Political Elite Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis achieves two functions in this thesis: first it provides an in-depth illustration of political elite rhetoric and practices. Specific focus is given to competing securitizing and desecuritizing discourses. Second, the rhetorical links that signify and juxtapose the two opposing discourses are used to drive the subsequent content analysis of news media. Discourse analysis thus offers a way to map out the boundaries of discourse – set by political elites – through the analysis of texts and attribute them to both securitizing and desecuritizing identities. It is critical for addressing the research questions of this thesis, because it provides a reference point against which to compare media discourse and determine whether it mirrors or contests political elite rhetoric. In other words, it can demonstrate whether the press acts independently of political elites, thus satisfying a preliminary step in identifying whether the media can be an

independent securitizing actor. Discourse analysis also demonstrates how threats were socially constructed – again, a first step towards identifying how exceptional measures emerged in public discourse and became (de)legitimized through audience interaction.

Taking seriously Balzacq’s (2011a: 41) claim that “a minimum of formalization in discourse analysis is a scholarly requirement,” the methodological point of departure here is Lene Hansen’s (2013) framework for security discourse analysis developed in Security as Practice. She argues that foreign policy utterances – or “performances”

(Butler, 1990: 25) – articulate “particular directions for action” (Hansen, 2013: 19), while also both invoking and (re)producing identities. On the one hand, identities are naturally invoked in foreign policy through a juxtaposition between the Self and the

Other. In security discourse, this can take the form of the Self recognizing the Other as a threat. For example, the recognition and articulation of a terrorist threat invokes a

“terrorist” Other against a threatened Self. On the other hand, uttering security also reproduces competing Self identities: competing utterances can construct Selves that differ based on their relationship with the Other. For example, the identity of a

“terrorist” Other can position the Self in a different space from identification of the same entity as a “freedom fighter” or “state sanctioned solder” (Der Derian, 1992: 92-126; Hansen, 2013: 17). The choices made to interpret the Other necessarily reconstruct and pit opposing Self identities against each other: one version of the Self is threatened by the “terrorist”, while another Self recognizes the legitimacy of a “freedom fighter”.

To choose one frame over the other not only differentiates the identity of the subject, but also of the speaker’s relation to the subject (Hansen, 2013: 16). Thus, alternative ways of defining a foreign policy issue can constitute different competing Selves. The construction of these different Selves gives other actors – political elites, the public and the press – a pole to affix their own identities to.

For Hansen (2013), the juxtaposing basic discourses that arise out of different Selves are components of a broader security policy debate, or a major discourse. She suggests identifying two to three basic discourses “that articulate very different constructions of identity and policy and which thereby separate the political landscape between them”

(47). One way to do this is to identify discourses that vary in their radicalization of the Other – for instance, the identification of an illegal immigrant as an existential threat that must be ejected is a more radical construction of the Other than the characterization of the same immigrant as an entity to be received and integrated into society. The different constructions of the Other necessarily invoke (and reproduce) two different Self identities: a restrictionist Self that seeks to block immigrants from society and an expansionist Self that seeks to include and integrate immigrants. The construction of different Others and Selves means that competing basic discourses naturally lead to different foreign policies or recommendations for courses of action (Hansen, 2013: 48).

In the context of security, the push for some exceptional measure will constitute a securitizing Self aligned with a securitizing basic discourse, while articulations away from security will constitute a desecuritizing Self aligned with a desecuritizing basic discourse. Both discourses compete within a broader (de)securitization debate (or a major discourse). It is these juxtapositions that reveal the different frames used by

competing (de)securitizing identities/discourses – e.g., to provide moral evaluation and propose remedies – and provide the foundation for the oppositional content analysis.

These oppositional discourses underscore a key strength of Hansen’s framework for securitization theory: it requires the analyst to position discourses relative to each other in order to identify what is securitizing and what is desecuritizing. Complex security issues can have several policies and related discourses in play. Analyzing any one in isolation requires making a subjective choice as to whether it is part of a securitizing or desecuritizing discourse. In some cases, this may be obvious, but in other cases, a policy could represent either discourse depending on its temporal, spatial and semantic proximity to other policies. The proposed detention and treatment of suspected

terrorists as prisoners of war under Geneva Convention guidelines may appear at first to be part of a securitizing discourse; however, against an alternative proposal in which these detainees are recommended to be tortured in violation of Geneva Convention protocol in the name of security, the former discourse is a significant move away from the exceptionalism of the latter. Relatively speaking then, the former discourse is desecuritizing to the extent that it is a move down from the alternative discourse of torture and consistent with the rule of law.¹⁹ This is especially important given that different Selves can agree on the presence of some threat (stage of identification) without necessarily agreeing on the adoption of exceptional measures (stage of

mobilization). By identifying different discourses per Hansen’s (2013) framework, they

