Social (de)Construction: Employing Critical Discourse Analysis
To Consider The Discursive Representation Of The ‘Migrant
Problem’ In UK Newspaper Media.
Joseph Ellery (10600035)
Supervisor: Virginie Mamadouh (Department of Human Geography) Political Geographies of the European Union
MSC Human Geography Universiteit van Amsterdam
30th June 2014
I would firstly like to thank my family for encouraging me to undertake further study to develop my academic interests. I would specifically like to thank my Mother
and Grandparents for all of their support during the process, making it financially able to study and live in Amsterdam.
The year has been personally difficult at times, with the loss of material possessions irrelevant in relation to the loss of a close friend, whose positive attitude has
permeated into my personal perspective upon life, whereby enjoyment and happiness should always be prioritized, hopefully enabling me to never lose sight over what is most important in life. Throughout the course of the year, the people I
have met and made my friends, both in the living environment and on my course, have helped me to develop exponentially by supporting me through the hard times,
offering a healthy and stimulating environment, and constantly encouraging me to succeed.
I would like to give special thanks to Virginie Mamadouh, my thesis supervisor, for the continual support during the process. I am a difficult character at times, often
lacking direction and motivation despite placing a weight of expectations upon myself. Your support has similarly enabled me to develop, resulting in the
production of a master thesis (almost) on time, of which I am proud.
I would finally like to thank the broad academic school of discourse analysis (particularly Fairclough, Van Dijk, and Laclau and Mouffe), theoretically and philosophically asking me to address the ways in which I understand the social world to be constructed, ultimately enabling me better understand the world I live
in.
A social constructionist perspective posits the discursively constructed nature of the social world. Discourse thus constitutes conceptions of truth, knowledge, and
beliefs. The media are in a heightened position of power regarding the ability to influence the social world, retaining a privileged position through the dissemination of public discourse and through their role as ‘legitimate’ sources of information. Newspaper media in particular is emblematic of these characteristics, thus retaining a powerful position. This is particularly important due to the ideological nature of news media discourse, representative of racialized ideological relations, whereby the ‘Other’ is constructed through a negative lens of opposition, along the lines of cultural differences and characteristic deficiencies, reflected by the promulgation of a ‘migrant problem’ within the UK. Critical Discourse Analysis has informed a discursive analysis upon two UK newspaper sources, The Daily Mail and The Guardian, for the period of November 2013 to April 2014, revolving around the lifting of transitional arrangements upon Bulgaria and Romania. Seeking to consider the dimensions of text and discursive practice, Fairclough’s model has been
employed to facilitate a critical analysis considering the operation of power relations within newspaper media discourse, as well as hoping to shed light upon ideological dimensions. Analysis has sought to consider the dimension of text through a consideration of the ways in which migrants are represented with
identity, political, and societal impact themes, seeking to consider both the content of discursive representations themselves, as well as the operation of rhetorical tools such as the ‘ideological square’, and the resulting social imaginaries constructed. A secondary form of analysis attempts to highlight an intertextual chain illustrative of manifest intertextuality surrounding a specific communicative event. Ideological representations have been considered through the positioning of various actors, how their voice is represented, and how such voices contribute to certain meanings. Ultimately, migration and migrants are negatively represented in UK newspaper media, reflecting a prevailing dominance of ideological conditions, a subordination of the ‘Other’ over the self, and explicitly and implicitly racialized constructions of migrants: Migration has thus been discursively problematized within UK newspaper media.
