MA Discourse and Communication Studies Master thesis
Strategies in the Move of “Advancing a Standpoint” in Government Brochures An analysis of audience-directed strategic maneuvering by the Dutch National Coordinator
for Security and Counterterrorism
Marsha Wolfkamp 11398000 June 2018 Supervisor Dr. C. (Corina) Andone Second reader Dr. J.H.M. (Jean) Wagemans
Abstract
Government communications aimed at citizens appear to be ambiguous since the aspects politics and neutrality conflict. That is why this thesis has focused on standpoints in government communications, in particular on government brochures with both an informative and a persuasive goal. The aim was to determine how the Government of the Netherlands maneuvers strategically in an audience-directed way when advancing a standpoint in government brochures. The characterization of government brochures as an argumentative activity type and insight into the move of “advancing a standpoint” contributed to the analysis of strategic maneuvering in a brochure on the Dutch National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism. The analysis showed that the emphasis is explicitly on informing, rather than on convincing, and on the topics “protection” and “safety”. With this, the government adapts to the audience since citizens expect that a government acts neutral and because protection and safety apply to the public. It has been concluded that the choices made contribute to the strategic appeal to the audience to obtain a positive evaluation of the counterterrorism policy to remove fear from the citizens and make them feel safe. A promising line of research would be to carry out the same analysis on multiple brochures, with various topics, and to go into the reasonableness of strategic maneuvering.
Keywords: Pragma-dialectics; Standpoints; Government Communications; Brochures; Strategic Maneuvering; Audience Adaptation
Contents
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in government brochures ... 8
2.1 Introduction ... 8
2.2 Defining government communications ... 9
2.2.1 The Dutch Basic Principles for Government Communications ...10
2.3 Reconstructing the institutional context of government brochures ...12
2.4 Government brochures as an argumentative activity type ...14
2.4.1 The initial situation ...15
2.4.2 The starting points ...16
2.5 Conclusion ...18
3. The move of “advancing a standpoint” ...20
3.1 Introduction ...20
3.2 The pragma-dialectical concept of a standpoint ...20
3.3 The identification of standpoints ...23
3.3.1 The speaker’s presentation of a speech act ...23
3.3.2 The speaker’s follow-up ...24
3.4 The relationship between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and other argumentative aspects ...25
3.5 Conclusion ...27
4. A case in point: Brochure by the Government of the Netherlands ...29
4.1 Introduction ...29
4.2 Brochure “National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism” ...30
4.3 Reconstructing the argumentative discussion in the NCTV brochure ...31
4.4 Audience-directed strategic maneuvering in the move of “advancing a standpoint” ...33
4.5 Conclusion ...37
5. Conclusion ...39
1. Introduction
Communicating with citizens through a brochure is common practice for governments. The government communicates about various subjects through the use of brochures, such as vaccinations, visas or the asylum policy. At first glance these communications seem informative, but they are more than that. In some brochures there is, in addition to an informative goal, an implicit discussion going on between the government and its citizens (Janssen & Neutelings, 2001). This means that the writer of the brochure, the government, either implicitly or explicitly, advances a standpoint.
It is interesting to look into standpoints in government brochures, because advancing a standpoint in government communications is not as self-evident as in other communicative domains, such as the political or legal domain. This has to do with the ambiguous characteristics of government communications in the Netherlands. On the one hand, government communications seem to overlap with political communications as ministers, together with the King, make up the Government of the Netherlands, and as the ministers and state secretaries are responsible for the day-to-day business of the government. From this perspective, it is expected that government communications serve the general institutional goal of political communications: to preserve a democratic society by means of deliberation (van Eemeren, 2010). On the other hand, in the Dutch Basic Principles for Government Communications (Rijksoverheid, 2017) the government states that communications will not become interwoven with party political interests. This means that the government should act neutral. These ambiguities raise questions regarding standpoints in argumentative texts from the government, such as brochures, as there is the political aspect that points to a convincing goal in government communications, and as there is the conflicting communication policy of the government that only points to an informative goal.
In order to reach the convincing goal of a discussion, the government adapts to its citizens, when advancing a standpoint, because adapting the standpoint to the citizens will ensure that they will accept the standpoint sooner. In this thesis, I will investigate, by drawing on a case study, what audience-directed strategies the Government of the Netherlands uses, when advancing a standpoint, to convince the citizens. This study will be undertaken to gain insight into what audience-directed strategies a government may obtain when advancing a standpoint in brochures.
To analyze the government’s audience-directed strategies in standpoints, I will make use of the pragma-dialectical framework of argumentation and specifically the notion of strategic maneuvering (Van Eemeren, 2010). Strategic maneuvering refers to the attempts of the writer to find a balance between reconciling the dialectical goal of resolving the difference of opinion in a reasonable way and the rhetorical goal of being effective in convincing the intended audience (Van Eemeren, 2010). Three aspects of strategic maneuvering can be distinguished: (1) the selection from the topical potential is seen as the choice made from the set of possible argumentative moves that can be made at that point in the discourse; (2) the adaptation to audience demand means the adjustment to the frame of reference and attitude of the listeners or readers the speaker or writer intends to reach; (3) the exploitation of presentational devices is described as the utilizing of stylistic and other means of expression suitable to serve the purpose (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). In argumentative practice, the three aspects of strategic maneuvering always go together and are in principle intrinsically connected with each other. However, in particular cases, one aspect may be more prominently manifested than the others. In this thesis, the main focus will be on the adaptation to audience demand when advancing a standpoint, but since this aspect is closely related to the two other aspects of strategic maneuvering, all aspects are included.
To do justice to the variety of communicative practices in argumentative reality, the institutional environment in which argumentative discourse occurs has to be taken into account in an analysis of strategic maneuvering. In pragma-dialectics, argumentative discourses in different institutional contexts are investigated as communicative activity types that have established themselves in particular communicative domains in response to certain institutional requirements of that domain (Van Eemeren, 2010). In a communicative activity type, such as government brochures, the communicative activity is designed to serve its rationale, the institutional point that reflects the exigencies of the communicative activity. In light of their institutional point, the communicative activities within a particular domain are conventionalized in a specific way. Therefore, communicative activity types impose certain extrinsic constraints on the possibilities for strategic maneuvering.
