Dr Mirko Demasi

Explores Discursive Psychological (DP) empirical research in the context of political communication Offers insight into the nature of contemporary political communications Spotlights contributions from outside English speaking academia

This introductory chapter presents an overview of the book, its scope and argument. We discuss the notion of political communication and its varied, occasionally contested, meaning in various academic fields. In particular we highlight the part played by discursive psychology in this debate. We conclude by arguing that discursive perspectives to political communication have the potential to encourage the development of an enriched dialogue between discrete fields concerned with the nature of political communications in media democracies.

Increasing use of the term ‘wokeness’ in the UK has arisen from the Black Lives Matter movement that challenges anti-Black racism from police. BLM has led to the challenging of decision-making around how heritage is presented such as the toppling of the Colston statue. British heritage organisations have reinterpreted their role to orient towards a more inclusive representation of history and heritage in public spaces. However, the term ‘woke’ is used to critique moves to construct heritage more diversely and challenge changes by heritage organisations. A discursive psychological analysis was conducted on 100 UK newspaper articles covering the move by National Trust and English Heritage to be more diverse and where ‘wokeness’ was discussed as a controversy. We present three discourses: 1) heritage organisations being constructed as custodians, 2) heritage as a place of refuge, 3) organisations’ aim to be apolitical. These discussions of identity and physical space showcase both the notion that identities are specific to a physical space, and how this can be used to negotiate an aspect of British heritage that harmed global majority people. Our approach is interdisciplinary, combining discursive psychology and heritage/town planning to highlight the contested nature of interpreting history, public space and identity.

Britain is currently experiencing one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe, exacerbated by the current cost of living crisis. To date an estimated 14.4 million people live in poverty, similar to pre-pandemic levels, with moral panics about who should and should not be using public money increasing. At the same time, the richest people in Britain exploit unethical financial loopholes, with little consequence. By returning to a case study of the 2009 UK Parliamentary Expenses Scandal, this paper shows how politicians use class-based ways of speaking to sidestep financial and moral transgressions. Discursive social psychology was used to analyse five hours of Question Time and shows how two categories of ordinariness and exceptionalism were used. These categories contain ideological assumptions of who can, and cannot, use taxpayers’ money, as category constructions are embedded with notions of status, deservingness and disposition. These categories were dynamically used, demonstrating the importance of understanding the social context in which class-based discussions occur within. Ultimately, this paper shows how our everyday talk around money can challenge, uphold or perpetuate social class inequality.

This article focuses on the argumentative role of making factual claims and counterclaims in broadcast political debates. Despite the rise of “post‐truth politics,” this article argues that orientations to issues of “fact” and “truth” are a live and controversial matter when debating the European Union. Using Discursive Psychology (DP), the analysis is on how politicians use fact‐based (counter)claims in multiparty interactions, in the form of debates about the United Kingdom and the European Union. Three types of factual challenges are presented to illustrate the rhetorical function of claims: challenging the essence of an argument, providing another fact to recontextualize the preceding fact and using hypothetical scenarios to undermine facts. The analysis demonstrates that the use of facts is a highly strategic, argumentative, matter. This study, understood against a backdrop of the rise of post‐truth politics, highlights that concepts of “fact” and “truth” are not done away with; rather they are an argumentative resource and need to be understood in their fragmentary and rhetorical context.

Abstract

In this paper, we show how discursive psychology can be used to show how ‘facts’ are used rhetorically by politicians. That is, they are more than neutral reflections of an objective reality—these ‘facts’ are highly attuned to the local context of political argumentation. We draw upon examples from two studies that used discursive psychology to analyse two different political contexts: (1) Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack and (2) debates over Great Britain and the European Union. In both contexts, the analysis uncovers how politicians challenge both the context and the relevance of a fact. The context of ‘facts’ is reconstructed to undermine their original argumentative strength, whereas questioning the relevance of a ‘fact’ undermines it both as fact and as a rhetorical tool to be used in a debate. These findings show how discursive psychology can contribute to knowledge about political communication, as well as the benefits of applying discursive psychology to political discourse.

Abstract

This article argues for the potential of discursive psychology (DP) in the study of post‐truth politics. Work produced outside of psychology is considered, particularly from political science and international relations, which have made a promising start. Providing an overview of this body of research, I argue for their respective strengths and weaknesses. The literature so far tends to work with the notion that truth and emotion are matters that are, or at least should be, distinguishable. Instead, I argue that, rather than lament the blurring between truth and untruth, one should look to how these unfold as matters of practical concern in political discourse. DP is a tool particularly suited to the task; it highlights the importance of viewing ‘truth’ as a rhetorical resource. In this light, we can view post‐truth politics as a rhetorical matter rather than a degeneration of truth.