19 Importantly, desecuritizing discourses need not fundamentally unmake security – nor do such discourses cause the securitization of an issue to entirely collapse. While the presence of competing desecuritizing discourses can certainly act as barriers toward securitizing an issue (like terrorism) and legitimizing exceptional measures, they are a single component of a broader discourse. In the case of terrorism, the legitimacy of torture as an exceptional measure was a single (albeit significant) component of the securitization of terrorism, alongside other exceptional measures like domestic surveillance, military campaigns and emergency legislation. Thus, desecuritizing discourses that aimed to delegitimize torture did not cause the securitization of terrorism to entirely collapse, but rather acted as a

countervailing force in the tug-of-war between competing discourses. This reinforces Roe’s (2008) fundamental distinction between the stage of mobilization and the stage of identification: an issue can be identified as a threat, but still exist below the threshold of requiring exceptional measures. This thesis aims to catalog the securitizing and desecuritizing trends in discourse as a continuous and dynamic process, without necessarily adjudicating whether an issue is securitized/desecuritized as a final state.

can be mapped out and positioned relative to each other to identify what role – securitizing or desecuritizing – they play.

To that end, this research recognizes securitizing and desecuritizing basic discourses that are employed by and constitute competing Selves. Rather than specific actors, Selves are used to demarcate oppositional identities, where multiple actors can constitute a Self through alignment with basic discourses associated with that Self.

Disagreement on the legitimacy of an exceptional measure can, for example, juxtapose a securitizing Self against a desecuritizing Self. Each identity subscribes to and

promotes a particular basic discourse. For analytical purposes, these basic discourses are treated as general policy positions, vocabularies and modes of thinking that are interconnected with their associated Selves. Basic discourses can be further broken down into frames, which are used in the case studies as linguistic signs within the broader discourse (whether securitizing or desecuritizing). The identification of frames (as units of basic discourse) makes the discourse analysis conceptually translatable into guidelines for the content analysis.

Tactically, identifying securitizing and desecuritizing frames requires a comprehensive review (through a discourse analysis) of the range of discourses surrounding a

particular issue or threat and narrowing the focus to a particular site of contestation of the threat image or exceptional measure. Debates on the legitimacy of exceptional measures to counteract a potential security threat are key focal points, because they directly confront the question: is the issue sufficiently threatening that it requires operating within the realm of security and exceptional politics? In other words, should this issue be securitized? Opposition to exceptional measures suggests conversely that the issue is not sufficiently threatening to justify the use of exceptional measures – it is a move away from securitization, or in Hansen’s (2012) typology of desecuritization, the rearticulation of resolving an issue using political mean. The arguments on either side of this debate can constitute securitizing and desecuritizing basic discourses.

Distilling these to competing desecuritizing and securitizing frames then requires identifying the rhetorical links and differences that either bound or differentiate the two competing discourses. The analyst must ask: are there particular vocabularies or terms that distinctively represent either of the two competing discourses? The use of different rhetorical signs used in each of the different discourses can be used as indicators of a particular discourse. Similarly, securitizing and desecuritizing discourses/frames can

also emerge in the contestation of threat images. The characterization of an issue as threatening or in security-centric terms can belong to securitizing discourses, while less militaristic and less threatening characterizations can in comparison represent

desecuritizing discourses – what in Hansen’s (2012) typology is marked as change through stabilization.