Acknowledgements ... iii Abstract ... v 1 – Introduction ... 9 2 -‐ Theoretical Framework ... 16 2.1 -‐ Social Constructivism ... 16
2.2 -‐ Critical Discourse Analysis ... 22
2.3 -‐ Identity and Otherness ... 26
2.4 -‐ Securitization Processes and Migration ... 27
2.5 -‐ Media Constructions and Representations of Migration ... 29
2.6 -‐ Anti-‐Migration Discourses within UK Newspaper Media ... 32
2.7 – The ‘Moral Panic’ Surrounding Migration ... 35
2.8 – Conclusion ... 37
3 -‐ Methodology ... 38
3.1 -‐ Research Premise ... 38
3.2 -‐ Newspaper Media: Source Selection ... 39
3.3 -‐ Corpus Selection ... 40
3.3.1 – Additional Material Selection ... 43
3.4 – Coding ... 43
3.5 –Methodological Analysis ... 44
3.5.1 – Text ... 47
3.5.2 -‐ Discursive Practice ... 49
3.6 -‐ Reflexivity ... 50
3.7 – Structure of Analysis ... 52
4 -‐ Analysis – The Daily Mail ... 53
4.1 -‐ Introduction ... 53
4.3 -‐ Constructing characteristics of migrant groups and ‘British’ society -‐ ... 55
Negative Othering and Positive ‘Self’ Group Construction ... 55
4.3.1 – Poverty and Criminalization ... 56
4.4 – The Political Dimensions of Migration – Labour Government Failures and European Union Associations ... 62
4.4.1 -‐ Labour Government – Opening The Doors to Mass Migration ... 63
4.6 – Conclusion ... 80
5 -‐ Analysis – The Guardian ... 81
5.1 – Introduction ... 81
5.2-‐ Constructing characteristics of migrant groups and ‘British’ society – Local and National ‘Othering’ ... 82
5.2.1 – Negative ‘Other’ Constructions ... 83
5.3 -‐ The Political Dimensions of Migration – A Politics of Paranoia – The Need to Restrict Migrants ... 91
5.3.1 – The Politicization of Migration ... 92
5.4 – The Perceived and Potential Societal Impacts of Migrants and Migration – A Bulgarian and Romanian ‘Moral Panic’ ... 101
5.4.1 – Tensions and Antisocial Behaviour ... 101
5.5 -‐ Conclusion ... 108
6 -‐ Analysis – Tracing an Intertextual Chain Following David Blunkett’s Discourse Surrounding The Page Hall Roma ... 109
6. 1 -‐ Introduction ... 109
6.2 -‐ Voices in the Press -‐ Truth, Knowledge and Legitimacy ... 111
6.2.1 – Reflecting Intertextuality – Illustrating An Intertextual Chain ... 112 6.2.2 -‐ Contingency ... 125 7 – Conclusion ... 130 7.1 – Introduction ... 130 7.2 -‐ Theoretical Reflection ... 131 7.3 – Methodological Reflection ... 133 7.4 – Analytical Approach ... 134
7.5 – Results and Discussion ... 135
7.5.1 – The Daily Mail ... 135
7.5.2 – The Guardian ... 137
7.5.3 – Intertextuality ... 139
7.6 – Political and Societal Relevance ... 141
7.6 – Final Conclusions ... 144
Bibliography ... 145
Appendix 1 – Daily Mail Source Information (Bibliography) ... 150
Appendix 2 – The Guardian Bibliographic Information ... 152
Appendix 3 -‐ Coding Scheme ... 154
Appendix 4 – Intertextuality ... 156
“Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite: rather, drops of liquid sealing-‐wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet
blob” (Huxley, 1931, 34).
1 – Introduction
Migration is currently a major issue in United Kingdom (UK) public and political debates, ranking highly on the media (Migration Observatory, 2013; Fox et al, 2012), political (Balabanova and Balch, 2010), and civil society agenda (Park et al, 2012). Migrants are highly securitized actors due to their mobile nature that poses a threat to the sovereign territorial integrity of the nation (Bigo, 2002). These actors
whether from European Union (EU) countries and thus having full rights to mobility, or from outside of the EU, and thus having to apply through formalized migration channels or enter illegally, are largely represented in political and media discourse as the ‘Other’: ‘foreigners’ marked through their difference to the territorially bounded identity (Paasi, 1996; 2001). Within the UK, the existence of a culturally racialized framing of migrants prevails within the media, “exclusionary on the basis of putative cultural differences” (Fox et al, 2012, 681). The research project will explore this dimension of representation through an analysis of two prominent UK newspapers: The Daily Mail and The Guardian.
The context of migration into the United Kingdom (UK) has since the post-‐World War Two period sought to act in restrictionary ways towards migrants, reflected by a continuous harshening of migration policies (Fox et al, 2012; Geddes, 2005). This attitude towards migration, whereby the United Kingdom has sought to control migratory inflows, has been particularly acute since the 1990s shift in policy, epitomized by the formal labeling of ‘managed migration’ in the policy arena (Geddes, 2005). The emphasis upon the management of migration reflects an imaginary that conceives migration as a problem, controllable through policy
decisions, such as the introduction of the ‘points based system’ in 2006 (Home Office, 2006). Whilst the ‘migration problem’ is not specific to the UK, largely prevalent within a host of western European countries (Mamadouh, 2012), it is given heightened attention due to the precarious relations between the UK and EU.
