Debating Migration. A discourse analysis of the election programmes of the ÖVP
Author
Stern, Magdalena
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2019
Submitted on
2019-02-01
Abstract
Dette kvalitative studie undersøger, hvordan og hvorfor det østrigske konservative parti ÖVP ændrede sit sprog om migration i sine valgsprogrammer fra 1990 til 2017. Studiet spørger også, hvilke emner der oftest forbindes med migration, og hvilke “kollektive symboler” – fælles billeder og metaforer – der bruges i denne sammenhæng. For at besvare spørgsmålene anvendes en diskursanalytisk tilgang med udgangspunkt i Duisburg-skolens metode og van Dijks ramme for analyse af politiske diskurser. Analysen kombinerer en gennemgang af relevant forskning, en vurdering af den historiske kontekst og en nærlæsning af ÖVP’s valgsprogrammer i perioden. Resultaterne peger på, at forandringerne først og fremmest er subtile. I stedet for åbent at kalde migranter “farlige” – hvilket ville stride mod partiets selvbeskrivelse som moderat – bruges der i stigende grad naturmetaforer som “jordskælv”. Sådan sprogbrug kan formidle en lignende forestilling om fare uden at sige det direkte og flytter gradvist grænserne for, hvad der opfattes som acceptabelt at sige i politik. Samlet set består den vigtigste ændring i en ophobning af stille forskydninger i ordvalg og symbolik, som over tid omrammer migration i partiets politiske sprog.
This qualitative study examines how and why Austria’s conservative party, the ÖVP, changed its language about migration in its election programs between 1990 and 2017. It also asks which topics recur most often and which “collective symbols”—shared images and metaphors—are used to frame migration. To answer these questions, the study applies a discourse-analytic approach based on the Duisburg School and van Dijk’s framework for political discourse. It combines a review of relevant research, an analysis of the historical context, and close readings of ÖVP election programs from 1990 to 2017. Findings show that the shift is mainly subtle. Rather than openly calling migrants “dangerous”—which would conflict with the party’s self-description as moderate—the texts increasingly use natural metaphors such as “earthquakes.” This language can suggest danger without stating it directly and gradually shifts the “realm of the sayable,” that is, what is seen as acceptable to say in politics. Overall, the primary change across the period is the accumulation of these quiet adjustments in wording and symbolism, which reframe migration in the party’s political discourse.
[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]
Documents