Hansen (2013: 65) acknowledges that “‘reality’ is always larger than the number of questions one can ask of it; to formulate a research project is therefore inevitably to make a series of choices.” Identification of and juxtaposition of different Selves is one such choice in her four-pronged research design. Figure 3.1 shows three other

considerations for the analyst: the temporal perspective, the selection of texts

(intertextual models), and the number of events to analyze. According to Hansen (2013:

69), “foreign policy can be studied as it addresses either events at one particular moment or through a longer historical analysis”. In the latter group, studies can either

“[trace] the evolution of identities across centuries” (69), or – more appropriate for this study – be limited to a smaller number of events at “clearly defined points in time which are tied to particular foreign policy” issues (70). As argued in the case selection in Chapter 1, both the terrorism and immigration cases are delimited to the Bush and Obama administrations,²⁰ from 2001 to 2016. These represent, in Hansen’s (2013: 70) terms, “changes in important political structures or institutions” that are still

comparable. Thus the temporal perspective for both case studies is a sixteen-year analysis of comparative moments (see figures 3.2 and 3.3).

20 Political actors are frequently generalized and referred to collectively as “the administration” for ease.

While a monolithic “Bush administration” or “Obama administration” is an oversimplification, this shortcut makes it possible to identify the main actors and official policy positions in the debates surrounding terrorism and immigration (see also Donnelly, 2013, p. 9).

Figure 3.1 Security Discourse Analysis Research Design Template

Note: This is a replication of Hansen’s (2013) template for a security discourse analysis research design.

Next, Hansen’s recommendations for material selection stretches from analyzing official discourse – particularly primary texts like “statements, speeches, and

interviews” – to an “intertextual” approach that includes “journalism, academic writing, popular non-fiction, and, potentially, even fiction” (2013: 49). Because the overall aim of this thesis is to understand the role that the press plays in influencing securitization, academic, fiction and non-fiction literature are excluded from analysis. Further, since the aim of the discourse analysis is to uncover the boundaries of political discourse – with the aim of analyzing media content in subsequent chapters – official texts are the primary focus.²¹ Executive and legislative branch actors set the rhetorical agenda, thus creating boundaries for the range of discourse (and thus frames) available to others, including the media (Althaus et al., 1996; Entman, 2004). These agents are few in number, but symbolic and compelling for shaping perceptions of reality – the

articulations of a few prominent elites (e.g., the president or congresspersons) influence

“what count as proper representations within a particular foreign policy issue” (Hansen,

21 Respecting the audience emphasis and acknowledging that most Americans did not have access to classified documents, texts are emphasized as they enter mainstream discourse in time. The discourse analysis is written with the broad US electorate as its reference point. It seeks to deconstruct texts and events in ways that the average American might have experienced and interpreted them.

STUDY

• Comparison around events or issues

• Discursive Encounter

2013: 6-7). Individual journalists lack this capacity making discourse analysis better suited to analyzing political elites than the press. Nonetheless, it is impractical to wholly exclude the media, since political elites and media respond to one another to construct discourse. Abu Ghraib, for example, broke to the public via news media, and necessitated a political response (Hansen, 2013: 54); and immigration policy debates in 2006 and 2007 were heavily influenced by media mobilization. To ensure priority is given to political elite constructions, major media contributions are identified, but with emphasis on how political elites responded. Following Hansen’s (2013: 76)

recommendations, primary texts are selected using the following criteria: they clearly delineate identities, they are widely read and they “have the formal authority to define a political position.”²²

The analysis goes a step further and considers legislation, executive actions and other programs put into place, since these events can shape public impressions and influence security discourse (Bigo, 2002). Moreover, these events frequently draw responses – whether in support or protest – in the form of “traditional” discourse and speech acts. In short, these practices generate discourse and the responses can forge new or reify existing identities, thus further influencing the security environment (Bigo, 2002).

Finally, discourse analysis can revolve around a single event or multiple events that are related to each other by the issue or period of analysis. In this research, events are selected by their relation to two issues, terrorism or immigration. Event selection is guided by Donnelly’s (2013) concept of “defining moments” and Hansen’s (2013) similarly characterized “key events”. Both have similar thresholds: for Donnelly, defining moments are significant events that can change the direction and magnitude of securitization dynamics. These events can amplify securitizing dynamics, but can also polarize public opinion in the short-term, leading to either the survival or collapse of an ongoing securitization process. Moreover, these events are likely to engage

(de)securitizing actors. Similarly, Hansen defines (2013: 28) key events as “situations

22 Still, other types of content in Hansen’s (2013) intertextual approach can naturally fall into a research design that attempts to circumscribe analysis to solely political elite content. Culturally salient texts (like films and television) can elicit reactions and commentary from political elites, thus indirectly

contributing to foreign policymaking. The film Zero Dark Thirty, for example, drew public reactions from Senators on the torture debate (discussed in more detail in Chapter 4). While outside the domain of strictly political elite texts, artefacts that provoke political elite texts are also considered.

where ‘important facts’ manifest themselves on the political and/or the media agenda and influence the official policy-identity constellation or force the official discourse to engage with political opposition and media criticism.” She argues that key events offer a way to trace official discourse and “construct a timeline”.