The ability to manage migration within the UK, however, is limited by supranational membership within the EU, whereby free movement of labour is a fundamental principle within the politically integrated community. The EU restricts the fully autonomous control over the territorial boundaries of the nation (Geddes, 2005), emblematic of the general contention between the UK and EU vis-‐à-‐vis sovereignty (Baker, 2001; Gifford, 2010). The precarious nature of relations between the UK and the EU has exacerbated. The apparent relaxation of tensions in 2004 displayed by the decision to allow the newly accessed ‘European’ nations free labour market access only served to heighten anxieties surrounding the EU and migration (Pemberton and Stevens, 2010; Geddes, 2005). The highly problematic nature of migration within the UK is informed by post-‐2004 experiences, with 1.5 million migrants entering the nation since the accession of eight eastern European countries (Fox et al, 2012). The imposition of the full seven years of transitional arrangements upon Bulgarian and Romanian migrants illustrates the paranoia surrounding migration (Financial Times Online, 2013).
The experiences post-‐2004 have informed the current anti-‐migration context within the UK. This is exemplified across all arenas of discourse. David Cameron’s
significant Financial Times editorial was explicit in stating, “things have gone wrong”, suggesting the need to reform migration rights within the EU (Financial Times Online, 2013). Policy discourse is continuing along restrictionary lines, expressed by proposals within the most recent Immigration Bill (Gower and Wilson, 2014).
‘Academic’ discourses, such as those from the right wing think tank Migration Watch UK, exhibit an explicitly anti-‐migration perspective through the problematization of migration:
“[G]overnments have lost control over our borders during the past fifteen years. This has resulted in immigration at a scale that is placing huge strain on our public services, housing, environment, society and quality of life” (Migration Watch UK Online, 2014).
This attitude is not shared solely by the formalised institutional discourses within the nation-‐State, with civil society feeling increasingly disillusioned with the
perceived situation of migration in the UK (Park et al, 2012, 26-‐45). The 2012 Social Attitudes Survey illustrated an increasingly negative perception of migration; with a 9% rise in those believing migration has a negative economic impact, rising to 52%, from 2002-‐2011 (Park et al, 2012, 26). Those believing that migration has caused a negative cultural impact have increased by 15%, from 33% to 48% for the same temporal period (Park et al, 2012, 26). Furthermore, 75% of respondents believed that migration into the UK should be reduced (Park et al, 2012, 26). This illustrates a convergence of societal, political and academic discourses regarding the ‘problem’ of migration. The rationale for civil society opinions in particular is both influenced and influential upon political and academic discourses. The convergence between politico-‐ideological perspectives and public opinions is reflected by the victory of the UK Independence party (Ukip) in the most recent European Parliament elections (BBC Online, 26.05.2014). The party represents an explicitly nationalistic, anti-‐
migration, and anti-‐EU ideology. Another institution driving public opinions is perhaps even more significant in the propagation of anti-‐migration discourses: the media.
The media is a hugely influential institution: holding “the power to influence knowledge, beliefs, values, social relations, social identities” (Fairclough, 1995, 2). This power is constituted through a privileged position in the production and dissemination of public discourses (Van Dijk, 2000, 36). Power is reflective of the ability to produce the social, reflecting Foucauldian conceptions of power as productive (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 12-‐14). The interrelationship between
power and knowledge situates discourse as fundamentally important, whereby discourses contribute towards the production of our subject positions (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 14). The media thus represent a powerful institution, not in the sense that they ‘hold’ power, but in the sense that they discursively play a significant role in the construction of the social world. This conception of power informs the research project, whereby the media retain the ability to produce forms of
‘knowledge’, ‘beliefs’ and ‘identities’ (Fairclough, 1995). The perspective whereby the media influences public opinions, and social reality in general, is associated with an explicitly social constructionist perspective (Phillips and Hardy, 2002; Laclau and Mouffe, 1985; Fairclough, 1989; 1992; 1995). This perspective has fundamentally informed the current research project, considering the discursive construction of the ‘migrant problem’, concerned with both migrants as actors, and migration as a process. The media’s role in setting the agenda for the country’s political discourse, particularly regarding migration, is thus of essential importance (Migration
Observatory, 2013). The research project will focus upon an analysis of newspaper media, representing a traditional form of journalistic media whereby there is a one-‐ directional nature. The ‘online’ element of news media referred to within the thesis represents the potential for such informational sources to be accessed online, illustrating the expansive reach of media sources.