The principle objective of this thesis is to provide an analytic account of the Dutch government’s audience-directed strategic maneuvering when advancing a standpoint in a brochure. The audience-directed strategies in standpoints are examined as strategic maneuvers by means of which the government attempts to balance dialectical reasonableness with
rhetorical effectiveness. To achieve the main objective of this thesis, I will first characterize the domain government communications and the activity type of government brochures. Next, I will delve deeper into standpoints, what in pragma-dialectical terms is called the move of “advancing a standpoint”. Finally, the institutional insight gained from the characterization of government brochures will be used in the analysis of one particular brochure, which is in this case about the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV), i.e., the counterterrorism unit of the Government of the Netherlands. The following main research question will be answered: How does the Government of the Netherlands maneuver strategically in an audience-directed way when advancing a standpoint in government brochures? The related sub-questions are formulated as follows:
1. What are the characteristics of the domain government communications and the activity type of government brochures?
2. To what extent can the move of “advancing a standpoint” be analyzed on strategic maneuvers?
To make clear how the main research question and the two sub-questions will be answered, I will now explain the structural division of this thesis. The thesis is divided into five chapters. Except for the introduction (Chapter 1) and the conclusion (Chapter 5), each of the chapters will have one central research question.
Chapter 2 answers the first sub-question that focuses on the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in government brochures. The first part of this chapter will be about government communications (section 2.2) and specifically on communications of the Government of the Netherlands (section 2.2.1). Then, when the institutional context is reconstructed in pragma-dialectical terms (section 2.3), I will focus on government brochures as an argumentative activity type (section 2.4). Successively, the initial situation (section 2.4.1) and the starting points (section 2.4.2) will be presented.
Chapter 3 focuses on the second sub-question. The chapter is about the argumentative move of “advancing a standpoint”. First, I will focus on the pragma-dialectical concept of a standpoint and the speech act “advancing a standpoint” (section 3.2). Then, it will be about the identification of standpoints (section 3.3), and in particular on indicators in the speaker’s presentation of a speech act (section 3.3.1) and indicators in the speaker’s follow-up to his
assertive (section 3.3.2). Lastly, the relationship between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and other argumentative aspects will be discussed (section 3.4).
The main research question, dealing with audience-directed strategic maneuvering in the NCTV brochure, will be answered in Chapter 4. In this chapter, I will provide a detailed analytic account of the move of “advancing a standpoint” by making use of the insights into the institutional context gained in Chapter 2. First, the chapter will be about the content and appearance of the brochure in this case-study (section 4.2). Then, I will analyze the brochure from an argumentative perspective (section 4.3). Subsequently, the focus will be on the analysis of strategic maneuvering (section 4.4).
The last chapter, Chapter 5, is the conclusion of this thesis. Here, I will outline the findings from the previous chapters and propose some directions for future research.
2. Institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in government brochures 2.1 Introduction
Central to this chapter is the first sub-question of this thesis: What are the characteristics of the domain government communications and the activity type of government brochures? Answering this question provides insight into the constraints imposed on government brochures by the institutional context of government communications. Taking these constraints into account is necessary in order to track the institutional preconditions that the strategic maneuvering carried out must meet in this type of communicative activity. Only if these constraints are duly taken into account in analyzing the audience-directed strategic maneuvering can the strategic function that may be fulfilled by the move of “advancing a standpoint” be determined in Chapter 4.
The first sub-question is to be answered by reconstructing the institutional context of government brochures and the activity type of government brochures in pragma-dialectical terms. To reconstruct the institutional context, I will first look at definitions of government communications (section 2.2). The emphasis will be on the various goals of government communications and the different genres in which government communications can take place. In addition, specific attention will be paid to government communications by the Government of the Netherlands (section 2.2.1) since the analysis in Chapter 4 is on the Dutch government. As such, in this section the focus will be on the main goal of government communications in the Netherlands and the Basic Principles for Government Communications. These principles are to be of help for the reconstruction of the institutional context (section 2.3) and the argumentative activity type (section 2.4). In section 2.3, I will first focus on the common goal pertaining the government domain. Then, the institutional point of government brochures will be formulated on the basis of the common goal. This is important because strategic maneuvering within government brochures is aimed at realizing this institutional point. Then, in approaching government brochures as an argumentative activity type, it will become clear that specific characteristics of government brochures impose constraints on strategic maneuvering. I will discuss these constraints in the initial situation (section 2.4.1) and the starting points (section 2.4.2). In the end, this will lead to an overview of the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in government brochures. Chapter 2 will end with a conclusion (section 2.5), consisting of a summary of the chapter and an answer to the first sub-question.
2.2 Defining government communications
Governments communicate both internally and externally. The communication in this thesis is the communication between the government and its citizens, which is part of the external communication. According to Bezanson and Buss (2001), governments not only communicate with their citizens to inform them, but also to explain, for instance, their government decisions, and convince the citizens about their activities. Bezanson and Buss describe the government in the following way:
[The government] is … a creator of rights and programs, a manager of economic and social relationships, a vast employer and purchaser, an educator, investor, curator, librarian, historian, patron, and on and on. Government inculcates values, defines justice, fairness, and liberty, and shapes behavior. It assures safety, protects the helpless and uninformed, and prevents injustice. It also places behavioral demands on its largess: It taxes and spends, subsidizes and penalizes, encourages and discourages. None of these undertakings, and none of the roles the undertakings require government to assume, could be successfully pursued without speech by government. Government must explain, persuade, coerce, deplore, congratulate, implore, teach, inspire, and defend with words. (p. 1380)
Bezanson and Buss (2001) underline in their description that governments have to communicate. They add that a democratic government cannot function without communicating with citizens and that this communication consists of more than just information. What the government communicates exactly besides this information depends on the goal of that specific communication.
In order to define government communications for this thesis, it is necessary to look at the different purposes of government communications. In general, six communicative goals are distinguished by Karreman and Van Enschot (2013). They describe the following communicative goals: informing, persuading, forming opinions, instructing, activating and evoking emotions. In the book Reading and Writing Public Documents (2001), Janssen and Neutelings distinguish three communicative goals defined by Karreman and Van Enschot that are the most common in the government context. These goals are the informative, persuasive and instructive goal. Texts with an informative goal are written to provide knowledge to the reader, texts with a persuasive goal to convince the reader, and texts with an instructive goal to
enable the reader to perform a task (Karreman & Van Enschot, 2013). A government text may be written based on one goal or a combination of goals. In this thesis, the focus is on government communications serving both an informative and a persuasive goal. Before the term government communications can be completely defined for this thesis, the genres in which the government communicates must first be looked into.
