Suchergebnisse

peer-reviewed ; This project explores if people employ ambivalent discourses within contentious political debate. And, if so, what opposing ideological themes are drawn upon – or left unsaid – and what is potentially being accomplished through the deployment of these ambivalent discourses? This project specifically explores the contentious immigration debate through three empirical studies. Study one is a discourse analysis of advocates on behalf of refugees on a national phone-in radio program in Ireland. Study two is a discourse analysis of speeches by leading populist radical right politicians at an international conference in Koblenz, Germany. Study three is an experiment exploring if people's exposure to competing and conflicting interpretive frameworks, of identity threat discourses, patterns the shared construction of an immigrant group – specifically the potential ambivalent stereotyping of refugees. These advocates on behalf of refugees, in the context of study one, take up a rhetorical strategy of 'ambivalent paternalism'. This labours on a shared embodied emotional distress in response to the plight of refugees but avoids claims of unconditional and unambiguous inclusive solidarity. Conversely, the populist radical right speeches, in the context of study two, drew on a rhetorical strategy of 'ambivalent diversity'. This celebrates cultural diversity between monocultural nation-states, whilst declaring hostility to minority cultural diversity within nation-states. The experimental study indicates that these divergent ambivalent strategies is potentially due to these speakers, in both discursive studies, orienting to a hegemonic interpretive framework where refugees and immigrants generally are depicted as an economic burden and cultural threat to the nation. But these advocates, in the context of study one, are constrained by the claim that the nation is meeting its moral and legal obligation towards refugees. Whilst the populist radical right speakers, in the context of study two, are countering the ...

non-peer-reviewed ; Against the backdrop of the humanitarian tragedy unfolding in the waters of the Mediterranean and refugee camps around the world, psychologists and other social scientists must ask themselves whether their discipline can offer any answers. For example, why do politicians and citizens in at least some Western countries find it difficult to welcome those fleeing warfare or persecution? What kinds of problems are encountered by refugees once they have been given permission to settle temporarily or permanently in a new culture? How are these issues represented in the media and everyday discourse? We as psychologists have not always been effective in explaining how our research is relevant to this issue, yet these are all phenomena that clearly have a psychological component. Here, we attempt to showcase some of the ways that psychology can help us to understand the refugee crisis ; PUBLISHED ; non-peer-reviewed

Abstract. This article explores how the populist radical right manage identity talk on an international stage. Speeches from the Europe of Nations and Freedom conference held in Koblenz, Germany, on January 21, 2017, were analyzed using a rhetorical and critical discursive psychology approach. This occasion was a celebratory public display of international solidarity between political actors who privilege national interests, advocate stronger immigration control and are Eurosceptic. Results highlight two interdependent rhetorical strategies that construct an inclusive diverse transnational political community, built on the core shared ideology of exclusionary nationalist nativism. Firstly, "Constructing the Transnational Patriot" works up a superordinate political category often labeled the "patriots" that transcends individual nation-states. Temporal and spatial boundary work was done to construct the political collective as extensive, expanding and enduring. This capacity for the speakers to position themselves as prototypical members of a transnational political community facilitates and demands the second rhetorical strategy, "Ambivalent Diversity." Here speakers acknowledge and celebrate the cultural diversity of their political collective through a precious "national diversity" between nation-states while simultaneously displaying hostility to cultural diversity within nation-states. Speakers present themselves, and their political collective, as courageous protectors of the segregated national diversity against the threatening collusion between the violent oppressive political "elite" and exploitative immigrants. The speakers hijack the liberal understanding of diversity and reconfigure it in support of an argument defending the victimized majority and national cultural homogeneity.

peer-reviewed ; This article explores how the populist radical right manage identity talk on an international stage. Speeches from the Europe of Nations and Freedom conference held in Koblenz, Germany, on January 21, 2017, were analyzed using a rhetorical and critical discursive psychology approach. This occasion was a celebratory public display of international solidarity between political actors who privilege national interests, advocate stronger immigration control and are Eurosceptic. Results highlight two interdependent rhetorical strategies that construct an inclusive diverse transnational political community, built on the core shared ideology of exclusionary nationalist nativism. Firstly, "Constructing the Transnational Patriot" works up a superordinate political category often labeled the "patriots" that transcends individual nation-states. Temporal and spatial boundary work was done to construct the political collective as extensive, expanding and enduring. This capacity for the speakers to position themselves as prototypical members of a transnational political community facilitates and demands the second rhetorical strategy, "Ambivalent Diversity." Here speakers acknowledge and celebrate the cultural diversity of their political collective through a precious "national diversity" between nation-states while simultaneously displaying hostility to cultural diversity within nation-states. Speakers present themselves, and their political collective, as courageous protectors of the segregated national diversity against the threatening collusion between the violent oppressive political "elite" and exploitative immigrants. The speakers hijack the liberal understanding of diversity and reconfigure it in support of an argument defending the victimized majority and national cultural homogeneity. ; PUBLISHED ; peer-reviewed