Journal of Language and Politics - Volume 17, Issue 5, 2018

Abstract

After a record number of women were elected to the House of Commons in 1997, many incidents of sexism and abusive behaviour were reported. The aim of this article is twofold: on the one hand, to scrutinize the mechanisms and effects of sexist discrimination and stereotyping of women MPs in the House of Commons; on the other, to identify the strategies used by female (and male) MPs to subvert discriminatory representations, and to counteract gender-biased and sexist treatment. The focus of the multi-level analysis is on three recurrent strategies: objectifying women MPs through fixation on personal appearance rather than professional performance (e.g. making trivialising comments about women’s hair and dressing style); patronizing women MPs through the use of derogatory forms of address (e.g. directly addressing them by the terms of endearment “honey”, “dear”, “woman”); and stigmatizing women MPs through abusive and discriminatory labelling (e.g. ascribing to them stereotypically insulting names.

Abstract

Heckles are an illegitimate, yet common way of commenting directly and immediately on what is being said at the lectern. However, (non-)verbal interjections can also be used to disconcert the speaker, thus scoring points within the parliamentary arena. In these cases, female delegates are often confronted with discriminatory remarks and comments that border on sexism and even misogyny. Based on the extensive literature on gender and discourse, the following paper will focus on gender-related heckles and analyse argumentative structures and topoi that are grounded in sexist stereotypes and conservative role-models. Presuming that these incidents are not isolated instances, the paper will compare and contrast several examples from around the world that have caught public attention.

Abstract

This article analyses right-wing populist constructions of ‘the people’ emerging at the intersections of ethnicized ‘othering’ and gendered differences within groups. We argue that these constructions are in stark contrast to the liberal notion of citizenship, which we understand to be the basis for the demos. Right-wing populism constructs its politics of belonging beyond rights, i.e. ‘the people’ is defined as a community through identity with the political leader, rather than as a political entity marked by different interests and endowed with rights, which could be represented politically. We argue that it is important to not only analyse practices of ‘othering’ and exclusion, but also the appeal to the ‘we’-group in order to understand right-wing populist success. Empirically our Critical Frame Analysis focuses on the Austrian context and on the FPÖ, which has been a forerunner in the ‘modernization’ of right-wing extremism and the development of right-wing populism in Europe.

Abstract

Boosting national spirit through projection of otherness is not a new phenomenon, at least in authoritarian regimes. Yet the role of anti-Semitism in the Numerus Clausus debates in the Hungarian parliament in 1920 and 1928 is worth deeper analysis, as it bore a peculiar role in the Hungarian interwar counterrevolutionary nation-building. The Numerus Clausus law of 1920 set ethnic quotas to university enrolment; the explicit argument for this was countering the Jewish ‘over-representation’ in Hungarian society. However, in 1928 the law was amended, abolishing (in principle) the said quotas; this time the arguments favoured national consolidation, where segregation was to be moderated. In both cases, the national elites construed and made use of nation-centred political rhetoric, but used it for differing ends in different times. This article shall analyse the debates of the Hungarian Parliament concerning the Numerus Clausus laws, especially from the viewpoints of nation-building and rhetoric of exclusion.

Abstract

This paper explores the relation between the use of anti-Semitic rhetoric in post-war Austrian parliamentary debate and the development of the consensus-oriented, corporatist model of Austrian democracy, the “consociational model,” between 1945 and 1955. Specifically, this paper examines the anti-Semitic stereotypes found in parliament, an arena where “the sayable” of official politics is defined, and whether such anti-Semitic stereotyping serves political-strategic purposes. The predominant pattern of exclusion proves to be the attribution of ambivalence, drawing on the repertoire of nationalist anti-Semitic stereotypes, depicting “emigrants” as “cowards,” incapable of love for and defense of their countries. The analysis shows this pattern of exclusion is rooted in an ethnicized, homogeneous, and masculinist understanding of the people – recurrent in contemporary right-wing movements and parties. It follows the lines of Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, in which the distinction of “friend” and “enemy,” and hence, the eradication of pluralism and ambivalence, is pivotal.

This article reviews Discursive processes of intergenerational transmission of recent history: (Re)making our past£65.00

This article reviews Media, Myth and Terrorism. A Discourse-Mythological Analysis of the ‘Blitz Spirit’ in British newspaper responses to the July 7th bombings

This article reviews Articulations of Self and Politics in Activist Discourse. A Discourse Analysis of Critical Subjectivities in Minority Debates978-3-319-40703-6£109.99

This article reviews Discursive Strategies and Political Hegemony: The Turkish case978-9-02726-796-2$149.00