The genre that the government uses to send its message is related to the purposes of the text. One genre is more suitable for achieving a certain goal than the other. Janssen and Neutelings (2001) distinguish in their research overview on government communications five different genres: forms, letters, brochures, newspaper articles about policies, and policy documents. In this thesis, the focus is on government brochures and specifically on those brochures with both an informative and a persuasive goal.
To sum up, what is meant by government communications in this thesis is the external communication of a government to its citizens, including both information and persuasion. The genre in which this type of communication occurs is the government brochure. In order to analyze this genre, the context and the brochure itself are to be defined in pragma-dialectical terms. However, since the analysis in Chapter 4 is on the Dutch government, I will first specifically address government communications in the Netherlands.
2.2.1 The Dutch Basic Principles for Government Communications
The Government of the Netherlands deals with social issues and weighing and balancing dilemmas in policy and communication (CommunicatieRijk, n.d.). In its communications, the government has to find a balance between three aspects: political ambitions, public expectations and efforts of civil servants. This is a challenge in itself, but new techniques and changing relationships in society make communication even more complicated. To help ministries in their communications, the Basic Principles for Government Communications (Rijksoverheid, 2017) have been set up. The main goal of government communications in the Netherlands corresponds with the first principle:
The main aim of government communications is to enable the public to exercise their right to access government information. This allows people to evaluate and influence government policy. The government’s duty to provide information is set out in the Government Information (Public Access) Act (WOB). (Government of the Netherlands, n.d., p. 1)
The public’s right to government information is the most important starting point for government communications in the Netherlands, but there are more principles. The main agreements can be found (in Dutch) in the Basic Principles for Government Communications (Rijksoverheid, 2017). These principles are used both for communications with the public and communications with the press. The eleven principles are summarized below:
1. Right to communication. Government communications must satisfy the citizen’s entitlement to communication with and information from central government and the support of good democratic governance.
2. Recognizable. Government communications will always be recognizable as such. Confidence arises when the sender is known.
3. Policy and organization. Government communications will relate to policy and organization and will not be aimed at the personal image building of members of government and of other government organizations.
4. Active information. The government will actively bring its policy and the reasons and considerations underlying it to the attention of the broadest possible audience. In principle, it can make use of all available means of communication.
5. Policy phase. The government will always specify the policy phase to which the information relates.
6. Interactive policy preparation. At an early stage, it will be indicated whether the government wishes to involve citizens in the preparation of plans and measures and if so, then how.
7. Accessible and responsive. The government will ensure that it can be easily contacted by the citizens. Furthermore, the government will respond quickly and adequately to requests for information and complaints.
8. Sufficient and correct information. Communications will be truthful, sufficiently accessible both regarding technology and content, understandable, timely and as focused as possible. The incorrect mention, omission or highlighting of facts and arguments in order to bring the persons to whom the communication is directed to a different choice than they might otherwise have done, is never permitted.
10. Proportion. Communications “overkill” will be avoided at all stages of the policy process. In principle, the government must not employ so many means of providing information that an imbalance arises with respect to the possibilities of other parties. 11. Not interwoven. Central government communications will not become interwoven with
party political interests. Public and media often cannot easily make a distinction between a politician as a government official or party member. That is why it may be desirable for a government official to receive guidance from a government information officer both when he acts as a government official and party member.
What can be concluded from the communication policy is that the main aim of government communications in the Netherlands is to satisfy the citizen’s entitlement to information. To comply with this, a number of principles should be taken into account, such as no highlighting of facts or arguments and no involvement with party political interests. These principles are in the next section merged with the aforementioned definitions of government communications from previous studies. In the section, the institutional context of government brochures will be reconstructed in pragma-dialectical terms. In addition, the principles will be of help for section 2.4, in which the argumentative activity type of government brochures is to be reconstructed. In both sections, the basis of the reconstructions is the Dutch government.
2.3 Reconstructing the institutional context of government brochures
According to Van Eemeren (2010), argumentative discourse in different institutional contexts is investigated as a discussion in a specific communicative activity type in a particular communicative domain. Central in this thesis is the communicative activity type of government brochures, which will be reconstructed in argumentative means in section 2.4. Strategic maneuvering within government brochures is aimed at realizing the activity type’s institutional point. Prior to this, the communicators strive to fulfill the common goal pertaining to the communicative domain. As the government domain is not determined in the pragma-dialectic theory, the context will be reconstructed in this section.
In the Netherlands, the government consists of 12 ministries, many executive services, inspections, and the High Council of State (Rijksoverheid, n.d.). The ministries are under the political leadership of a minister and a state secretary. This means that the ministers and state secretaries are politically responsible for the ministries. Based on this, it can be deduced that government communications overlap with political communications. According to Van
Eemeren (2010), the general institution goal for activity types in the political domain is to preserve a democratic society by means of deliberation. However, the Basic Principles for Government Communications state that government communications should not be interwoven with party political preferences (Rijksoverheid, 2017). It means that government communications should be neutral. In essence, the institutional goal of the political domain does not fully apply to the government. What applies to the government domain is the following: to preserve a democratic society. As mentioned earlier, Bezanson and Buss (2001) state that governments have to communicate, because a democratic government cannot function without communicating with its citizens. In addition, the communication policy in the Netherlands describes that the main aim of government communications is to satisfy the citizen’s entitlement to communication (Rijksoverheid, 2017). Based on this, the institutional goal for activity types in the government domain can be described as follows: to preserve a democratic society by means of public communication.
Now that the common goal for the government domain has been formulated, the focus will be on the institutional point of the activity type “government brochures” within this domain. In government brochures, an implicit public discussion takes place between the government that communicates with its citizens about government information and the citizens themselves. The communicative activity in this discussion is to provide government information since the government is obliged to do so according to the Constitution of the Netherlands (Government of the Netherlands, n.d.). The brochure informs citizens about the government. What separates the brochure in this thesis from other types of government brochures is the following: besides being a brochure directed at informing, the brochure also contains a persuasive goal. In addition to giving information, a discussion is going on, which may remain implicit. The additional goal in certain types of government brochures is to get the government’s standpoint advanced in the discussion to be accepted by the citizens.
