Constructing and Contesting the ‘Truth’: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Progress Party and the Socialist Left Party’s Discursive Struggle to Define the ‘Elite’ in the Norwegian Context Lars Erik L. Gjerde Master’s thesis in Sociology Spring 2020 Department of Sociology and Human Geography Faculty of Social Sciences UNIVERSITY OF OSLO 22.06.2020 i Constructing and Contesting ‘Truth’ A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Progress Party and the Socialist Left Party’s Discursive Struggle to Define the ‘Elite’ in the Norwegian Context Lars Erik L. Gjerde ii Abstract This text covers how the Norwegian right-wing Progress Party and the left-wing Socialist Left struggle to determine which whom to label as the ‘elite’ dominating Norway – and whom to include in the subordinated ‘people’ dominated by this ‘elite’. These parties struggle to determine the (il)legitimacy of powerholders – and this discursive struggle is my object of analysis. I utilize a discursive framework combining the Foucauldian focus on discursive regularities within Norman Fairclough’s theoretical-methodological framework of critical discourse analysis. I further employ Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s terminology and analytical strategies – which I then utilize within the sociological framework of Pierre Bourdieu. The text’s task is threefold. Firstly, I investigate the discursive conflict of the parties. This conflict has equivalents globally as ‘elites’ are problematized by various popular, or populist, parties – with the content of the term tending to be an object of struggle which political actors are unable to fully fixate. Secondly, I map how the constitution of ‘elites’ can be understood based on the objective positions of the speaking subjects within social space and the objective hierarchies of contemporary Norway – seeking to contextualize the discursive practices vis-à-vis the Norwegian field of power as found by scholars working within the sociology of elites. Thirdly, I aim to offer theoretical innovation through combining various theoretical approaches in order to finish this discursive map and contextualize it vis-à-vis the nondiscursive basis of these articulations. For these ends, I split my focus between analysing discursive regularities and contextualizing these regularities based upon the nondiscursive basis which the discourses revolve around. This text takes a theoretically heterodox approach – being heavily theoretical due to a) the complexity of the discursive/nondiscursive relationship and b) scepticism towards individual consciousness and the possibility of unmediated perceptions. The discursive analysis, which takes up approximately 75% of the analysis/discussion, focuses upon how the parties’ constitute the division between the ‘people’ and the ‘elite’ utilizing a Laclauian ‘populist reason’ – as well as how the parties’ different perceptions lead to antagonism between them. I focus upon four aspects of the parties’ discourses: a) the regularities of the discourses, b) internal ruptures, c) external resemblances and cleavages and d) the ways the parties’ struggles lead to antagonistic meaning-production on several fronts, particularly as both parties find themselves to be ‘protectors’ of the ‘people’ while they simultaneously label their rivals as the ‘enemies’ of the very same ‘people’. Thereafter, I contextualize these discursive practices through analysing how these relate to the parties’ positions in social space as well as how their articulations and silences seem to influence the Norwegian field of power. The purpose of this is both to analyse the principles iii behind the constitution of the ‘elite’ – as I seek the logic behind this constitution in these discourses, as well as to problematize how one’s own position relates to how one appears to perceive power and domination. I utilize Foucauldian notions of critique as the open resistance to dominant ‘truths’ through denaturalizing social conditions’ influence upon these discourses while interpreting the textual data as I seek to handle the parties’ criticism of ‘elites’ with a diverse theoretical arsenal. Through these measures, I find the Progress Party’s criticism of various symbolic ‘elites’ and the Socialist Left Party’s criticism of economic ‘elites’ to follow similar principles of meaning-production while radically clashing, too. The parties’ antagonism appears to be caused by the parties seemingly constructing social space in ways which correspond to their followers’ own positions within the Norwegian social space and their qualities and quantities of capital. Keywords: Symbolic Power, Elites, Populism, Field of Power, Foucault, Bourdieu, Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse Theory Acknowledgments iv I would first of all like to thank my supervisor, Professor Bjørn Schiermer Andersen, for his guidance – on both theoretical, methodological and structural aspects of my thesis as well as general academical topics beyond my master’s thesis. His critical insights have challenged me throughout the research – something which forced me to think somewhat beyond my own discursive approach. This text would not have been what it is today without Bjørn’s guidance and constructive criticism. Furthermore, my gratitude must be extended to my fellow student and friend, Torstein Botnan, for feedback and commentary throughout the project. Otherwise, I thank my fellow students from the seminars of SOS4050 as well as our seminar leader Professor Mette Andersson for support and feedback throughout the academic year. v Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Outline ......................................................................................................................... 6 2. Between the Discursive and the Nondiscursive ................................................................. 7 2.1. A Theory of Discourse ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1. Discourses ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2. Discursive Formations: Myths and Centres ............................................................. 8 2.1.3. A Foucauldian-Faircloughian Approach to CDA .................................................. 11 2.2. Bourdieusean Sociology ............................................................................................... 14 2.2.1. Subjectivism and Objectivism ............................................................................... 14 2.2.2. Social Fields and Social Space .............................................................................. 14 2.2.3. Power and Capital .................................................................................................. 16 2.2.4. Symbolic Power ..................................................................................................... 17 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 19 3.1. Empirical Material ........................................................................................................ 20 3.1.1. Searching for Data ................................................................................................. 20 3.1.2. Selecting Data ........................................................................................................ 21 3.1.3. On the Data ............................................................................................................ 24 3.2. Analytical Strategies ..................................................................................................... 26 3.2.1. Intertextual Mapping .............................................................................................. 27 3.2.2. Laclau and Mouffe’s Analytical Concepts ............................................................ 28 3.3. Further Reflections........................................................................................................ 30 3.3.1. Theory and Data ..................................................................................................... 30 3.3.2. My Analytical Approach and the Struggle for ‘Truth’ .......................................... 31 3.3.3. On the Choice of Parties ........................................................................................ 33 4. On ‘Populism’ and ‘Elites’: Delegitimized Categories of the Present ................................ 35 4.1. Populism: Political ‘Anti-Elitism’ ................................................................................ 35 4.2. The (il)legitimacy of ‘Elites’ ........................................................................................ 36 4.3. ‘Elites’ in Norway ........................................................................................................ 38 4.3.1. Socioeconomic inequalities ................................................................................... 38 4.3.2 Immaterial hierarchies ............................................................................................ 39 5. Tracing 1. Discursive Regularities ................................................................................... 41 5.1 The ‘People’ versus Symbolic Powerholders ................................................................ 41 vi 5.1.1. Environmentalism and Symbolic