The current research project attempts to consider the discursively constructed nature of the social world utilizing Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory as a theoretical standpoint (1985), whereby discursive representations structure the whole social field as a ‘web of totality’. The post-‐structuralist perspective held by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) is informed by Saussure’s structural linguistics (1960; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 9-‐11), whereby discourse forms the essential structure of the social world. This notion fundamentally informs the social constructionist perspective explicit within the field of discourse analysis (Phillips and Hardy, 2002). The following master’s thesis will thus theoretically consider a range of social
and Fairclough’s theoretical groundings for critical discourse analysis (CDA) (1989; 1992; 1995; 1998). The operation of ideology and hegemony are necessarily
considered due to the influence of these processes through a structuration of power relations and social identities.
The research project will present a theoretical framework within which to consider the discursive construction of the migrant problem. This is conceived along a series of interrelated lines. The construction of territorially based identities is conceived as a central process informed through discursive operations, whereby identity is constructed vis-‐à-‐vis a heterogeneously represented ‘Other’ (Paasi, 1996; 2001). The notion of securitization will be considered (Bigo, 2002; 2007), whereby migration is considered a major threat to the nation due to its potential to
undermine structural integrity, demonstrating the porous nature of borders, as well as threatening the perceived cultural identity (Huysmans, 2000, 752). The notion of naturalization represents the successful operation of discourses within society (Bigo, 2007), whereby certain discourses prevail in cognitive imaginaries as legitimate forms of knowledge.
Teun van Dijk’s sociocognitive model (1998; 2000; 2002; Sancho Cremades, 2007) represents a theoretical conceptualization to consider the ethnically biased nature of media discourses. Media discourses seek to perpetuate unequal power relations by playing off of group-‐based ideologies (Van Dijk, 1998; Fairclough, 1995). This is specifically conceptualized through the operation of the ideological square (Van Dijk, 1998, 33). Van Dijk (2000, 2002) considers the symbolic nature of racialized discourses that influence and are influenced by social practices. Van Dijk (2000; 2002) denotes a framework and ‘toolset’ to undertake discursive and linguistic analysis, of which the research project analytically borrows. The theoretical
framework will consider media representations of migration in the UK, considering racialized framings (Fox et al, 2012; Balabanova and Balch, 2010), the legitimisation of knowledge related to migration (Balch and Balabanova, 2011), and
representations of Romanian migrants in the UK press (Madroane, 2012; Fox et al, 2012). Finally, the theoretical framework considers the notion of the ‘underclass’ (Bauman, 1998), as well as a consideration of Cohen’s ‘moral panic’ (1972), of which both conceptions inform the analysis.
The research project will then establish the methodological conditions that inform the analysis, seeking to deconstruct the ‘migrant problem’ as the central premise of the thesis. Utilising Fairclough’s CDA (1989; 1992; 1995; 1998), analysis will seek to consider the discursive construction of migrants within two newspaper media sources, The Daily Mail and The Guardian. The period of analysis considers a range of newspaper articles from the beginning of November 2013 to the end of April 2014. The lifting of transitional arrangements upon Bulgaria and Romania is situated within this period. The following underlying research question has been selected to guide the research project:
"How has the ‘migrant problem’ been represented within British newspaper media in the lead up to, and aftermath of, the lifting of transitional arrangements upon
Bulgaria and Romania?”
In order to consider the underlying research question in more detail, a series of sub-‐ questions have been constructed, informed by the theoretical framework:
1) How can Critical Discourse Analysis be employed to explore the migrant problem?
2) In what ways are migrants thematically constructed, and what are the prominent rhetorical devices utilized within selected newspaper media sources?
3) In what ways are certain ‘voices’ more privileged in the newspaper media, and how are these voices ‘heard’ and misinterpreted?
Chapter 4 and 5, comprising the first and second analysis chapters, will seek to consider the representation of migrants along identity, political and societal impact lines, for The Daily Mail and The Guardian respectively. Considering the ways in which migrants are discursively associated to these themes, the process of exaggeration will be undertaken (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002), highlighting significant quotations and subsequently employing CDA upon them (Fairclough, 1989; 1992; 1995).
The third analysis chapter, Chapter 6, will seek to focus more explicitly upon the concepts of ideology and hegemony within the UK newspaper media through tracking the representation of certain ‘voices’ within discourse (Fairclough, 1995; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002). Applying the concept of multivocality, a series of questions will be posed to a specific ‘chain’ of news events to consider the ways in which certain voices are represented and adapted through discourse, and the meanings that these are suggested to represent.