Considering the brochure’s informative goal outlined in the Constitution of the Netherlands, as well as the persuasive goal, government brochures can be regarded as a communicative activity type with a composite institutional point. The institutional point is linked to the earlier mentioned overall goal of the domain: preserving a democratic society by means of public communication. The first constituent of the institutional point of government brochures can be formulated as follows: enabling citizens to be informed about the government. The second constituent is: convincing citizens of the standpoint advanced by the government. Taken into account the overall goal of preserving a democratic society by means of public
communication, the institutional point of government brochures can be formulated as: to achieve that citizens in a democratic society, after being informed on the basis of the communication principles, accept the government’s standpoint advanced.
The institutional point found in this section is of importance because strategic maneuvering within government brochures is aimed at realizing this institutional point. In the next section, it will become clear that certain characteristics of government brochures impose constraints on strategic maneuvering.
2.4 Government brochures as an argumentative activity type
Government brochures are meant to serve the institutional goal of achieving that citizens in a democratic society, after being informed on the basis of the communication principles, accept the government’s standpoint advanced. Some citizens may doubt the acceptability of these standpoints. Therefore, the government presupposes that the standpoint advanced will not be accepted by the citizens at face value and thus offers pieces of information that might convince the audience. The government assumes that a difference of opinion might arise between the institution and the citizens. To get the standpoint accepted by the citizens, the government engages in what can be reconstructed as an argumentative discussion in which the government attempts to convince the reader on the basis of argumentation.
To identify the institutional constraints imposed on strategic maneuvering in government brochures, the activity type is to be characterized from an argumentative point of view. This can be realized by comparing argumentative practices with the stages of the ideal model of a critical discussion (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). Since in this thesis audience-directed strategies in standpoints are central, it is not necessary to give an argumentative characterization of the entire resolution process of a difference of opinion. This is because standpoints are advanced in the confrontation stage and because the consequences of this for the opening stage are most important for the analysis. This is why the following two focal points are taken into account, which correspond with two stages of the ideal model of a critical discussion: the initial situation (realization of the confrontation stage) and the starting points (realization of the opening stage) (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). Based on these two points, the argumentative discourse in government brochures will be analyzed in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 in order to determine the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering.
2.4.1 The initial situation
In the confrontation stage of a critical discussion, discussants externalize the difference of opinion (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). In this stage at least one party expresses his standpoint and another party expresses at least doubt towards this standpoint. In practice, the discussion can be implicit, in the sense that the discussants do not both explicitly express their standpoint and arguments. In the argumentative activity type of government brochures, the initial situation is generally that the government has information about its organization and needs to communicate this to its citizens, according to the constitution. As government brochures serve both an informative and a persuasive goal, the government tries to convince its citizens of the acceptability of a standpoint. As the citizens may not find the standpoint acceptable, either the existence of a difference of opinion is presupposed, or a possible difference of opinion is anticipated by the government. In the absence of an explicit difference of opinion, the government may advance the standpoint in the way that suits him best. The possibilities for strategically advancing a standpoint will be discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, while this section focuses on the institutional constraints.
The citizens aimed at in government brochures impose constraints on the possibilities for strategic maneuvering because the audience to which the brochures are directed consists of an anonymous, heterogeneous group of readers. This is because the brochures are aimed at the citizens of the Netherlands, which consists of persons of different age, sex, background, etcetera. Even if a brochure is specifically targeted at a particular subgroup, the audience consists of individuals holding different positions or starting points in the discussion. Furthermore, the standpoint will not even reach all those it is meant for, as every person decides for themselves whether they want to read the brochure or not.
Next, the format of government brochures imposes certain constraints for strategic maneuvering because there is no direct interaction possible between the government and the citizens. It is the case that the government conveys its view while the citizens are not able to directly voice doubts or criticism pertaining to the government’s standpoint. The difference of opinion then appears to be non-mixed (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). The following scheme shows how the dialectical core profile of a single non-mixed dispute looks like:
T1: +/p
T2: ?/(+/p) -/p
T1: +/p +/p
T2: ?/(+/p) ?/(+/p)
A single non-mixed dispute arises because language user 2 (T2) doubts the standpoint of language user 1 (T1), and both parties maintain their position, or because T2, at first, expresses a standpoint that is opposite to T1’s standpoint, but on second thoughts, reduces it to doubts (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). In a government brochure either the existence of a difference of opinion is presupposed or a possible difference of opinion is anticipated. Therefore, there are no means in this activity type to anticipate whether the citizens find the arguments advanced by the government sound enough for the acceptability of the standpoint. On the other hand, in the absence of an explicit audience, open criticism against the government stays out. Besides that, the government can strategically interpret the difference of opinion in the way that suits it best.
2.4.2 The starting points
In the opening stage of a critical discussion, the discussants decide to try to resolve the difference of opinion (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). The discussants determine the point of departure and the discussion procedure. Ideally, this means that the discussants agree on a certain distribution of the burden of proof and agree on commonly accepted starting points, consisting of procedural and material starting points. The fact that the discussion in government brochures is implicit has implications for the opening stage: the discussants cannot explicitly agree on common starting points nor on the roles they take upon themselves.
For the distribution of the burden of proof, three types can be distinguished: a one-sided burden of proof, a distributed burden of proof and a two-sided burden of proof (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). In the implicit discussion of a government brochure, there is a one-sided burden of proof because only the government has a burden of proof for one or more standpoints. The citizens do not have any burden of proof at all. In government brochures, the format determines the distribution of roles: the government is the initiator and
takes the role of the protagonist of a standpoint, while the citizens are presumed to play the role of an antagonist who cannot actively engage in the discussion. As a consequence, the protagonist is not explicitly challenged to defend the standpoint, what may have certain strategic possibilities. If a party assumes the burden of proof without being invited to do so, or refuses it, the party anticipates a challenge. Worth mentioning, refusing the burden of proof becomes fallacious if dodging the burden of proof is covered up by pretending that it speaks for itself that the standpoint is correct or that the standpoint comes down to a shared standpoint.