Emphasizing the latter point, events are presented in chronological order to best understand how frames develop meaning (Hansen, 2013: 79). Meanings are unfolded over time, and to present them nonsequentially overlooks how discourses gain meaning from previous discourses and how they inform future ones (Hansen, 2013: 49).

Neumann (2008: 66) cautions, “A given discourse cannot be entirely detached from all other discourses. They are ordered and scaled in relation to one another.” The discourse on terrorism and immigration in particular is mired in euphemisms, redefinitions and heuristics, whose meanings depend on their temporal and spatial locations (Balzacq, 2011a: 40). For Hansen (2013: 49), this means “that texts are situated within and against other texts, that they draw upon them in constructing their identities and

policies, that they appropriate as well as revise the past, and that they build authority by reading and citing that of others.” If language is neither fixed nor do words speak for themselves, a deconstruction of meaning requires a chronological, sequential unfolding, lest the meaning of syntactically similar symbols be erroneously conflated across different temporal or spatial contexts.

3.3.1.1 Terrorism

The securitization of terrorism in the US is analyzed in this study through the specific (de)legitimization of torture as an exceptional measure. As shown in figure 3.2, two Selves are juxtaposed in the debate: one side employs securitizing discourse to legitimize torture by linking it rhetorically to successful intelligence gathering, counterterrorism, and the prevention of attacks. It is invoked as part of a broader schema of links that emphasize the existential threat posed by terrorism and necessity, while also justifying torture through ambiguous euphemisms like “enhanced

interrogation.” A separate counter-discourse opposes the pro-torture identity and appeals to American liberal democratic values as well as international norms and laws (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). The analysis uncovers two different frames for the remedy proposal function of Entman’s (2004) model: one that aims to legitimize interrogation as an appropriate, lawful method; and a counter-frame that attempts to delegitimize the same practice, recognizing it as illegal torture. Importantly, the

discourse analysis shows that these two signifiers, torture and interrogation, were referring to the same practice but with different evaluations of each.

Figure 3.2 Securitization of Terrorism in the US Discourse Analysis

Note: Using Hansen’s (2013) template, this is the proposed design for the terrorism discourse analysis in this study.

3.3.1.2 Unauthorized Immigration

The unauthorized immigration discourse analysis differentiates Selves along both the remedy proposal and moral evaluation functional axes (see figure 3.3).²³ The moral evaluation axis juxtaposes characterizations of immigrations as either criminal (securitizing) or non-criminal (desecuritizing); while the remedy proposal axis juxtaposes restrictive measures aimed to block unauthorized immigrant access to the US (securitizing) against expansive measures aimed to include and regularize

unauthorized immigrants through, for example, pathways to legalization and citizenship (desecuritizing). Both frame functional axes pit two Selves against each other:

restrictionists versus expansionists. As with terrorism, the immigration securitization

23 While the debates naturally differentiate identities of the Other as well (e.g., criminal versus non-criminal immigrants), the focus in this thesis is on the differentiation of Selves. Still the two are

essentially mirror images of each other: by invoking a different Other, the speaker constitutes a different Self.

SECURITIZATION OF TERRORISM IN THE US

Intertextual Models Official discourse

Number of events Multiple events related by issue Temporal perspective

Comparative moments: 2001-2016 Number of selves

Comparison of two selves along proposed remedy axis

debate employs metaphors, euphemisms and other rhetorical strategies to link

immigrants to criminality and construct them as threats to society. It has coexisted with an oppositional discourse that aims to deconstruct the threatening image and push a humanizing portrayal of immigrants as individuals who should be integrated into American society through legalization. The rhetorical links and signifiers that make up these competing narratives are uncovered through a discourse analysis and are used as parameters in the media content analysis.

Figure 3.3 Securitization of Unauthorized Immigration in the US Discourse Analysis

Note: Using Hansen’s (2013) template, this is the proposed design for the unauthorized immigration discourse analysis in this study.