security" (August 31, 2013).
Concerning the 'other', this was less of a problem. Since in all the speeches analysed, the President of America talks about the 'other', it is clear that this 'other' is in some way contrasted against the American 'self' the President speaks on behalf of. Therefore, sentences concerning a Syrian 'other´ did not necessarily had to be explicitly constructed against an American 'self' in order to be selected.
Adding words between brackets to help putting certain sentences in their respective context resulted in the need for norms and rules concerning this practice. As a basic rule, it was decided that, preferably, the context given between the brackets should be derived from the immediate context of the sentence itself. So, either just before or just after the respective sentence. If this was not possible, but the overall speech made it extremely clear, the brackets were also adopted.
During the process, two important decisions were made that need to be mentioned. First, it was decided to wait until Obama started talking about ISIL in relation to Syria before selecting sentences concerning ISIL. The first instances Obama mentioned ISIL were namely in relation to Iraq. Second, in order to make sure that the selection of all the possible
sentences was decided upon with the same criteria, a second analysis and selection was done after critically looking at the process until then. This was necessary as the criteria for
selecting sentences for the analysis changed, both consciously and unconsciously.
Statistical data
After the selection of sentences from the 34 speeches was considered done, the process of gathering a more quantitative data set out of this selection of sentences began. Although the qualitative sentences are the main data for the analysis, the story is backed up with some quantitative numbers and figures. In order to do so, the number of times certain theme’s – such as democracy or the Assad regime – were mentioned within the selection of sentences were counted. Here, it was important to count the number of references to a certain theme within the selection of sentences, and not by looking at the original transcripts of the speeches that were analysed. By counting the number of references in the speeches, for example, it would have been possible to start counting the number of times the word
'democracy' was mentioned without it explicitly referring to a Syrian 'other'. By only looking at the selection of sentences, the data set would be more reliable.
Staying with the example of 'democracy', sometimes the presidents would refer to this concept without mentioning it explicitly. For example, in the sentence "President Assad now has a choice: He can lead the transition or get out of the way" (19 May 2011), 'transition' refers to the democratic transition in Syria. Another, similar case was the sentence: "How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain, but we have a huge stake in the
outcome" (January 24, 2012). From the context of this sentence, it was clear what was meant, namely: "How this incredible transformation [the democratic transition in Syria] will end remains uncertain, but we [America] have a huge stake in the outcome" (January 24, 2012). As a result, it was decided that if the context clearly showed what was meant, these sentences would also count.
With regards to the other theme’s, this problem was also present. For example, concerning the sentence: "It also presents a serious danger to our national security". The context of the sentence made it clear that 'it' referred to the alleged chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government. As a result, I decided to count such clear cases as well. The same goes for ISIL in the sentence "It [ISIL] is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates". Now, some more examples are discussed. "The regime of Assad must come to an end". This sentence indirectly seemed to refer to a democratic change. However, in the first place it refers to the Assad regime and, therefore, I counted the sentence as such. In the sentences "We [America] will continue to cooperate closely to guard against that danger", ‘that danger’ refers to the chemical weapons in the hands of the Assad regime. But in this case, I chose to count it as a sentence that referred to chemical weapons, not the Assad
regime. "Because true stability in Syria depends upon establishing a government that is responsible to its people." From the context of this sentence, it could be clearly derived that true stability was something the American 'self' aimed for. What it, thus, wanted was establishing a government that was responsible for its people. In other words, a democratic process. As a result, I counted it as a sentence directly referring to democracy.
In conclusion, if the context was clear about the nature of the implicit reference, they were counted. If it was not clear enough, they were not. Although this process was inherently subjective to some degree, by explaining the considerations that went with it, some degree of transparency is guaranteed. With regards to the number of times a certain concept, name or word got mentioned within one sentence, one, clear, rule was decided upon: a sentence can only count for 1 count per category. So, a sentence in which ISIL gets mentioned three times still counts as 1 count for ISIL. However, a sentence in which ISIL and Assad was
mentioned, meant 1 count for both ISIL and Assad. In the end, the instances that were
counted are coded accordingly and can be found in the appendix (page number 79). By doing so, it should allow a certain degree of transparency and reduce subjectivity.
Lastly, when finally translating these numbers per speech into visual output, this resulted in seemingly unusable figures. Since some speeches were long and solely dedicated to the Syrian conflict, and some speeches only contained a few sentences concerning the conflict, a visual representation of the number of times a certain word got mentioned did not show a clear trajectory. However, when all the speeches per year were taken together, it compensated for this and the output showed a clear and usable trajectory. Still, it had to be taken into account that certain numbers just go down because of the fact that, for example, Trump talks less about the conflict. However, the figures showed how the discourse changed over time, nonetheless. And after all, that is what this research is interested in: the how rather than the why.
Methodological framework
In this section, this research’s efforts at keeping the subjectivity to a minimum and the methodology of the process of gathering data have been discussed extensively. Now, it is time to discuss the methodological approach that is used during the analysis of this research. So how exactly, using which application of the concepts and theories discussed in previous sections, is the presidential discourse analysed.
Figure 3. Van Dijk’s ideological square theory
First, throughout the analysis, Van Dijk's ideological square theory is employed as an analytical framework to examine the polarisation in the presidential discourse. As figure 3 shows, within positive-'self' representation, the in-group's members (the 'us') are represented positively in the discourse, by mitigating their negative and emphasizing their positive properties or actions. By representing the out-group's members (the 'them') negatively in the discourse, by mitigating their positive and emphasizing their negative properties or actions, negative-'other' representation can be established (Van Dijk, 1998: 33).
Second, an analytical concern of different degrees of (radical) difference and
Otherness is combined with the three dimensions of identity construction (spatial, temporal, and ethical). By doing so, "a theoretical double grip" is produced (Hansen, 2006: 51). This double grip is used throughout the analysis as it provides "a lens through which discursive differences, similarities, and changes can be studied, thus ultimately furthering theoretical understanding of the links between identity and policy" (Hansen, 2006: 51).
Third, to get a better understanding of the discursive pattern that is used within the discourse, labels are used throughout the analysis to indicate certain phases within this pattern that are used in the discourse to justify or legitimise certain actions or policies. Four labels are used to indicate this discursive pattern: the scapegoat, the alienation of the scapegoat, the unforgivable act by the scapegoat and the virtue of the 'self'. These labels show how the
discursive pattern used by Bush during the Iraq war is seemingly similar to that of Obama and Trump during the Syrian civil war.
Lastly, the concepts Accusation in a Mirror (AiM) and lesser evil reasoning are used in the analysis to help make sense of the discursive practices used by Obama and Trump. The former helps doing so by showing how the 'self' justifies certain actions by accusing the 'other' of plotting certain actions. The latter concept is used to show how the presidents decide on the identity of multiple 'others', favouring on actor above another by explicitly or implicitly framing one as being a lesser evil. This concepts also helps articulating the analytical concern of different degrees of (radical) difference and Otherness.