The circumstances also make it possible for the government to make a strategic choice with regard to the starting points, which consist of procedural and material starting points. In government brochures, the procedural starting points consist of an externally established rule, internal rules and practical restrictions. First, the externally established rule is general for government communications in the Netherlands and is already mentioned in section 2.2.1, namely that it is the government’s duty to provide information. This rule is set out in the Government Information (Public Access) Act (WOB), which codifies what information the government has to share with its citizens. So, the Constitution of the Netherlands establishes the first procedural starting point in government brochures. Second, the government itself formulated special internal rules with respect to how communications should be carried out. These rules are codified in the Basic Principles for Government Communications, summarized in section 2.2.1. The principles restrict how to communicate in government brochures, for example in the sense that communications should be sufficient and correct and that communications will not become interwoven with party political interests. Consequently, these principles impose restrictions on the possibilities for strategic maneuvering. The government should, for example, not advance a political standpoint. Third, there are also practical restrictions on brochures, such as the limited amount of space for argumentation and the level of attention that citizens have for the content. In order to be effective, the government should make strategic choices within these restrictions.
Among the material starting points that the government may use are statements that enable the government to give a positive evaluation of its organization and statements that draw on largely agreed and shared values or standards that can influence the citizens’ opinion. For an institution such as the government it is predictable to which values and facts they attach importance. For example, a government can be held committed to the belief that preserving a democratic society is desirable. To get the government’s standpoint in a brochure accepted, the government needs to establish a zone of agreement with its citizens. Since citizens form a
heterogeneous group consisting of individuals with different beliefs and values, it is more difficult to establish a common ground. This is why it is predictable that the government strategically focuses on largely agreed and shared values or standards to attract a positive response from the citizens. For example, the government may take “national safety and security” as a potentially acceptable starting point to attract as many citizens as possible and to be as effective as possible with the aim of getting the standpoint accepted.
2.5 Conclusion
The focus of this chapter has been on the first sub-question: What are the characteristics of the domain government communications and the activity type of government brochures? To answer this question, a theoretical framework has been presented on the preconditions for strategic maneuvering in government brochures. What can be concluded from the framework is that the institutional goal for activity types in the government domain is the following: to preserve a democratic society by means of public communication. This is because democratic governments do not function without communication with their citizens. In addition, Dutch citizens are even entitled to government communications by law. These communications are not only informative but can also be persuasive, such as in government brochures. Due to this composite characteristic of government brochures, the institutional point of government brochures is: to achieve that citizens in a democratic society, after being informed on the basis of the communication principles, accept the government’s standpoint advanced. From an argumentative point of view, the initial situation in government brochures is that the government is obliged to inform citizens and simultaneously tries to convince its citizens of the acceptability of a standpoint. Since the discussion remains implicit, the government and its citizens do not explicitly agree on common starting points, nor on the distribution of the burden of proof and roles they take upon themselves. As a material starting point, the government will probably focus on largely agreed and shared values to attract a positive response from the citizens. However, the government should in its communications take into account the procedural starting points, consisting of rules and practical constraints.
Now that the theoretical framework on preconditions for strategic maneuvering in government brochures has been presented, part of the main question is clarified. As a reminder, the main question is: How does the Government of the Netherlands maneuver strategically in an audience-directed way when advancing a standpoint in government brochures? As can be seen, the constraints explained in this chapter are necessary for the analysis in Chapter 4, which
will eventually answer the main question of this thesis. However, an overview of institutional constraints for strategic maneuvering is not enough to start the analysis of audience-directed strategies in standpoints. Therefore, the next chapter will go deeper into the argumentative move of “advancing a standpoint”.
3. The move of “advancing a standpoint” 3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the focus is on the argumentative move of “advancing a standpoint”. The aim here is to formulate an answer to the second sub-question, which is: To what extent can the move of “advancing a standpoint” be analyzed on strategic maneuvers? It is important to answer this question because it clarifies what the move of “advancing a standpoint” is and it provides insight into how audience-directed strategies can be implemented in this move. Subsequently, the analysis in Chapter 4 focuses on strategies that orient on the audience in the move of “advancing a standpoint” in the context of a government brochure, in which the sub-questions of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 come together and jointly contribute to an answer to the main question.
Before it is possible to look at audience-directed strategic maneuvering in the move of “advancing a standpoint”, it is important to identify standpoints. However, in argumentative practice, it is not always easy to determine what standpoint is at issue in a particular case. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to specific indicators of standpoints. Prior to this, the concept of standpoints will be explained from a pragma-dialectical perspective in section 3.2. The focus will be on standpoints in the ideal model of a critical discussion and on “advancing a standpoint” as a speech act. Thereafter, in section 3.3, the identification of standpoints is central. Two groups of indicators will be discussed: indicators in the speaker’s presentation of a speech act (section 3.3.1) and indicators in the speaker’s follow-up (section 3.3.2). Then, it is worth looking into the consequences of advancing a standpoint for the rest of the discussion. This provides a first insight into how standpoints can be advanced strategically, prior to the analysis of Chapter 4. Therefore, section 3.4 will be on the relationship between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and other argumentative aspects. In section 3.5, I will briefly summarize the findings of this chapter and provide an answer to the second sub-question.
3.2 The pragma-dialectical concept of a standpoint
In the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation a standpoint is seen as part of a critical discussion. In a critical discussion, the parties involved in a difference of opinion try to resolve the difference of opinion by means of a regulated exchange of views, in order to reach agreement on the acceptability or unacceptability of the standpoints under discussion (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). In pragma-dialectics, four different stages of a critical discussion are distinguished that – from an analytical point of view – must be
completed in order to resolve the difference of opinion. These four stages are the confrontation stage, the opening stage, the argumentation stage and the concluding stage. In section 2.4 it has already been mentioned that each of the stages has a practical counterpart in an argumentative activity. An extensive description has already been made of the realization of the confrontation stage (the initial situation) and the opening stage (the starting points) in government brochures. As a reminder, in the confrontation stage, the parties establish that they have a difference of opinion. In the case of a non-mixed difference of opinion, such as a government brochure, this means that one party’s standpoint is not immediately accepted by the other party but is met with doubt or criticism. In the opening stage, the parties decide to try to resolve the difference of opinion. Ideally, they jointly assign the roles of protagonist and antagonist, agree on the rules for the discussion and agree on the starting points. In a government brochure, however, such an assignment does not happen.