It is hoped that the nature of the ‘migrant problem’ will be considered through CDA upon media texts, as well as through the tracking of intertextuality, facilitating a discussion concerning the ways in which migrants are discursively positioned within UK society. The influence of discourse is hugely significant upon the ways in which we conceive and experience the social world. The initial quotation
considering Huxley’s Brave New World, 1931) seeks to demonstrate metaphorically the ways in which discourse permeates social imaginaries, whereby it operates as a dropping ‘wax’ upon the subject, until the discourse itself becomes intrinsic within the subject.
2 -‐ Theoretical Framework
The following discussion presents a theoretical framework, representing key contributions within academic literature, and defining the key theoretical
conceptions that inform the research project. Discussion will initially consider the relationship between discourse and the social world, considering Saussurian structuralism followed by a discussion of Laclau and Mouffe’s poststructuralist discourse theory (2.1), as well as considering a range of discursive theories and their theoretical roots (2.2). This will seek to define notions of power, hegemony and ideology, and specifically the implications of these concepts within the context of discursive theories. Discussion will subsequently consider the discursive
construction of a spatial identity, whereby the dichotomized notion of ‘us’ vs ‘them’ forms a central component (2.3). A consideration of securitization, of the practice itself and the key actors involved, will represent the ways in which threats are presented discursively (2.4). Discussion will then turn towards a more focused consideration of media discourse in constructing public opinions, considering Van Dijk’s racialized media critique and concomitant rhetorical ‘devices’ employed within discursive operations, such as the ‘ideological square’ (2.5). A brief
consideration of academic literature will then link media constructions specifically with migration, as well as considering dominant themes related to migration (2.6), and finally, the position whereby migration within the media is considered a ‘moral panic’ 2.7).
2.1 -‐ Social Constructivism
Discourse analysis, unlike other methods of qualitative and quantitative analysis, is fundamentally informed by a set of assumptions concerning the socially
constructive effects of language upon the nature of the social world: it is a
methodology and not simply a method (Phillips and Hardy, 2002, 5). Rather than simply assuming a preexisting social world and attempting to understand the
meaning of this world, a discourse analytical approach “tries to explore how the socially produced ideas and objects that populate the world were created in the first place and how they are maintained and held in place over time.” (Phillips and Hardy, 2002, 6). The constitutive nature of discourse within discourse analytical
perspectives thus reflects a commitment to social constructivism, whereby text and talk does not offer a neutral reflection of the social world, our identities and the social relations within, but plays an active role in the creation and adaptation of these phenomena (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 1). Social constructionism thus represents a commitment to a linguistically informed premise regarding ontological and epistemological philosophical considerations.
“Without discourse, there is no social reality, and without understanding discourse, we can not understand our reality, our experiences, or ourselves.” (Phillips and Hardy, 2002, 2).
‘Social constructionism’ (or constructivism) is an umbrella term to describe a wide range of theoretical perspectives regarding culture and society (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 4). Discourse analysis comes within this wide umbrella as a prominently operationalized methodology, of which there are a range of shared philosophical assumptions, considered by Gergen (1985, 266-‐269):
1) Knowledge of the world is not ‘objective’, it is a product of the ways in which we categorise the world: a ‘product of discourse (Gergen, 1985, 266-‐267). 2) Our knowledge and experience of the world is historically and culturally
specific (Gergen, 1985, 267), representing an anti-‐essentialist position whereby the character of the world is not pre-‐given or determined by external conditions (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 5).
3) Social processes create and maintain the ways in which we understand the world (Gergen, 1985, 268).
4) Differential social understandings of the world inform the ways in which action is conceived as ‘natural’ or ‘unthinkable’ (Gergen, 1985, 268-‐269).
Discursive theories consider these philosophical premises as fundamental
components of discourse analytical methodologies, however stressing the role of language, text, and discursive practices as central mechanisms through which to conceive the social world (Phillips and Hardy, 2002; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002). The conception whereby language is conceived as structuring the social world initially stemmed from Ferdinand de Saussure’s ‘structuralist linguistics’ (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 9-‐11). Saussure conceived that signs retain two sides that exhibit an arbitrary relation between form (significant) and content (signifie) (Saussure, 1960; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 9-‐10). This suggests that the meanings retained by certain words are not inherently attached to the words themselves, but a result of social understandings that connect certain meanings with sounds. A fundamental point of departure is that individual signs gain meanings determined by their
relation to other signs: thus value and meaning is gained through difference (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 10). The structure that dictates the meanings of words can be conceived through Saussure’s conception of language as dualistic. Language has two dimensions, Langue, conceived as an unchangeable and fixed structure of language reflecting “the network of signs that give meaning to one another” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 10), and Parole, the sign used by people in certain situations. Parole must always draw off of Langue, because it structures language and thus makes the possibility for meanings to exist and be
comprehended. Saussure thus conceived of language as a stable ‘web’ of meaning, reflecting a fundamental conception within structuralism (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 10).