Public toilet provision in the UK fails to meet the needs of cis women while trans communities are absent from current building regulations. This research explores how individuals negotiate differing positions on toilet provision and accessibility. The data was formed of online posts on Dezeen, a forum for building design professionals, and Mumsnet, a parenting forum, in response to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government ‘Technical review on increasing accessibility and provision of toilets for men and women’. Discursive Psychology was used to explore how accessibility to toilets is constructed. There is also an opportunity to explore how a discursive approach can be applied interdisciplinary with town planning and the built environment. Gender identities are situated and constructed within public toilets. Talk about refuge in public bathrooms involved the negotiation of who belonged in differing gender categories and who warranted a need for refuge. Where men are explicitly acknowledged as an issue, cis and trans women are collectively identified as requiring a safe space. Cis women are presented as a threat to trans women and other cis women who are misgendered. Discourse about toilet provision draws upon both heteronormative ideology to challenge access to trans people and others who challenge normative gender roles. Talk about toilets involves warranting ‘place-identity’ as gender identity is situated and access limited to those who are constructed as belonging.

Parliamentary debates are beneficial political environments to study using discourse analysis and discursive psychology. However, there is limited discursive psychological research analysing arguments for and against the possibility of a second referendum concerning the UK’s EU membership status. We collected our data by transcribing a parliamentary debate where politicians discussed a second referendum and analysed it using a discursive psychological framework. Whether they supported leave or remain, politicians discredit their opposing position for supposedly lacking democratic values. As such, politicians portrayed their stances on Brexit as a requirement to uphold democratic principles. The main implication of the analysis demonstrated that politicians defined democracy depending on the positions they took regarding calls for a second Brexit referendum. The present study contributes to the growing discursive literature on Brexit discourse by showing how the meaning of democracy is contested and used as a tool to manage accountability.

Public toilet provision in the UK fails to meet the needs of cis women while trans communities are absent from current building regulations. This research explores how individuals negotiate differing positions on toilet provision and accessibility. The data were formed of online posts on Dezeen, a forum for building design professionals, and Mumsnet, a parenting forum, in response to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government “Technical review on increasing accessibility and provision of toilets for men and women”. Discursive psychology was used to explore how accessibility to toilets is constructed. There is also an opportunity to explore how a discursive approach can be applied interdisciplinary with town planning and the built environment. Gender identities are situated and constructed within public toilets. Talk about refuge in public bathrooms involves the negotiation of who belonged in differing gender categories and who warrants a need for refuge. Where men are explicitly acknowledged as an issue, cis and trans women are collectively identified as requiring a safe space. Cisgender women are constructed as a threat for trans people and misgendered cis women in public toilets. Discourse about toilet provision draws upon both heteronormative ideology to challenge access to trans people and others who challenge normative gender roles. Talk about toilets involves warranting “place-identity” as gender identity is situated and access limited to those who are constructed as belonging. For sustainable development that meets modern needs, built environment professionals need to be aware of the role of toilet provision in addressing social justice and inequality. Gender identities are situated and constructed within public toilets. Talk about refuge in public bathrooms involves the negotiation of who belonged in differing gender categories and who warrants a need for refuge. This chapter takes an innovative approach from previous more sociologically based approaches into toilet provision by exploring how access to public spaces is negotiated from a combined discursive psychological and town planning perspective. The use of a rhetorical absence allows forum users to negotiate in their talk the threat from cisgendered men. Arguments about safety allow debates about toilet provision to be oriented around presenting trans liberation as costly to the rights of others. Talk about public toilets uses place identity as speakers construct their gender identity to warrant legitimacy of access to themselves and others.

In this paper, we conduct a discursive psychological analysis of coronavirus briefings where the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, mentions ‘common sense’ as means to instruct British people how to behave during the pandemic. We look at five instances where the Prime Minister constructs the idea of using ‘common sense’ as guidance for fighting COVID-19 and examine how the function and use of ‘common sense’ varied at different stages of the pandemic. The findings show that ‘common sense’ began as something that was ‘normal’ to utilise, and eventually was constructed as a weapon, alongside emphasising the ‘common sense’ of British people and drawing upon nationalist tropes which excludes non-British residents of the UK. The findings are discussed in light of how ‘common sense’ is used to hold British people accountable for lowering infection rates whilst at the same time, presenting politicians as acting in solidarity with the public.