Prior to the identification of standpoints, it is important to clarify what the move of “advancing a standpoint” means. A standpoint is described as an attitude of a language user towards an expression (Houtlosser, 1995). In pragma-dialectics, three types of standpoints are distinguished: descriptive, evaluative and prescriptive standpoints (Houtlosser, 1995). In a descriptive standpoint a description of facts and events is given, in an evaluative standpoint an opinion is expressed about facts or events, and in a prescriptive standpoint it is indicated that a certain course of action should or should not be followed. In the move of “advancing a standpoint”, a speech act is carried out. According to Houtlosser (1995), advancing a standpoint amounts to performing a complex assertive speech act that is at a higher textual level than the sentence connected to an expressed opinion that is confronted with doubt or contradiction of the part of a critical listener. The concept of standpoint is, as with other speech acts, defined by specifying the identity and correctness conditions for the speech act “advancing a standpoint”. These “felicity conditions” indicate whether an utterance constitutes a standpoint. For advancing a standpoint involving a positive position, the identity conditions (essential condition and propositional content condition) and the correctness conditions (preparatory condition and sincerity condition) read as follows (Houtlosser, 2002):
IDENTITY CONDITIONS Essential condition
Advancing a standpoint counts as taking responsibility for a positive position in respect of opinion O, i.e., assuming an obligation to defend a positive position in respect of O if requested to do so
Propositional content condition
1. The propositional content of the standpoint consists of a formulated O 2. O consists of one or more utterances
CORRECTNESS CONDITIONS Preparatory condition
1. The speaker or writer believes that the listener or reader does not (already, at face value, completely) accept O
2. The speaker or writer believes that he can justify O for the listener or reader with the help of arguments
Sincerity condition
1. The speaker or writer believes that O is the case
2. The speaker or writer has the intention to justify O for the listener or reader with the help of arguments if requested to do so
The above-mentioned felicity conditions indicate whether an utterance constitutes a standpoint; they make it clear under what conditions an expression functions as a point of view. The fulfillment of the identity conditions – the essential condition and the propositional content condition – guarantee that a particular utterance counts as a standpoint. However, in practice, it is not always clear if the conditions have been fulfilled in cases in which a standpoint has not been explicitly advanced. Therefore, in cases in which standpoints remain implicit, the correctness conditions provide the most important clues that an utterance constitutes a standpoint.
In this section, the concept of standpoint has been viewed from the pragma-dialectical perspective and speech act theory. It has been made clear that as soon as an expression has been identified as a possible point of view, it can be determined by the felicity conditions whether
this utterance can be interpreted as a standpoint. The remaining question is how to identify these standpoints in order to analyze their audience-directed strategic function. The next section deals with specific indicators that point to standpoints.
3.3 The identification of standpoints
In literature, various indicators for identifying standpoints are mentioned. In general, three groups of indicators can be distinguished (Houtlosser, 1995). The first group consists of indicators in the speaker’s presentation of a speech act, the second group of indicators in the interlocutor’s reaction, and the third group of indicators in the speaker’s follow-up to his assertion. In this thesis, the focus is only on indicators in utterances of the government since citizens do not give a reaction in a brochure. The government that anticipates doubt on the part of its citizens can express its anticipation in the presentation of its speech act and the follow-up to its assertive. In the next two subsections, both types of indicators will be discussed.
3.3.1 The speaker’s presentation of a speech act
To briefly reflect to the felicity conditions of “advancing a standpoint”, the question that needs to be answered is how the government’s presentation of an assertive can clarify that the assertive it performed will not be accepted immediately, i.e., what the indicators of standpoints in the presentation are. Two types of presentation indicators can be distinguished. These indicators are called propositional attitude indicators and force modifying expressions (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). Examples of propositional attitude indicators are “I believe that”, “I think that” and “I am sure that”. Examples of force modifying expressions are “in my view”, “as I see it” and “it is clear that”. With the use of these expressions a speaker indicates something more, besides the literal words. The expressions say something about the force the speaker wants his assertion to have and about his estimation of the situation (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). A force modifying expression can, for example, signal that the speaker assumes that without the addition the listener would not understand that the speaker wishes to assure him of something. As can be seen in the examples, a distinction can be made between strong and weak assertives (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). Both, in case of a strong assertive and in case of a weak assertive, the speaker is fully committed to what he has asserted (Houtlosser, 2002). This means that both types of forces serve as an indication that the speaker anticipates doubt. Noticeable, both of the following conditions must be met in the presentation of a speech
act: the expressions can be used parenthetically, and they are used that way (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). A parenthetical statement is one that explains or qualifies something. In speech, parenthetical words help make something clearer or give extra information.
If it is clear that the expression is used to convey the speaker’s expectation that his assertive will not be immediately accepted, the criterion of actual or anticipated doubt for identifying an assertive as a standpoint has been met (Houtlosser, 2002). However, an attitude indicating expression used assertively does not necessarily mean that a standpoint is advanced. Cases in which an expression is used to report a state of mind, to make a concession, or to express agreement are exceptions (Houtlosser, 2002). In such cases, contextual information can be of help. Also, there are some cases in which standpoints can be identified in non-assertive speech acts. For example, using a rhetorical question establishes an implicature which makes this question eminently suited for advancing a standpoint (Houtlosser, 1995).
3.3.2 The speaker’s follow-up
As mentioned earlier, the government’s presentation of a speech act is not the only indication for a standpoint. The government’s follow-up to its assertive may be another indicator of the anticipated doubt. The strongest indicator is argumentation, since argumentation is, by definition, advanced to defend a standpoint (Houtlosser, 1995). This means that in order to consider argumentation as an indicator of standpoints, it is necessary to identify argumentation. However, the problem with the identification of argumentation is that it is difficult to make a distinction between argumentation and explanation. Comparing the felicity conditions of the speech acts “advancing an argument” (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984) and “giving an explanation” (Houtlosser, 1995) can be of help. In addition to comparing the felicity conditions, there are also other clues that distinguish arguments from explanations and thus help as an indicator of standpoints. Indicators of reasoning are useful clues as they signal to argumentation or, alternatively, explanation. Houtlosser (1995) summarizes some of these indicators. “As”, “since”, “after all” and “consequently” indicate argumentation, except when used in a reporting sense. In addition, “because” and “therefore” also indicate argumentation, unless they refer solely to a motive which was not the speaker’s, are both used in a monological sequence to indicate cause, or are used to confirm, deny or correct an argument advanced by a third party. Causal expressions, such as “the reason why”, “the reason of this” and “owing to”, are in this context treated as belonging to the same category as “because”.
