Elite Discourse and Racism: Immigration and National Identities

Elite Discourse and Racism

Immigration and racism?

Immigration and the presence of "different"
communities in Britain have attracted much interest
within the last few decades.

• New major developments in the world order - such
  as the political shifts from a bipolar world order to
  what came to be known as a 'new world order',
  and the emergence of new socio - political/ cultural
  'blocs' , along with (constructed and actual) threats
  of 'terrorism' have all contributed to emergence of
  discourses of urgency in the demarcation of 'us'
  and 'them' among many modern European
  societies.
• These processes translate into a tendency
  towards 'conservative' ideologies and identity
  convergence in several European countries
  (Wodak & Van Dijk 2006, Wodak 1996, Van Dijk
  1991).
• Within such grand changes in the world arena
  and on a more local level within Britain there
  have emerged concerns/interests on issues of
  'national identity', 'Britishness' and
  immigration in terms of what is to be
  constructed as in - group 'home' communities
  and out - group 'other' communities.
• In this context, the hegemonic majority power and the
  tendency to marginalise and 'cast out' the constructed
  out - groups have intertwined with modern liberal and
  egalitarian discourses in modern societies - which
  prevailed after the Second World War (Van Dijk 1991).
  This meant that "older" discriminatory discourses on
  'out - groups' have had to take on a quasi -
  argumentative elaboration focusing on "culture" and
  religiously avoiding "race" in their discursive
  construction of 'us' vs. 'them' (Billig 2006, Van Dijk
  1991:25).
• However, abandoning the strict 'racialised' definition
  of racism, does not necessarily entail abolishment of
  these discourses altogether .. The people who practice this 'new racism'
  believe in the basic values of democratic
  egalitarianism, and would emphatically
  deny that they are racist, they would
  speak or act in such a way that distances
  themselves from the ethnic minority,
  engaging in discursive strategies that blame
  the victims for their circumstances on their
  own social, economic and even cultural
  disadvantage.
• In addition, metaphors have proved to be an
  important discursive strategy in an analysis of
  the representation of 'foreigners'. Several
  studies found that metaphors of aliens , water,
  natural disasters , pollution and impurity ,
  war/fighting, house/building , disease/infection ,
  animals , goods and the economy are salient
  to the argumentative structure of discourses
  of immigration and similar topics (Reisigl and
  Wodak 2001, Woda k & van Dijk 2006, van
  Dijk 1987, 2004, Santa Ana 1999, Flowerdew &
  Tran 2002, Sedlak 2006).
• The use of metaphors like "flood" and "tide"
  do not seem to be working towards negative
  presentation of the refugees and in fact they
  seem to argue for more humanitarian help. It
  seems that the use of typical metaphors for
  refugees or immigrants does not automatically
  create a negative representation of them, and
  the function of metaphor use strictly depends
  on the social, cultural, and political and and
  cognitive elements constituting the 'interpretive
  context""
• In Britain and in the UK, race and ethnic affairs
  have been and continue to be a major political
  issue throughout the twentieth/twenty-first
  century.
• Analysis of the discourse of political elites on
  these issues may contribute:
  • to our insight into the discursive reproduction of
    racism
  • to an understanding of the more general political
    context of these reproduction processes in other
    domains.

Political Involvement in Ethnic Issues

• Governments, parliaments, political parties, the
  bureaucracies are involved in the discursive practices of
  policy debates, decision making, and legislation about
  what they define as "pressing ethnic issues", such as
  • increasing illegal immigration
  • waves of refugees
  • housing
  • black crime,
  • Unemployment
  • multicultural education
  • poverty

Characteristics of White Politicians

(White) politicians

• are mainly (white) middle-class people who
  share ideas with the groups that support them
• get feedback from their constituencies
• are influenced by academic and other experts
  (e.g. through reports and other forms of
  institutional discourse
• are influence by the media (and in turn
  influence the media)

The Context of Tolerance and Racism

The context

• Since World War II there has been a slow
  development toward more tolerant and even
  multicultural attitudes, discourses, and practices
  in politics.
• Emergence of discourses on equality, human
  rights and the necessity of migrations has pushed
  'racist' discourse on the background. However,
  racism is still a fact of life in contemporary Europe
  and North America, and politicians contribute to
  it.
• This does not mean that the majority of the
  mainstream political elites still advocate explicitly
  racist positions, as is the case for some extremist
  right-wing parties in most European countries.
• On the contrary, most governments and most
  mainstream parties emphasize their distance
  toward explicit racist attitudes and practices - if
  only because these are generally against the law.
• The focus is on subtle and indirect forms of
  ethnic and racial dominance as they are
  reproduced by elites operating within the
  framework of the consensus.

Parliamentarians' Awareness of Public Statements

• Parliamentarians also know, that their talk is "for the record," and
  they act accordingly:
  • 1) they do not speak merely to argue for or against a policy, a bill, or
    other political activities > they also make official statements that
    reflect party positions, which are to be inserted into the records
    and which may be quoted in the news media
  • 2) they know they may be held politically and morally responsible
    FOR WHAT THEY SAY. This is especially crucial in the domain of
    ethnic affairs since the controversiality and sensitive nature of most
    ethnic topics require that the politicians be aware of what they can
    say, and what should not be said.
  • 3) in other words, control and monitoring of self and others are
    crucial in political texts and talk about ethnic and immigration
    affairs, and this will particularly affect the ways opinions are
    formulated.

