Racism in Relation to Austrian Political Discourse - Case Study Example

Order 159357 Racism and power in relation to Austrian political dis This paper encompasses a discussion about racism and power and how the two interrelate to Austrian politics. Discourse for this topic is a relevant one for several reasons. One of these reasons is the dividing of the iron curtain that took place in 1989. This was a significant part or history and the dividing of the iron curtain had significant impact on both racism and power. It is specifically relevant to Austria along with other Western cultures due to the changes that resulted from the dividing of the iron curtain. This iron curtain divided Europe prior to it being torn so when it was gone unifications that never before existed were formed. Since it was torn down in Austria there was adjustment that had to be made. It is important to know that politicians and the media were ecstatic about the changes yet they were not totally prepared for the changes, both good and bad, that would manifest in the future. Armed with wire-cutters, Austria's Foreign Minister Alois Mock was shown doing his part--literally as well as symbolically--to open the border between Austria and Hungary. 1 The end of 1989 witnessed the success of the Rumanian "revolution," and the fall of eastern European Stalinist regimes (or the death of Marxism, according to taste) was everywhere exuberantly acclaimed. As the first waves of refugees and immigrants seeking asylum and work made their way westward, however, this enthusiasm soon dampened.2 1 Jger, Siegfried. 1991. Alltagsrassismus (forthcoming). 2 Mitten, Richard. 1992a. The Politics of Anti-Semitic Prejudice. The Waldheim Phenomenon in Austria. Boulder: Westview Press. By the end of 1989 many changes had occurred. Included was the fall of eastern European Stalinist regimes. Other significant events that resulted from the fall of the wall were the success of the Rumanian "revolution," and the demise of Marxism, according to taste. 3 Many things of significance politically ensued he fall of the wall Power became an issue when these paramount events took placer. Racism also became a significant factor. Shortly after the fall of the wall in 1989 refugees and immigrants seeking both work and asylum began making their way westward. The influx of immigrants set the basis for fight for power in the new found freedom. As well the large amounts of immigrants seeking new found freedom in the west set the stage for problem with racism and one of the new arenas for this was Austria. They became known as" political" and "economic" refugees. They elided rather quickly to these new parts. .Without a doubt, the patronizing acceptance in Austria of political refugees from Communist eastern Europe seems to have disguised more profound ethnic conflict towards these groups of immigrants. . The uncertainties of this new political configuration in Europe occasioned the emergence in Austrian public life of xenophobic discourses, fed by and couched in the terms of social anxiety. Those who even a few months previously would have been largely welcomed as heroic refugees from tyrannical regimes, suddenly became socially more threatening "economic immigrants," "spirit and salami merchants," "criminals," etc., too lazy and selfish to remain in their countries and solve their own problems. 3 3 van Dijk, Teun. 1985. Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. An indication of the political implications of this transformation was given in the campaign preceding the 1990 elections to the Austrian National Assembly. Confronted by the obvious success which the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei sterreichs, or FP), seconded in its effort by the Neue Kronen Zeitung, the largest selling newspaper in Austria, was registering with its more or less explicit appeals to these ethnic hostilities, politicians from the mainstream Social Democratic Party (SP) and the Christian democratic Austrian People's Party (VP) quickly accommodated their own electoral strategies and general political propaganda to the new climate of resentment and anger. (cf. Dressler/Wodak 1990, Wodak 1991a) Unsurprisingly, the kinds of ethnic stereotypes which the studies of Helsen (1990), Jger (1991), and van Dijk (1984) had registered in other political cultures found their equivalents in contemporary media discourse and politicians' statements in Austria. The new immigrants, in Austria as in Germany, for example, were said to be dirty, lazy, violent, criminal, etc. The emergence, in this new context, of both hoary but frequently encountered ethnic prejudices as well as stereotypes with a less common contemporary cast, has provided critical linguists involved in prejudice research not only with new data, but has also raised new challenges and opportunities to test the adequacy of our terminology, our methods, and our theories. Utilizing an approach that has been termed the "discourse-historical method," for example, recent research in Austria has both confirmed the variation in the complexity and explicitness of discursive patterns of prejudice-expression, and has as well suggested that even the specific prejudicial content such expressions transmit is largely determined by the historical and linguistic contexts of their emergence (cf. Wodak et al. 1990, Wodak/Matouschek 1993). Though the specific combination of theoretical insights and methodological procedures involved in the discourse-historical method was itself novel, most of the individual discourse-theoretical components of this approach, as well as the analytical categories employed, were more familiar, and had been derived principally from Gordon Allport's social psychological study of prejudice, Teun van Dijk's socio-cognitive model of prejudice formation, and Ruth Wodak's theory of text planning (cf. Allport 1987 [1954], van Dijk 1984, and Wodak 1986).4, 5. 