Both, in section 3.3.1 and section 3.3.2, indicators of standpoints have been presented. This is of help for the analysis in Chapter 4, but before this, a number of consequences of advancing a standpoint will be discussed in the next section. In section 3.4, I will clarify what the consequences are of advancing a standpoint for the rest of the discussion, i.e., what the relationship is between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and the other argumentative aspects, and how strategies may be implemented in the move of “advancing a standpoint”.
3.4 The relationship between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and other argumentative aspects
The previous sections clarified what standpoints in the confrontation stage of a critical discussion are and how these standpoints can be identified. Important to mention is that standpoints are not entirely isolated, because advancing a standpoint in the confrontation stage has consequences for argumentative moves in other discussion stages. Therefore, in this section, the link is made between advancing a standpoint and other argumentative aspects. It is essential to reflect on this relationship because it provides insight into possibilities for implementing strategies in standpoints.
First, there is a relationship between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and the burden of proof. The burden of proof has already been mentioned in section 2.4.2, in which the starting points of the implicit discussion in government brochures were formulated. Establishing the burden of proof consists of conducting a deliberation in the opening stage of a critical discussion about the question who has the obligation to defend a particular standpoint and who undertakes to critically respond to that defense (Van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007). The definitive distribution of the burden of proof is established in the opening stage, but in principle the distribution of the burden of proof is already determined in the confrontation stage by the difference of opinion. This is because the party who advances a standpoint in the confrontation stage may not refuse to defend it if asked to do so (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). Because the burden of proof is partially determined in the confrontation stage, standpoints can be used strategically for the distribution of the burden of proof (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002). This can be done, for example, by the government that has a certain standpoint and that can act constructively in acquiring an expedient burden of proof by stating as precisely as possible what its position amounts to, thus avoiding any confusion about what exactly it is prepared to defend. This is non-fallacious, but the strategies in standpoints related to the burden of proof can also be fallacious (Van Eemeren & Houtlosser,
2002). This is the case when the government advances a standpoint and tries to escape from acquiring a burden of proof.
Second, there is a relationship between the move of “advancing a standpoint” and argumentation. The government can take into account a certain argument scheme and a certain argumentation structure when advancing a standpoint. By means of the argument scheme, the argument and the standpoint that is being defended are linked together in a specific way (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). There are three main categories of argument schemes that indicate a particular relation between the reason put forward in the argumentation and the standpoint. In the first category, the argumentation is linked to the standpoint by claiming that one thing is symptomatic of another thing. In order to recognize the relationship between the standpoint and the argument as a symptomatic relation, a number of indicators can be taken into account. Certain indicators do not only occur in arguments, but also in standpoints, as in “X is a characteristic of Y”. This clarifies that when advancing a standpoint, the government can already take into account a symptomatic relation. This also applies to the second and third category of argument schemes, in which an analogy is made between one thing and another, and in which one thing is presented as being the cause of another. An example of an indicator, expressed in the standpoint, for argumentation based on a relation of analogy is “X is the equivalent of Z”. An example of an indicator of a causal relation is “X causes Y”. The different indicators that are given in standpoints, therefore, indicate that the speaker can already anticipate a certain (strategic) argument scheme when advancing a standpoint.
While argument schemes provide insight into the nature of the relation between the standpoint and the argument, argumentation structures provide insight into the interrelationships between different arguments defending the standpoint (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). The party who advances a standpoint can strategically anticipate on a certain type of argumentation structure, because three types of complex argumentation can be distinguished in a structure and one type of complex argumentation may be stronger than another (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemens, 2016). The first type is multiple argumentation and consists of alternative defenses of the same standpoint, presented one after another. The second type is coordinative argumentation and is one single attempt at defending the standpoint that consists of a combination of arguments that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defense. The third type is subordinative argumentation and consists of layers of arguments given for arguments. The latter type shows an essential relation with advancing a standpoint because the argument to be defended becomes a sub-standpoint, which is defended
by means of sub-argumentation. This sub-argumentation, in turn, can contain a sub-sub-standpoint, which needs to be defended by means of sub-sub-argumentation, and so on (Van Eemeren & Snoeck Henkemans, 2016). This means that in the analysis in Chapter 4 the focus will not only be on advancing the main standpoint but also on advancing sub-standpoints.
The type of complex argumentation advanced is related to the standpoint, i.e., advancing a standpoint in the confrontation stage has consequences for the structure of argumentation (Snoeck Henkemans, 1992). There are two factors in the standpoint that are related to how much support is required to defend the standpoint and what type of complex argumentation is needed. The two factors are the force of standpoints and the quantification of propositions (Snoeck Henkemans, 1992). The first factor influences the required weight of evidence and the second factor influences the required amount of evidence. Utterances that indicate the force of standpoints are modal words and expressions, such as “possible”, “may” and “think”. They can be used to indicate the extent to which the speaker is prepared to commit himself to the truth or acceptability of the propositional content of his standpoint. The degree of the arguer’s commitment is related to what degree of justificatory or refutatory potential the argumentation should have, to lend sufficient support to the standpoint. In the case of a strong modal word such as “must”, for example, the arguer has committed himself stronger to the truth of a proposition. Arguments in combination then lend a higher degree of plausibility to the standpoint. Indicators that influence the required amount of evidence, related to the second factor, are the number of entities, or events, that are referred to by the arguer in his proposition. If the arguer has advanced a standpoint with respect to a proposition that contains a quantified referent or predicate, the arguer will have to give sufficient evidence to make it acceptable that the number of entities, or events, referred to is as large as he claims. For example, if the arguer quantifies the object in the standpoint by means of the definite quantifier “two”, a combination of two arguments constitutes a sufficient defense of the standpoint; coordinative argumentation is required.
