American Cold War Mentality - Alive and Well?
Author
Jensen, Christina
Term
4. term
Publication year
2016
Submitted on
2016-05-31
Pages
50
Abstract
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvad koldkrigsmentalitet betyder i amerikansk regeringskommunikation. Den sammenligner Reagan-administrationens kommunikation om den kolde krig i 1981-1986 med den daværende nuværende Obama-administrations kommunikation om interessekonflikter med Rusland, herunder den syriske konflikt og den voksende trussel, Rusland udgør mod Europas sikkerhed. Da der ikke findes en bredt accepteret akademisk definition af koldkrigsmentalitet, udvikler afhandlingen en arbejdsforståelse på baggrund af eksisterende litteratur og artikler. Analysen bygger på udvalgte taler og udmeldinger: fra Reagan-administrationen to taler af præsident Reagan, én af forsvarsminister Weinberger og én af udenrigsminister Shultz; fra Obama-administrationen seks tekster – to fra præsident Obama, to fra forsvarsminister Carter og to fra udenrigsminister Kerry. Afhandlingen anvender kritisk diskursanalyse, en metode der undersøger, hvordan sprog rammesætter konflikter, magtforhold og modstandere, og dermed former vores forståelse af dem. Resultaterne viser både ligheder og forskelle i, hvordan Sovjetunionen/Rusland fremstilles. Obama-administrationen beskriver Rusland mindre aggressivt end Reagan-administrationens fremstilling af Sovjetunionen, og dens negative fremstilling er mere indirekte. Reagan-administrationen udviser tydeligt koldkrigsmentalitet i sin kommunikation. For Obama-administrationen kan der peges på visse indikatorer på koldkrigsmentalitet, som den negative fremstilling af Rusland, men andre centrale træk – som bipolær tænkning, hvor verden forstås som to klart adskilte blokke – er ikke tydelige. Derfor er tegnene mindre entydige end hos Reagan.
This thesis examines what “Cold War mentality” means in U.S. government communication. It compares the Reagan administration’s Cold War messaging from 1981 to 1986 with the then-current Obama administration’s communication about conflicts of interest with Russia, including the Syrian conflict and the growing threat Russia poses to European security. Because there is no broadly accepted academic definition of Cold War mentality, the thesis develops a working understanding from existing literature and articles. The analysis uses selected speeches and statements: four from the Reagan administration (two by President Reagan, one by the Secretary of Defense Weinberger, and one by the Secretary of State Shultz) and six from the Obama administration (two by President Obama, two by the Secretary of Defense Carter, and two by the Secretary of State Kerry). The study applies Critical Discourse Analysis, a method that examines how language frames conflicts, power relations, and opponents, shaping how audiences understand them. Findings show both continuities and differences in how the Soviet Union/Russia is portrayed. The Obama administration depicts Russia less aggressively than the Reagan administration depicted the Soviet Union, and its negative portrayals are more indirect. The Reagan administration clearly exhibits Cold War mentality in its communication. For the Obama administration, some indicators are present—such as negative portrayals of Russia—but other hallmarks, like bipolar thinking that divides the world into two opposing blocs, are not evident. As a result, the evidence is less clear-cut than in the Reagan case.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Documents