Positive Self-Presentation: Nationalist Rhetoric

Positive Self-Presentation:
Nationalist Rhetoric

• Parliaments and political discourse are the prime
  setting for nationalist rhetoric:
  • pride
  • self-glorification
  • positive comparisons with other countries
  • other forms of positive self-presentation

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Rhetoric

Especially in debates about immigration and ethnic
affairs in general, it is important to show that Our
party, Our country, Our people, are humane,
benevolent, hospitable, tolerant, and modern.

• Such affirmations would be a natural self-defense
  tactic if there were attacks on or explicit doubts
  about these civic virtues; however, we also find
  them when no such attacks or doubts have been
  voiced.
• They function as a defense against potential
  doubts or possible objections, they are used to
  block negative inferences about negative things
  said about immigrants or minorities.
  (EXCUSATIO NON PETITA ACCUSATIO MANIFESTA?)

Example of Conservative MP Speech

• Cfr. excerpt from a speech about immigration of a Conservative MP in the
  British House of Commons:
  I believe that we are a wonderfully fair country. We stick to the rules
  unlike some foreign Governments. (Great Britain, Sir John Stokes, May
  15, 1990, columns 842-844)
• Self-praise for British immigration policies and practices is often
  formulated in the familiar terms of good sportsnianship ("fair," "sticking to
  the rules").
  Negative comparison with other countries ("unlike some foreign
  Governments") not only lightly implies that other countries do not
  stick to the rules (of the so-called immigration game), but also enhances
  the alleged special merits of Britain.
• Cfr. excerpt from a speech about immigration of a Conservative MP in the
  British House of Commons:
  I believe that we are a wonderfully fair country. We stick to the rules
  unlike some foreign Governments. (Great Britain, Sir John Stokes, May
  15, 1990, columns 842-844)
• Self-praise for British immigration policies and practices is often
  formulated in the familiar terms of good sportsnianship ("fair," "sticking to
  the rules").
  Negative comparison with other countries ("unlike some foreign
  Governments") not only lightly implies that other countries do not
  stick to the rules (of the so-called immigration game), but also enhances
  the alleged special merits of Britain.
• Grand claims are made about tolerance:
  (e.g. "we have a long history of tolerance“)
• Hospitality and tolerance, are not merely ad
  hoc policies, but rather the inherent national
  virtues of a long tradition.

Disclaimers and the Denial of Racism

Disclaimers and the Denial of Racism

• Debates about immigration, minorities, and civil rights are replete with
  exalted claims of freedom, democracy, tolerance, hospitality, and other
  lofty ideals of a "long tradition"
• To understand the broader ideological, sociopolitical, and local
  argumentative function of such passages, we need to examine the context
  in which they are uttered:
  such statements seem to be responses to other, opposed claims,
  that is, denials of implicit or explicit accusations >
  - you do not respect your/our values,
  - you are not tolerant,
  - You are not hospitable, and so on.
  Sometimes, such counter-claims are really made, typically by the opposition
  Sometimes, the grand claims of virtue and superiority are
  the classical introductions of disclaimers such as,
  "We are very tolerant toward minorities, but . . . "
  stereotypically followed by a negative statement about
  such minorities, or a defense of actions or policies that
  have negative consequences for minorities.

Symptoms of Prejudice and Antagonistic Attitudes

• Such disclaimers are often a clear symptom of
  underlying prejudices or antagonistic attitudes, if not a
  sure sign of subtle or not so subtle racism.
• The general structure of disclaimers in discourse
  about ethnic affairs usually is
  We do/are positive, but They do/are negative
  (e.g. We are very tolerant, but They abuse our
  tolerance).
• It may also start with a denial of a negative
  property of the own group followed by a negative
  property attributed to others, or followed by a
  negative decision (e.g. We have nothing against
  immigrants, but we can't let everybody in)
• The denial of racism also has the overall format of
  a positive property associated with Us, followed
  by a clause, starting with but and then saying or
  implying something negative about the Others.
• The positive self-description here, however, is
  indirect. It does not say that we are tolerant or
  democratic, but only that "they have rights,"
  paternalistically implying that we have given
  them these rights.
• At the same time, this statement presupposes
  that They are not fulfilling their duties, although
  We, the State, guarantee their rights.
• The rhetoric sounds like this:
  
  • We have done our best, we have done
    everything for you we could, but now it is your
    turn. And politically more relevant, it also implies:
    If our minority policy has failed, it is your fault
    because you did not fulfill your duties and you
    have not taken us seriously.
• Often political texts express humanitarian ideals: care and sympathy
  for the oppressed, as they are legally required according to international
  agreements, such as the Geneva refugee treaty. Then follows a "but" which is
  generally predictable, mentioning "measures" that impair the chances of
  refugees or other immigrants.
  The use of "of course" (instead of, say, "unfortunately") implies that such a
  realistic policy is only natural: We are forced to be less generous because of
  special circumstances.
  The usual argument involved might simply and straightforwardly run like this:
  "There are too many of them and therefore we can't handle (house, employ,
  etc.) them."