6 Some of the leading figures involved in prejudice research, most notably Teun van Dijk and Siegfried Jger, however, have proposed a new, streamlined conceptual framework to analyze what had hitherto been designated ethnic and racial prejudice. (See van Dijk 1991 and Jger 1991) Challenges to existing categories are to be welcomed, even if the precise methodological implications have yet to be fully elaborated, if for no other reason than because a far more subtle system of categories ordinarily issues from such a debate. It is fair, however, to question whether or not this proposed new terminology can really advance our understanding (scholarly or otherwise) of these hostilities. We believe that in this case some doubt is justified. In this essay we would like to indicate some of the methodological inadequacies we feel van Dijk's and Jger's new conceptions of racism imply and suggest that the "older" and "proven" categories (many of which van Dijk himself used to defend, e.g., van Dijk 1989) are able to achieve more satisfactory analytical results without blurring distinctions the new terminology logically entails. 7,8 4 van Dijk, Teun. 1987. Racism and Discourse. Los Angeles: Sage. In his recent work, Racism and the Press, van Dijk lays out his definition of racism clearly and states the political justification underlying his choice of terms. The "racial differentiations of earlier Western ideologies," he argues, are being transformed into an "emphasis on culture and cultural differences." "Racism is being transformed into ethnicism," van Dijk continues, because the latter is seen as "morally less reprehensible" than the former. Consequently, abandoning what he terms "a dual or even multiple set of basic theoretical terms," van Dijk employs the term racism "in a more general sense, as it also has become adopted in political contexts of resistance, denoting both racism in the strict sense as well as various forms of ethnicism." Racism is thus "the type of racism or ethnicism prevalent in western countries, both against black' groups, including people of African origin and those of (South) Asian origin, as well as against specific, such as Mediterranean or Arabic, peoples or immigrants from the borders' of Europe, or against Hispanics in the US." (van Dijk 1991: 26-27) The fall of the wall created opportunities. Along with these opportunities came new political and racist views that had never been addressed before. Although the dismantling of the wall created many new opportunities it created new obstacles as well. It is rhese new challenges thaqt forced Austria to come to a rude awakening during these times. Ib fact they are still addressing these issues to the present. , 6 Schiffrin Deborah Tannen, Beborah Hamilton. Malden, Heidi H. Discourse Analysis and Heidi E.; Oxford; Carlton, Blackwell 8 Jger, Siegfried. 1991. Alltagsrassismus (forthcoming). differentiations of earlier Western ideologies," he argues, are being transformed into an "emphasis on culture and cultural differences." "Racism is being transformed into ethnicism," van Dijk continues, because the latter is seen as "morally less reprehensible" than the former. Consequently, abandoning what he terms "a dual or even multiple set of basic theoretical terms," van Dijk employs the term racism "in a more general sense, as it also has become adopted in political contexts of resistance, denoting both racism in the strict sense as well as various forms of ethnicism." Racism is thus "the type of racism or ethnicism prevalent in western countries, both against black' groups, including people of African origin and those of (South) Asian origin, as well as against specific, such as Mediterranean or Arabic, peoples or immigrants from the borders' of Europe, or against Hispanics in the US." (van Dijk 1991: 26-27) Van Dijk, however, admits two major exceptions to this general usage of the term racism. For the "historically special case of ethnicism . . . directed against Jewish people," van Dijk prefers to "retain the usual term anti-semitism.'" Moreover, in order to distinguish racism, as a general term, from various forms of intra-European ethnicism, such as in the case of the British dominance over the Irish, or of what is presently sometimes called the razzismo of North Italians against South Italians, the latter forms of ethnicism may also be called "regionalisms." These are not merely socio-culturally based (for instance in language or religion), but also politically and economically grounded. Although the ideological basis of these different forms of ethnicism may differ as to the set of criteria by which "difference" is socially constructed, the structural consequences for the position of the respective dominated group may be very similar. (van Dijk 1991: 26-27) 9 9 van Dijk, Teun. 1985. Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Noting that ethnic distinctions "are rarely neutral," but rather "are commonly associated with marked inequalities of wealth and power, as well as with antagonism between groups," the sociologist Anthony Giddens describes "racial differences" as "physical variations singled out by the members of a community or society as ethnically significant." Racism, for Giddens, thus "means falsely attributing inherited characteristics of personality or behavior to individuals of a particular physical appearance." Consequently, "[a] racist is someone who believes that a biological explanation can be given for characteristics of superiority or inferiority supposedly possessed by people of a given physical stock." (Giddens 1989: 244, 246) Gordon Allport held that visual categories help to ease perception and lead therefore to a corresponding categorization of individuals along these lines. Ethnic characteristics are culturally transmitted and learned by socialization. In so far as the term has any meaning, racial characteristics are those behavioral traits that are believed to be genetically-determined. Using the term "racism" in such a broad way to define and describe the entire scope of prejudices against minority groups risks losing sight of sometimes significant distinctions concerning the intensity, quality, effectiveness and political consequences of these prejudices. It is possible, for example, that the presence of ethnic and racist prejudices against blacks and Jews has implications concerning the relative immunity of prejudiced people to a revision of their beliefs. Such potential differences in the mutability of prejudices, in turn, might conceivably imply discrete, even if complementary, pedagogical or political strategies for combating such beliefs. Allport distinguished prejudice from discrimination and described a progressively more onerous range of exclusionary acts, based on the ideological legitimation of specific actions. Prejudices can be expressed verbally, and need not imply discriminatory intent; racist ideologies, however, can lead to whole groups being excluded "legally" as, for example, in the case of the Nuremberg laws in the Third Reich, "Jim Crow" laws in the United States or apartheid in South Africa. 10 Yet Allport was careful to specify the cognitive as well as the various contingent factors determining the emergence and retention of all possible prejudiced beliefs. This anti-teleological conviction is also apparent in linguistic models of prejudice such as Quasthoff's on social stereotypes and van Dijk's more extensive socio-cognitive model of prejudice formation.1 Quasthoff (1973, 1989) distinguishes between attitudes, conviction and prejudice. She defines attitudes as the affective position taken towards a person to whom one relates and towards whom one can express dislike or sympathy. Convictions, according to Quasthoff, ascribe qualities to others and often provide rationalizations for one's negative attitudes (e.g., "blacks smell bad"). A stereotype is the verbal expression of a conviction directed towards a social group, or individuals as members of that social group. It takes the logical form of a judgment, which in an oversimplified and generalizing way attributes or denies to a certain class of persons particular qualities or behavioral patterns. Prejudices, finally, consist of attitudes (the affective element) and convictions (the cognitive element).11 10 van Dijk, Teun. 1989. "Mediating Racism. The role of the media in theproduction of racism." In Wodak (ed.). (1989), 199-226. 11 Adorno, Theodor W. 1968. Studien zum autoritren Charakter. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. To explain the function of social prejudice, Quasthoff considers several psychological approaches. She sometimes describes prejudice as an integral part of authoritarian systems ("inner psychic functions of stereotypes") (Adorno et al. 1968, Mitscherlich & Mitscherlich 1977); on the other occasions, she prefers a scapegoat theory explanation ("social functions of stereotypes"). She rightly argues that social prejudices also have a cognitive-linguistic orientation function. They simplify communication within one's own group, strengthen the sense of belonging and delineate the outgroup. This is particularly the case during periods of inner resistance and in times of rapid social change. According to Quasthoff, sentences are the linguistic unit most amenable to her type of analysis. (Quasthoff 1973:28) She distinguishes four types of prejudice expressed in sentences, which she defines using the rules of formal logic: (1) Analytical propositions claiming to express a truth. This is the basic form of a stereotype, and all stereotypes can be seen as conforming to this pattern. A quality or behavior pattern is ascribed to a group. The group is the subject, the quality the predicate. It takes the form of a statement, from the point of view of logic it is, however, a judgment (e.g., "Germans are hard-working"). (2) Modified statements are those which limit their force by using certain signals in their surface structure (e.g., "The inhabitants of Lower Saxony are said to have a reputation for being taciturn".). (3) Directly expressed opinions are sentences in which the speaker explicitly refers to herself or himself (e.g. "I don't think that . . ."). (4) Text Linguistic type. In this case, the stereotype is expressed implicitly (e.g. "He is Jewish, but he's very nice"). Quasthoff's four categories cover a fairly broad range of verbal expressions and nuances. As the four types express different grades of directness, their occurrence is heavily dependent on situation and setting. Because of the latent and subtle prejudice patterns found today, types 2 and 4 occur most frequently. However, the categorization of obvious prejudice according to the sentence structure neglects latent meanings, allusions, strategies, vague formulations, implications and forms of argumentation which all relate According to Quasthoff, sentences are the linguistic unit most amenable to her type of analysis. (Quasthoff 1973:28) She distinguishes four types of prejudice expressed in sentences, which she defines using the rules of formal logic: (1) Analytical propositions