3.5 Conclusion
This chapter was about the second sub-question: To what extent can the move of “advancing a standpoint” be analyzed on strategic maneuvers? In answering this question, it became clear what the move of “advancing a standpoint” is and that it can be considered as a speech act (section 3.2), how a standpoint can be identified (section 3.3), and how the move of “advancing
a standpoint” is related to other argumentative aspects in a critical discussion (section 3.4). The findings of all sections will be briefly summarized.
In this chapter, a standpoint has been defined as an attitude of a language user towards an expression. In order to gain insight into what such an expression actually is, it was first discussed how standpoints relate to the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion. It has been revealed that standpoints occur in the confrontation stage, because in that stage the parties establish that there is a difference of opinion. In such a difference of opinion, a standpoint is advanced, which is approached as performing a complex assertive speech act. The felicity conditions of the speech act “advancing a standpoint” indicate whether an utterance constitutes a standpoint, i.e., the identity conditions and the correctness conditions make it clear under what conditions an expression can function as a standpoint. In addition, it is important to be able to identify these standpoints. With the analysis in mind, attention has been paid to indicators in the utterance of the speaker, which consists of indicators in the speaker’s presentation of a speech act and indicators in the speaker’s follow-up to his assertive. In the first category two types of indicators has been distinguished, namely the propositional attitude indicators and force modifying expressions. In the second category it became clear that argumentation is the most important indicator, which should not to be confused with explanation. As soon as the concept of standpoint became clear and could be identified, the consequences of the move of “advancing a standpoint” for other argumentative aspects were examined. Performing the move has consequences for both the distribution of the burden of proof and for the argumentation. This means that a party can already anticipate an ideal distribution of the burden of proof, an ideal relationship between a standpoint and an argument, and an ideal argumentation structure. This answers the sub-question that is central in this chapter. It is in fact the case that a party has the possibility to advance a standpoint strategically, what may affect the rest of the discussion. What strategies exactly are implemented in standpoints depends on the context, which was outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 made clear what the possibilities are for strategic maneuvering in the argumentative activity type of government brochures. In Chapter 3 it has been made clear that the move of “advancing a standpoint” may function strategically. These two theoretical frameworks will jointly contribute to the analysis in the next chapter.
4. A case in point: Brochure by the Government of the Netherlands 4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the main question of this thesis will be answered: How does the Government of the Netherlands maneuver strategically in an audience-directed way when advancing a standpoint in government brochures? It was already made clear that this thesis is focused on audience-directed strategic maneuvering. This has consequences for the aspects of strategic maneuvering taken into account, because in argumentative practice, the three aspects of strategic maneuvering distinguished analytically always go together and are in principle intrinsically connected with each other. However, in particular cases, one aspect may be more prominently manifested than the others. In this thesis, the main focus is on the adaptation to audience demand when advancing a standpoint, but since this aspect is closely related to the two other aspects of strategic maneuvering, i.e., the choice made from the available topical potential and the exploitation of presentational devices, all aspects are included in the analysis. In advancing a standpoint in an audience-directed way, the arguer may, for instance, take into account that certain standpoints among the candidates available for topical selection connect well with the audience and that choosing these particular standpoints rather than other candidates creates strategically the kind of perspective that the arguer intends his audience to have. In addition, framing this perspective can be strengthened by the use of presentational devices such as the choice of words. This explains why the analysis of strategic maneuvering in an audience-directed way, when advancing a standpoint in government brochures, takes into account the topical selection and the presentational choices.
The analysis of strategic maneuvering will concern the government brochure entitled “National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism” (NCTV, 2014). It is an exemplary case that demonstrates how potential doubt about the government’s policy is taken into account in the move of “advancing a standpoint”. The move should be seen in light of the specific institutional context outlined in Chapter 2, and also in the context of the specific brochure. Therefore, to analyze the audience-directed strategies in the move of “advancing a standpoint”, section 4.2 will first describe the content and appearance of the brochure. Then, in section 4.3, I will analyze the brochure from an argumentative perspective. In the argumentative analysis, the focus is on the reconstruction of the argumentative discussion and on providing an overview of the moves of “advancing a standpoint”. Subsequently, in section 4.4 the actual analysis of strategic maneuvering in an audience-directed way in the move of “advancing a standpoint” will be presented. The focus is on how the NCTV adapts to its audience. This will be analyzed
by first going into topical selection and presentational choices made in a fragment from the brochure. Subsequently, it will be discussed in more detail how these choices are related to the adaptation to audience demand. The chapter will end with a conclusion in section 4.5.
4.2 Brochure “National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism”
The example chosen for analysis, the 2014 brochure by the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) in the Netherlands, is an exemplary case, because it illustrates various ways of advancing a standpoint and the influence of the institutional context on the possibilities to maneuver strategically with the topical potential and the presentational devices in adapting to the audience. Since the brochure contains several instantiations of the move of “advancing a standpoint”, the strategic function implemented to orient to the public can be analyzed well.
The brochure is communicated by the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV). The NCTV is the official counterterrorism unit of the Government of the Netherlands and was established in 2012. The NCTV is the responsibility of the Minister of Security and Justice. The NCTV aims to protect the Netherlands from threats that could disrupt Dutch society. Together with the partners within the government, the research community, and the private sector, the NCTV ensures that the Netherlands’ critical infrastructure is safe and remains that way.
In order to understand the publication of the NCTV brochure better, I will provide some background information about the safety situation of the Netherlands at the time of publication. A few months before the NCTV brochure had been published, the threat level for the Netherlands was raised from “limited” to “substantial” (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013). This means that there is a realistic possibility that an attack will take place in the Netherlands. The threat level still has not decreased since 2013. In the period that the brochure was published by the NCTV, there were three developments that caused an increased threat (Ministry of Security and Justice, 2013). First, there has been a significant increase in the number of jihadists traveling to countries in Africa and the Middle East, especially Syria. Many Western countries have serious concerns about jihadist travelers and returnees. These include dozens of people from the Netherlands and hundreds from Europe as a whole, many of whom are joining local combatants. Second, there are signs of a rise in Islamist radicalization of small groups of young people in the Netherlands. One indicator for this is the growing number of people traveling abroad to participate in jihadist activities. There are also indications that jihadists can very