Whilst acknowledging elements of Saussurian structuralism, particularly the notion that linguistic signs are conceived within a web-‐like structure of processes, with each sign deriving their meaning from their difference from one another (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 24-‐26), Laclau and Mouffe (1985) offer a poststructuralist theory of discourse which rejects the notion of Langue as fixed and unambiguous. Laclau and Mouffe (1985) combine Marxist and structuralist theoretical traditions “into a
single poststructuralist theory in which the whole social field is understood as a web of processes in which meaning is created” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 25). Language use for Laclau and Mouffe (1985) centres upon the notion that signs derive their meaning through difference from one another, but this is ambiguous, offering the potential for continual changes in meaning through differential fixations. The ‘web’ that defines the meaning of signs still exists, however this is in a perpetual state of contingency, whereby each fixation of meaning is dependent upon its relations to other signs, which through the social process of language use can always be
undermined (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 25-‐26). Contingency, whereby attempts to fix meanings to signs which ultimately cannot be totally fixed, offers an entry point into discourse analysis, highlighting power relations through an analysis of the processes that continually struggle to fix meaning, and those that are considered ‘conventional’ (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 25-‐26).
For Laclau and Mouffe (1985), a discourse is conceived as the fixation of meaning within a particular domain, with each fixation representing a particular sign,
considered as moment. Meanings are fixed through the differential positions of each moment: through their relation to each other (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 26). A discourse is thus a totality of moments, each representative of a certain sign, defined through its relations to other signs. This is facilitated through the notion of
exclusion, whereby the ways in which the signs could be established in relation to each other is not possible; otherwise the signs would not hold their specific
meanings due to an organization of differential positioning (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 26-‐27). This constitutes the notion that “a discourse is a reduction of
possibilities” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 27). The excluded meanings are
conceived as the field of discursivity, whereby alternative fixations of meanings exist (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985, 111; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 27).
A discourse is thus always constituted vis-‐à-‐vis what it excludes, but the excluded possibilities create the potential for a discourse to be continually undermined due to
other potential fixations of meanings within the field of discursivity that threaten the existing ‘unity of meaning’ (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 27). This fixity is threatened through the existence of elements, whereby the meaning of a specific sign has not be fixed, offering the potential for multiple meanings through polysemy (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 27). Thus, in order for a discourse to prevail,
elements have to be fixed through reducing the polysemy of meanings, illustrating an attempt of closure. The critical point is that elements cannot be fully fixed into moments due to the multiplicity of meanings within the field of discursivity
(Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 28). The notion of articulation offers the potential for change in meanings through establishing differential relations between elements, resulting in the modification of the identity of each element (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985, 105; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 28). The notion of the floating signifier, whereby different discourses attempt to fix meanings to important signs, represents the struggle between discourses to ascribe meanings (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 28). Discourse analysis thus enables us to consider the ways in which different articulations fix meanings, what positions are established in relation to each other, and what meanings are excluded by certain relational fixations, despite a deficiency within Laclau and Mouffe’s theory regarding how to actually do discourse analysis.