claiming to express a truth. This is the basic form of a stereotype, and all stereotypes can be seen as conforming to this pattern. A quality or behavior pattern is ascribed to a group. The group is the subject, the quality the predicate. It takes the form of a statement, from the point of view of logic it is, however, a judgment (e.g., "Germans are hard-working"). (2) Modified statements are those which limit their force by using certain signals in their surface structure (e.g., "The inhabitants of Lower Saxony are said to have a reputation for being taciturn".). (3) Directly expressed opinions are sentences in which the speaker explicitly refers to herself or himself (e.g. "I don't think that . . ."). (4) Text Linguistic type. In this case, the stereotype is expressed implicitly (e.g. "He is Jewish, but he's very nice"). Quasthoff's four categories cover a fairly broad range of verbal expressions and nuances. As the four types express different grades of directness, their occurrence is heavily dependent on situation and setting. Because of the latent and subtle prejudice patterns found today, types 2 and 4 occur most frequently. However, the categorization of obvious prejudice according to the sentence structure neglects latent meanings, allusions, strategies, vague formulations, implications and forms of argumentation which all relate to the level of written text or oral discourse (cf. Van Dijk 1990, 164 for a definition of "text" and "discourse"). 13, 14 13 Quasthoff, Uta. 1973. Soziales Vorurteil und Kommunikation. Frankfurt: Fischer be seen as an extension of van Dijk's socio-cognitive model. It attempts to incorporate historical-political and affective levels into the analysis of prejudice. By means of two examples of discourse containing prejudice stories, we would like to suggest the benefits of integrating a more systematic attention to both the broad and narrow contexts of prejudiced discourse. Many of these limitations were successfully overcome by van Dijk's model of prejudice formation, which is based on similar socio-psychological considerations. According to van Dijk, prejudice is not merely a characteristic of individual beliefs or emotions about social groups, but a shared form of social representation in group members, acquired during processes of socialization and transformed and enacted in social communication and interaction. Such ethnic attitudes have a social function, e.g. to protect the interests of the ingroup. Their cognitive structures and the strategies of their use reflect this function.15 The foregoing examples illustrate a few of the theoretical and methodological achievements of discourse analysis of prejudice which we believe would be at risk if we replace our existing terminology with a generic category of racism (qualified or not). In our view, the basic category of prejudice ought not be abandoned. Distinctions between racist and ethnic prejudice (as well as between other forms as well) can and should be specified according to the inferable content of the prejudiced statement itself, the specific linguistic realization patterns in which the prejudices were expressed (explicit propositions, allusions, etc.), together with the discursive function the specific text may be said to have. Analyzing prejudices in the way indicated implies retaining distinctions between ethnic and racist prejudices as well as employing an exact context-oriented approach which attempts to collect as much historical, sociological, and political, etc. information about and from the context as possible, and which also takes into account the exact setting of the statement, the text type, the speaker, etc. None of this, it must be emphasized, circumscribes in any way one's ability, or one's desire, to combat racism anywhere in any form. However, we see no need, and can divine no purpose, in blunting the analytical implements we use to do so. 13 Quasthoff, Uta. 1973. Soziales Vorurteil und Kommunikation. Frankfurt: Fischer 14 Quasthoff, Uta. 1989. "Social Prejudice as a Resource of Power: Towards the Functional Ambivalence of Stereotypes." In: Wodak (ed.). (1989). 181-196. 15 15 bMacNeish, J. H. (ed.). 1967. "Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts." In: Proceedings of the Annual Spring Meeting 1966. Seattle, 12-44. References Adorno, Theodor W. 1968. Studien zum autoritren Charakter. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Giddens, Anthony. 1989. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. 5 Helsen, Jules. 1990. "Flchtlinge im Diskurs." M.A. Thesis. Amsterdam 1, 8 Jger, Siegfried. 1991. Alltagsrassismus (forthcoming). MacNeish, J. H. (ed.). 1967. "Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts." In: Proceedings of the Annual Spring Meeting 1966. Seattle, 12-44. Mitscherlich, Alfred & Margarete Mitscherlich. 1976. Die Unfhigkeit zu trauern. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. 2 Mitten, Richard. 1992a. The Politics of Anti-Semitic Prejudice. The Waldheim Phenomenon in Austria. Boulder: Westview Press. Quasthoff, Uta. 1973. Soziales Vorurteil und Kommunikation. Frankfurt: Fischer Quasthoff, Uta. 1989. "Social Prejudice as a Resource of Power: Towards the Functional Ambivalence of Stereotypes." In: Wodak (ed.). (1989). 181-196. 5,6 Schiffrin Deborah Tannen, Beborah Hamilton. Malden, Heidi H. Discourse Analysis and Heidi E.; Oxford; Carlton, Blackwell 3 van Dijk, Teun. 1985. Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 4 van Dijk, Teun. 1987. Racism and Discourse. Los Angeles: Sage. 7 van Dijk, Teun. 1989. "Mediating Racism. The role of the media in theproduction of racism." In Wodak (ed.). (1989), 199-226. Read More