Suchergebnisse

Glavni je cilj ovoga rada ideološka analiza političkih govora G. W. Busha vezanih za rat u Iraku. Govori su analizirani kao oblik političkoga diskursa da bi se izdvojile leksičke, semantičke, retoričke i gramatičke strukture uporabljene u strategiji polarizacije pri predstavljanju postupaka dviju sukobljenih strana, iračkoga režima i američke vojske. Strategija polarizacije jedno je od osnovnih načela kritičke analize diskursa T. van Dijka, koja se u diskursu očituje u obliku ideološkoga četverokuta. To znači da u obliku diskursa kao što su ovi politički govori, u kojima su zastupljeni interesi dviju sukobljenih država, ideologija, nacija itd. možemo očekivati da će dobri postupci strane kojoj pripada govornik (naše strane) – biti naglašeni, a loši ublaženi, dok će dobri postupci druge strane (njihove) biti ublaženi, a loši naglašeni. Kritička analiza diskursa omogućuje osnovne načine prepoznavanja ovakvih struktura u različitim diskursima, a ovdje konkretno istražuje funkciju i utjecaj što ga te strukture imaju na Bushev politički plan, ali i na društvo u cjelini. ; The paper deals with the ideological analysis of G.W. Bush's political speeches delivered during the war in Iraq. The speeches were analyzed as a sort of political discourse with the purpose of recognizing lexical, semantic, rhetorical and grammatical structures used in the strategy of polarization when representing the actions of two confronted parties – Iraqi regime and American military. Polarization strategy is one of the basic principles of the T.van Dijk's Critical discourse analysis, which is expressed through ideological square. This means that in a kind of political discourse, as these speeches are, in which the interests of two confronted states, ideologies, nations etc. are presented, we can expect good actions of in-group to be emphasized and bad ones to be mitigated, whereas the good actions of out-group will be mitigated and bad ones will be emphasized. Critical discourse analysis offers the basic tools for recognizing such structures in different discourses, but in these political speeches it questions the function and influence which these structures have on Bush's political plan and on society as a whole.

The use of policy networks in the research of public policies includes identifying policy actors (both state & non-state actors) & determining the type of their relations, with the purpose of description & analysis of the policy process. The basic assumption of the approach is that contemporary policy-making is characterized by sharing of responsibilities for policy-making among state & the non-state actors. The approach is faced with a critical charge that it doesn't make a clear distinction between dependent & independent variables, & that it does not contain an implicit causal logic that could be falsified. Even though this criticism is partly justified, the policy networks approach should not be dismissed, albeit it should not be understood as a theory (in the sense of E. & V. Ostrom's level of theoretical discourse). Furthermore, the criticism mostly affects the 'interest intermediation school', which understands policy networks as generic term for different forms of state-society relations. Thus, the 'governance school' is much more fruitful for the development of policy networks idea. The 'Governance school' of policy networks approach can be understood as a framework &/or a model. Firstly, the policy networks approach has most similarities with the cycle model of policy process & the two approaches are closely related frameworks of public policy research. The characteristics of contemporary policy-making calls for adding policy networks to the cycle model &, in this perspective, the policy networks approach becomes an analytical tool-box for organizing empirical material. Secondly, policy networks are conceived as a specific form of governance, which becomes dominant in the recent literature. Within this perspective, ideas about policy networks have bigger theoretical ambitions, but are still developed at a level of a model, & not theory. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.