A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence The

A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence: The Permeance of ‘War on Terror’ Discourses in Civilian Spaces Teagan Hale May 2021 www.AmericanCTRI.org Abstract The purpose of this article is to use Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the rhetorical devices and narrative appeals used to justify violence perpetrated by far-right extremist groups in the United States. The author argues that far-right movements utilize the same discursive techniques wielded by previous administrations to justify use of force in the ‘War on Terror’ but transpose them within domestic political grievances to sanction violence against citizens with conflicting political ideologies. Those who disagree with them are labeled as domestic terrorists, thus showing how the politics of insecurity used within the War on Terror have returned home and influenced the justifications of violence for domestic groups combatting one another. This has transformed American cities into new counterterrorism battlespaces as factionalized civilians who fashion one another as domestic terrorists openly clash in public spaces throughout the United States. This argument will be illustrated by qualitatively assessing three themes – existential security concerns, being defenders of the state, and espousing eliminationist rhetoric towards terrorists – popularly used within presidential discourses in the War on Terror by the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations with the social media posts, written manifestos, statements, and other discursive acts by the perpetrators of far-right violence and those who support them. Discourses will be employed as communicative units of analysis that when dissected and modeled reveals the natural subjectivity of security. The arguments raised in this article serve to bolster the practicality of discursive theory in understanding social and political perceptions, specifically in how they are manifested into the real world and precipitate political violence as stated by those who commit it. A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence: The Permeance of ‘War on Terror’ Discourses in Civilian Spaces Introduction The purpose of this article is to qualitatively dissect the discursive constructions precipitating far-right violence within the United States. Through a comparative assessment, the author will attempt to illustrate how the rhetorical devices used by previous administrations to justify action abroad within the War on Terror are in effect transposed into a domestic setting by factionalized civilians openly battling each other in public spaces. Increasing rates of political violence from both right and left-winged factions have pitted civilians against civilians based on political belief. Peering consequentially into the discursive justifications used by the government to justify counterterrorism policies abroad can explain how warring domestic groups likewise use these arguments to justify violence at home while also explaining how, in their own words, their opposition groups are conceived as enemies of the state, which makes them legitimate and acceptable recipients of violence. This central logic forms the basis of the following question: How have far-right movements within the United States incorporated themes from the War on Terror in their communications, and how do these adoptions create ‘regimes of truth’ precipitating political violence? These questions rest upon two assertions. First, extremist groups in the United States have incorporated into their discourse popular themes from the War on Terror, which are used as foundational legitimating devices to garner sympathy and support towards their objectives while also demonizing their opposition with treasonous, anti-American labels intertwined with domestic insecurities. Secondly, that these incorporations have transformed American cities into counterterrorism battlespaces as civilians use these justifications to sanction violence in domestic spaces against other civilians whose politics are deemed as existentially threatening to the nation. This argument presupposes that their reasons for violence is underpinned by a politically biased regime of truth, where far-right extremist groups construct themselves as the defenders of an America besieged by internal threats who are supported by malign actors on different domestic fronts. This argument and research question will be explored as follows. The author will first explain the conceptual premises on the benefits of understanding conflict dynamics through Critical Discourse Analysis. Language, amongst other communicative practices, creates social reality which forms the basis of human understanding. When intertwined with politics, using discourses to understand political violence allows one to peer into the power competition over whose insecurities rank high within a specific constituency and underscore how these competitions contribute to violence as civilians fight to effectively ensure their insecurities are at the forefront. This posits that the current political turmoil is not random wanton violence, but rather spurned by ideological differences between groups with opposing ideologies who are fighting to ensure and advance their version of security. The natural subjectivity of security, as expressed through discursive actions creates a fascinating method to explore how conflict is conceptualized, expressed, manifested, and ultimately directed. Secondly, relying on a top-bottom approach, the author will attempt to show how government discourses on terrorism and national security have been constructed and diffused within public minds, particularly in how it has transformed how perceived enemies of the state are conceived by far-right groups. Hale, 2021 1 www.AmericanCTRI.org A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence: The Permeance of ‘War on Terror’ Discourses in Civilian Spaces The author will first apply this method to illustrate how the War on Terror is understood vis-à-vis the security concerns of the United States, as made real through the discursive practices of the Bush, Obama, and Trump Administrations. Then, the author will attempt to illustrate how far-right discourses have utilized these arguments to support their form of violence. The author will relate their links with War on Terror discourses under the umbrella of three categories – having existential security concerns, being defenders for the state, and having eliminationist rhetoric towards oppositional groups – to illustrate how these thoughts diffuse under a multitude of discursive layers inciting violence. Data collection methodology involved extracting and synthesizing prominent statements, justifications, and arguments – verbally and textually written – from a variety of primary sources. This included but was not limited to court documents, police interviews, manifestos, documentaries and recordings of violent events, archived websites home to violent groups, screenshots from social media platforms (e.g., Parler, Telegram, Gab, Facebook, and Reddit), and the personal writings of violent perpetrators, supported from secondary sources which have archived and analyzed far-right movements in the United States. Lastly, the author will apply Reyes-Rodriguez’s Model – The Rhetorical Constructions of War[I] – to demonstrate how discursive practices create ‘regimes of truth.’ Reyes-Rodriguez posited that this model creates a simple yet functional basis to perceive how a political reality can be made through discursive expressions, especially when expressed within the rhetoric of conflict. Reyes-Rodriguez Model – Rhetorical Constructions of War Source: Reyes Rodríguez, Antonio. "Speeches and declarations: a war of words." Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses, No. 19 (Nov. 2006); p. 366 (2006).[II] This particular model is especially useful as it “intertwines a combination of analytical approaches, drawing on consideration of discourse, syntax, grammar, and culture in an attempt to contribute to the development of sociolinguistic theory.”[III] To that end, this article will incorporate the aforementioned chart at the conclusion to illustrate how discourses prevalent across the far-right spectrum mirror the rhetorical devices used within the War on Terror. Furthermore, this model will illustrate how political realities are manifested and how utterances supporting violence are used to reinforce them. These regimes of truth do not manifest randomly but are discursively constructed and made real based upon the malleability of polarized political realities as they are built amid groups competing for security. Hale, 2021 2 www.AmericanCTRI.org A Discursive Analysis of Far-Right Justifications for Violence: The Permeance of ‘War on Terror’ Discourses in Civilian Spaces Ultimately, this article serves as an extension of the greater argument that the discursive framings used by a state to justify war and violence abroad can return home to justify violence and conflict among civilian groups; and the argument that security studies is underpinned by various regimes of truth produced by everchanging social and political realities that constantly changes answers to the questions of security for whom and security from what by what means. Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Violence: Theoretical Framework Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) asserts that “language, and language use, do not merely reflect or represent our social and mental realities, but they actually help construct or constitute these realities.”[IV]

Load more