This article showcases a discursive peace psychological analysis of Putin’s declaration of war and North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO’s) subsequent response to it. By treating psychological categories as action-bound and occasioned, rather than cognitive features residing inside the minds of individuals, the analysis shows three rhetorical strategies used by Putin and NATO to manage their accountability in the context of initiating hostilities. First, both sides describe the events in a way that combines the factual and moral reading of them that favor them. Second, continuity is rhetorically established to justify the actions of both factions as rooted in their preconflict status rather than being seen as reacting to the war. Finally, both sides use threats and exhortations for others to act in accordance with their wishes and demands. These three strategies showcase how both sides rhetorically manage their accountability, moral rightness and, at the same time, work up the moral guilt of their opponents. Similarity between the literature on expressions and denials of prejudice are found here, in the case of discursively sanitizing military action. This, more broadly, is a part of analyzing discursive violence in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war: how language can be used to justify or challenge violence.

While there is a strong research tradition into analysing prejudiced and racist discourse, the study of explicit, face-to-face allegedly racism is a rarer aspect of discursive research. Previous studies of racist discourse tend not to be of face-to-face interactions with the victim of prejudice. We analyse two publicly available video recordings: the first, taken from a mobile phone recording of a Kenyan woman in Finland at the receiving end of racist abuse from a Finnish woman and, the second, a woman recorded on a mobile phone verbally abusing Muslim women on a bus in London. These recordings are reminiscent of other videos of people being recorded using racist language, which subsequently made their way into social media. We perform a discursive psychological analysis to show how speakers use language that can be construed as allegedly racist, while also trying to frame such talk as in some way justifiable, and how threats are managed in this context. The findings suggest that similar strategies used by speakers when trying to disguise talk as “not racist” are also used to justify talk that is explicitly racist. We conclude by making the argument that face-to-face racism should be analysed in depth and as a phenomenon in its own right and for understanding potential avenues of combating such talk.

Abstract“Discourse” is a word that one comes across frequently. It finds a home in empirical research and media alike, but it is a term that is not always clearly defined. This entry will offer one way that one can understand discourse, that is through the lens of discursive psychology. The overarching argument is in favor of an expansive understanding of the possibilities of studying discourse: If it can be uttered, written, or expressed in another format then it can be empirically researched. Through an appropriate analytic lens, it is much more empirically and materially tangible than is often appreciated. The first part covers what a discursive psychological understanding of discourse entails, and a short explanation of what discursive psychology is. The second part is an overview of various contexts where discursive psychology has contributed to the study of discourse. In the final section I briefly discuss some possible areas – so far relatively absent in discursive research – of study using a discursive approach, particularly in the context of studying the discursive construction of deductive logic.

This article focuses on the argumentative role of derisive laughter in broadcast political debates. Using Discursive Psychology (DP) we analyze how politicians use derisive laughter as an argumentative resource in multiparty interactions, in the form of debates about the U.K. and the European Union. Specifically, we explore how both pro- and anti-EU politicians use derisive laughter to manage issues of who-knows-what and who-knows-better. We demonstrate the uses of derisive laughter by focusing on 2 discrete, yet pervasive, interactional phenomena in our data—extended laughter sequences and snorts. We argue that in the context of political debates derisive laughter does more than signal trouble and communicate contempt; it is, more than often, mobilized in the service of ideological argumentation and used as a form of challenge to factual claims. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Homing in on HATE: Critical Discourse Studies of Hate Speech, Discrimination and Inequality in the Digital Age Edited by G. Balirano and B. Hughes (2020) Napoli, Italy: Paolo Loffredo Editore srl, 267 pp.

This editorial introduces our special issue showcasing how qualitative research methods can be used in psychological research to explore economic inequality. Economic and class-based inequalities are global problems that have a negative impact on people’s well-being. The papers within the special issue demonstrate how differing methodological approaches such as discursive psychology, thematic analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis can be utilised to offer insights into the complexity of economic inequality as a social justice issue. Qualitative methods allow researchers to examine the social and cultural nuances of inequality with a critical lens in differing contexts. Within the special issue, economic inequality can be viewed intersectionally as qualitative methods allow the researcher to provide an in-depth and nuanced analysis. Taking a critical qualitative approach, this special issue shows how individualistic, neoliberal and meritocratic arguments are used to justify and maintain harmful class-based inequalities and offer opportunities to better understand and challenge them.