Following from the caricatured description of Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of
discourse (1985), a range of significant concepts will be briefly considered for their critical importance. Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that for Laclau and Mouffe there is no dialectical separation between discourse and social practice (1985, 107). This suggests that the discursive nature of society and our identities can never be totally fixed, despite the seemingly objective nature (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 33). It is through the discursive production of meaning that
objectivity is constructed. The notion of power, in the productive Foucauldian sense, thus offers an insight into the discursive construction of objectivity: “It is power that creates our knowledge, our identities and how we relate to one another as groups or individuals” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 37). Thus power is a process to conceive
the ways in which certain discourses have constituted a social order, simultaneously excluding other potential social orders whilst presenting existing ones as objective. The notion of politics is introduced to consider the ways in which we constitute the social world in ways that exclude all other alternative organisations. “Politics, then, is not just the surface that reflects a deeper social reality; rather, it is the social organization that is the outcome of continuous political processes” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 36). The notion of objectivity comes to the fore when considering the firm establishment of certain discourses that appear to disallow the notion of contingency (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 36). These discourses are considered objective, given, and unchangeable. For Laclau and Mouffe (1985) the term ‘objectivity’ is used in the place of ‘ideology’, thus society cannot operate without ideology (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 37). Such theorisations thus offer the potential for a consideration of the operation of hegemony, whereby consent is secured for a particular social order (Phelan and Dahlberg, 2011):
“The concept of hegemony comes between ‘objectivity’ and ‘the political’. Just as the objective can become political again, so manifest conflicts can, in the course of time, disappear and give way to objectivity where one perspective is naturalized and consensus prevails. The development from political conflict to objectivity passes
through hegemonic interventions whereby alternative understandings of the world are suppressed, leading to the naturalization of one single perspective.” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 36-‐37, original emphasis).
Finally, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) consider the notion of identity construction, which due to the contingency of discourse, and thus social practice, can never be totally fixed, with competing discourses constantly attempting to ascribe meanings towards certain identities. Subjects become positions in discourses, with social relations defining the ways in which the subject can and does operate. The subject is thus always determined by discourse, illustrating a lack of autonomy. This further relates to the concept of overdetermination, whereby the subject is continually
positioned by conflicting and contingent discourses (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 41).
2.2 -‐ Critical Discourse Analysis
Whilst Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory (1985) offers a comprehensive theorization of the construction of the social world, illustrating competition
between discourses to fix meanings, Critical Discourse Analysis is a broad school of thought that similarly focuses upon the discursive influence upon the social world (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 60). Fairclough’s critical discourse analytical (CDA) perspective will be considered (1989; 1992; 1993; 1998). There are some important differences to note between the perspectives of Fairclough’s CDA and Laclau and Mouffe, with the notion of a dialectical relationship between social and discursive practice central to critical discourse analysis, (Fairclough, 1989) whereas Laclau and Mouffe do not conceive an ontological distinction (1985, 107). To consider this divergence, the role of discourse in the constitution of the social world is reflected in figure 1.1. Laclau and Mouffe are positioned on the left of the scale to illustrate the solely constitutive nature of discourse within their conception (2002, 20), whilst critical discourse analysis, in this instance referring to the Fairclough’s CDA, is situated in the middle of the continuum.
Figure 1.1: The role and nature of discourse in constructing the social world. (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, p.20, Figure 1.1).
For Fairclough (1989; 1992; 1993; 1998), discourse is thus constitutive and constituted by non-‐discursive factors, suggesting that social practices are not fully discursively regulated, with an influence of institutions such as the police, or the role of the economy (which is particularly important due to the Marxist nature of Fairclough’s CDA). Thus, some aspects of the social world do not function according to the logic of discourse (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 19). Fairclough thus
conceives the notion of social structure as social relations, both in society and in specific institutions, which are both discursive and non-‐discursive (1992).
Considering Fairclough’s CDA, the analytical and theoretical focus is placed upon “the place of language in society: that language is centrally involved in power, and struggles for power, and that it is so involved through its ideological properties” (Fairclough, 1989, 17). Discursive practice thus contributes towards the creation and production of unequal power relations (Fairclough, 1989; 1992; Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 63). Fairclough’s approach attempts to uncover power relations and the ideologies that ensure their domination, utilising an analysis of three functions of discourse: an identity function, a relational function, and an ideational function. The relations between these three functions help to establish the links between discourse, societal processes and cultural struggles (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 66). For Fairclough (1995), it is necessary to consider two dimensions of discourse for analysis, with the communicative event representing an instance of language use, and the order of discourse representing the configuration of all discourse types within a social institution or social field (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 67). Furthermore, each communicative event has three dimensions, representing text (linguistic features), discursive practice (the production and consumption of texts), and social practice. These categories are interrelated due to the fact that the
linguistic features of text have been conceived through discursive practice (Fairclough, 1992); however these represent two dimensions and should be
analytically separated (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 69). The ability to influence the social world is thus conceived through the fact that communicative events
reproduce orders of discourse: “the sum of all genres and discourses which are in use within a specific social domain” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 72). The order of discourse shapes and is shaped by the communicative event by delimiting what can be said, but the usage of language informed by other orders of discourse, as well as a repackaging of discourses from the original order, can result in changes to the order of discourse.