Esitämme tapaustutkimuksen Vladimir Putinin puheesta Venäjän lainsäätäjien neuvostolle vuonna 2023 esimerkkinä diskursiivisen psykologian lisäarvosta rauhan- ja konfliktintutkimukselle. Antropomorfismia, eli valtioiden kuvaamista henkilöinä, on hyödynnetty aiemminkin teoreettisena välineenä politiikan ilmiöiden ymmärtämisessä. Diskursiivinen psykologia omaksuu lähestymistavan, jossa kieli ymmärretään sosiaalisen ja poliittisen toiminnan ensisijaiseksi areenaksi ja jossa psykologisesti latautunut diskurssi on tämän toiminnan väline ja keino. Tästä syystä diskursiivinen psykologia soveltuu erityisen hyvin tarkastelemaan, miten ja mihin tarkoitukseen valtioita antropomorfisoidaan tietyssä tässä-ja-nyt -kontekstissa. Analyysi osoittaa kolme Putinin puheessaan käyttämää diskursiivista toimintoa personoidun Venäjän rakentamiseksi: nämä ovat 1) Venäjän moraalinen luonne, 2) orientaatiot deonttiseen auktoriteettiin ja 3) demokratiaa koskeva diskurssi ei-demokraattisessa valtiossa. Sotaa oikeuttava eliittispoliittinen diskurssi on osa väkivallan jatkumoa. Esittelemämme kolme diskursiivista toimintoa osoittavat tukeutumisen diskursiivisen antropomorfismin muotoon: valtioista puhutaan ikään kuin ne olisivat ihmisiä. Tämä antaa Putinille diskursiiviset ja retoriset keinot oikeuttaa sota. Päätämme artikkelin keskusteluun diskursiivisen psykologian ja antropomorfismin implikaatioista ja tulevan tutkimuksen suuntaviivoista. English: We present a case study of Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Russian Council of Legislators in 2023 as an example of the insights and value that a discursive psychological approach can provide for peace and conflict studies. There are some theories that consider the treatment of states as persons to understand politics. Discursive psychology takes an approach that recognises language to be a prime site of social and political action, and psychologically charged discourse is the medium and means of this action. As such, discursive psychology is particularly suited to exploring in the here-and-now how states are anthropomorphised in discourse, and to what end. The analysis demonstrates three discursive actions that Putin uses to construct a personified Russia: 1) the moral character of Russia, 2) orientations to deontic authority, and 3) discourse of democracy in a non-democratic state. Elite political discourse that justifies war is part of a spectrum of violence. The three discursive actions, while not claimed to be exclusive or exhaustive, demonstrate a reliance on a form of discursive anthropomorphism: states are talked about as if they were people, and this gives Putin the discursive and rhetorical means of justifying war. We conclude with a discussion around the implications of discursive anthropomorphism and avenues of future research.

The aim of this paper is to introduce a novel methodological framework for the practice of longitudinal discursive research (LDR). Building on discursive psychology (DP), LDR provides a framework for analysing how discourse both enacts and responds to social and political change. We illustrate the approach by outlining a study of broadcast political debates in 2019, analysing how the construction of key Brexit issues evolved as the United Kingdom left the European Union. We explore how the social constructionist orientation of DP lends itself to a flexible conceptualisation of ‘change’ and ‘time’ that is well-suited for longitudinal analysis. We then present an eight-step guide for conducting LDR and demonstrate the value of analysing how talk shapes and is shaped by ongoing social and political processes. The paper offers insight into the (re)production of shifting social discourses, providing a framework for psychologists and social researchers seeking to explore change across time in contexts such as political debate, social movements, or technological and cultural transformation.

Abstract

Research has shown that speakers opposing political demonstrations can pathologize protesters campaigning against racial prejudice in order to justify racialized police profiling and brutality. This paper builds on these insights by exploring how right‐wing political commentators reinforce the racist stereotype of violent Black people when discussing protests and police brutality in Black Lives Matter (BLM) debates. The dataset includes two debates drawn from Conservative Talk Radio and The Candace Owen Show , where issues concerning anti‐Black racism in the United States were discussed—including racialized police brutality and BLM demonstrations. Using discursive and rhetorical psychology, we show how far‐right commentators managed their (arguably racist) identities by employing ‘rioter’ categories against the BLM movement. We demonstrate that far‐right commentators used anti‐protest rhetoric and anti‐Black racist tropes to portray BLM activists as uncivilized and violent rioters. Doing so portrayed the BLM movement as using anti‐racism as an ulterior motive to enact violence which also downplayed racialized police brutality. This study shows how anti‐protest rhetoric and anti‐Black stereotypes overlap when right‐wing speakers undermine attempts to challenge systemic racism. Black people and protesters are discriminated against in similar ways; both are characterized as violent and uncivilized when they mobilize against structural oppression and inequality.