“The starting point is that the discourses, by representing reality in one particular way rather than in other possible ways, constitute subjects and objects in particular ways, create
boundaries between the true and the false, and make certain types of action relevant and others unthinkable. It is in this sense that discourse is constitutive of the social.” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 145).
Two fundamental concepts within Fairclough’s CDA are interdiscursivity and intertextuality (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 73-‐74). Since Fairclough’s focus is upon how discourses change over time to reflect the impacts of ideology,
interdiscursivity and intertextuality offer analytical tools to consider processes of change. Interdiscursivity refers to the mixing of different discourses through an articulation within a specific communicative event (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 73). When articulations represent multiple and mixed discourses that conform to the order of discourse, they are representative of the influence of ideology, in the sense that this represents the maintenance of the dominant order of discourse, which subsequently works towards reproduction of the dominant social order (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 73). Intertextuality is representative of “how in the production and interpretation (as part of what I called above ‘consumption’) of a text people draw upon other texts and text types which are culturally available to them” (Fairclough, 1998, 145). Intertextuality is inevitable due to the fact that each
communicative event must draw upon earlier events (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 74). Each text is reflective of an intertextual chain whereby texts are linked together through the incorporation of elements of other texts. The notion of manifest
1992, 171). These concepts refer to the ways in which history influences a text, and how history is influenced by a text, thus contributing towards historical changes (Fairclough, 1992). Intertextuality can thus be conceived as reflective of instability and stability, whereby change is created by the utilization of previous discourses in new ways, but these are, however, limited by power relations (Fairclough, 1993).
“Ideologies are closely linked to power, because the nature of the ideological assumptions embedded in particular conventions, and so the nature of those conventions themselves, depends on the power relations which underlie the conventions; and because they are means of legitimizing existing social relations and differences of power, simply through the recurrence of ordinary, familiar ways of behaving which take these relations and power differences for granted.” (Fairclough, 1989, 2).
It is necessary to consider Fairclough’s conceptions of ideology and hegemony for these are central in his conception of how discourse structures and perpetuates social relations. Simply put, ideology represents “meaning within the service of power” (Fairclough, 1995, 14). Ideologies construct meanings that contribute towards the production and perpetuation of relations of domination (Fairclough, 1992). Fairclough overcame the face value assumptions within some Marxist perspectives that take ideologies to be abstracted systems of value (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 75). Fairclough utilizes Gramsci’s notion of ‘common sense’ (1991) to reflect the notions of ideology and hegemony, whereby discursive constructions attempt to negotiate meanings, of which are in competition with each other, offering the potential for resistance within Fairclough’s perspective (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002). Hegemony is thus the negotiation of meaning emerging from a consensus of meaning, which is unstable, constantly changing based on the consensuses shared within the social world (Fairclough, 1992).
“According to Fairclough, the concept of hegemony gives us the means by which to analyse how discursive practice is part of a larger social practice involving power relations: discursive
and transformation of the order of discourse of which it is part (and conse-‐ quently of the existing power relations). Discursive change takes place when discursive elements are articulated in new ways.” (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, 76).
2.3 -‐ Identity and Otherness
Discussion will now turn to a consideration of discursive elements that are relevant to the specific discourses concerning migration under consideration within the research project. Paasi (2001) briefly discusses the notion of identity, drawing on Meyer and Geschiere’s (1999) consideration, positing it as an analytical tool illustrating the impact of globalization upon reinforcing cultural heterogeneity. Paasi (1996; 2001) presents identity as being critically informed by spatial location, an association to a spatial entity, most strongly conceived as the State. This ‘spatial identity’ is constructed through identity discourses, with an integral element in the fixing of spatial identity related to ‘territorialization’ and ‘spatialization’, (Paasi, 1996; 2001) “which points to the construction and reproduction of territoriality in cultural, environmental, security, or other discourses” (Paasi, 2001, 20). This process exists most strongly for national communities, where nationalism and national identity discourses are employed to forge an association with territory (Paasi, 2001). The creation of a community is constituted through symbolic and material narratives that attempt to produce a sense of intrinsic associations towards a territory (Paasi, 2001). The production of a community occurs equally along the lines of difference, thus enabling associations to be made against a set of
characteristics considered as belonging to the Other (Paasi, 1996). Discursive practices offer a way in which both ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ can be constructed. Whilst the state is a key actor in the discursive construction of identities for Paasi (1996; 2001), the processes exist within other arenas of discourse, with constructivist perspectives positing this to occur through all social practices due to the consideration of these as discursive (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2000).
