CAHPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Political Discourse

Defining what political discourse is not easy because the definition of

political discourse is ambiguity, sometimes. Political discourse is commonly

interpreted approach to politic and critical discourse. Therefore, political

discourse analysis, well-known as PDA, commonly defines as the study of an

analysis which focuses on the analysis of political speech and act (discourse),

wherefore we also need to consider which discourse is politic or not. As we

know that discourse has a broad meaning, and discourse not only takes over

politic field but also anything that we have in the world is discourse both

spoken or non-spoken text. Moreover, silent is also a discourse which also

has a beyond meaning to share. “The word ‘discourse’ is usually defined as

‘language beyond the sentence’ and the analysis of discourse is typically

concerned with the study of language in text and conversation.” (George Yule

2006: 124)

Based on the definition of discourse above we can conclude that

discourse is learning about intended meaning that is included both spoken and

written text that we hear, talk, and feel. To get the meaning we have to

understand the context of what the text talk about, because by knowing the

context it will fully help us to get meaning easily.

 After understanding the meaning of discourse, now we can differ which

discourse is approached to politic or not. A discourse which is usually

approached to the politic context or situation considers admitting as political

discourse. “Political philosophy is the study of human social organization and

of the nature of man/woman in society. (taken from: http://www.

philosophicalsociety.com ). According to the notion of political philosophy

above we can state that politic considers defining as a group of people who

has an organization in a society, and the member of the organization is called

politician. Politic also considers covering power and dominance of a group of

parties that against each other to have power in the house.

So the study which relate to the analyzing of some spoken or written

text of a politician which contain a power or dominance to persuade public to

follow what they state always deems as political discourse analysis.

Van Dijk states, “……….Without collapsing political discourse analysis

into critical discourse analysis, we would like to retain both aspects of the
ambiguous designation: PDA is both about political discourse, and it is
also a critical enterprise. In the spirit of contemporary approaches in
CDA this would mean that critical-political discourse analysis deals
especially with the reproduction of political power, power abuse or
domination through political discourse, including the various forms of
resistance or counter-power against such forms of discursive dominance.
(Teun van Dijk 1993b: ……..).

Based on the definition of political discourse above we can state that political

discourse is a language study which focuses on the politic filed, which covers

power, conflict, control and domination, as the effort to get public admission.

Analyzing a political discourse which included political power, conflict,

control and dominance is often related to the critical discourse analysis. It’s
caused; in this modern era people are commonly deem to think that political

discourse and critical discourse analysis are both the same thing. Wherefore,

sometimes it is ambiguous to define political discourse by separating from

critical discourse, moreover political discourse means a critical enterprise

which has an effort to criticize the political text or speech to get the intended

meaning.

The definition of political discourse it self is about the text and talk of
professional politicians or political institutions, such as president and
prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or
political parties, both at the local, national and international levels (Teun
van Dijk 1993b: …..).

According to the definition of political discourse above we can

summarize that political discourse is also a study of language which covers

both spoken and written text which is produced by a politician. The member

of politician tend to admit as a group of people who have gather and have the

same purpose and mission to hold and improve a party in order to get a

position in the house or member of the house who has had a power such as;

president, minister, member of parliament, etc. To get the available position

or chair in the house a politician of a party need to persuade the citizen to

support and finally choose him/her. The way that is commonly used to

persuade the people to follow their mission, the politicians consider using the

speech power. They always throw their opinion or idea to the public which

usually offers a good problem solving of complicated problem that is faced

by the house. Sometimes, they also do in an extreme way in criticizing the

house decision in order to get the people attention. Their speech that they
spread to the public in a purpose to get the public attention is called as

political discourse. They are in purpose to state their speech in public so that

they can make sure that their political position is in safe.

From the interactional point of view of discourse analysis, we therefore

should also include the various recipients in political communicative events,

such as the public, the people, citizens, the ` masses', and other groups or

categories. Therefore, political activity and the political process also involve

people as citizens and voters, people as members of pressure and issue

groups, demonstrators and dissidents, and so on. All these groups and

individuals, as well as their organizations and institutions, may take part in

the political process, and many of them are actively involved in political

discourse

2.1.1 Political Discourse Structures

In analyzing political discourse, moreover, in emphasizing the

important contextual dimension of political discourse and its many sub-

genres, we have to focus on the structure and strategies of political text

and talk it self. We usually will get the same question and problem

when we want to establish if there are any properties that distinguish

political discourse form discourse in other social domains such as;

education, business and religion that enables to differentiate the sub-

genres of political text and talk. An inquiry question is if there are any

structure of text or talk are typically ‘political text or talk’ in the sense

that they appear primarily in political discourse, and signal or constitute

the political nature of such discourse. The question about whether there

are any properties to differ political discourse from other discourse

appear because most of discourse structure may have many function in

many different context and genres. In other words, when we would like

to analyze the particular properties of political contexts as political

discourse analysis will be like any other kind of discourse analysis. The

specifics of political discourse analysis therefore should be searched for

in the relations between discourse structures and political context

structures. Based on Teun A. van Dijk an account of the structures and

strategies of, e.g., phonology, graphics, syntax, meaning, speech acts,

style or rhetoric, conversational interactions, among other properties of

text and talk is therefore necessarily part of political discourse analysis

only if such properties can be politically contextualized. According to

his statement about the structure and strategies of political discourse

above can be stated that the properties, the structure and strategy, of

political discourse is actually as like the properties that we have in

common discourse. The structures and strategies such as phonology,

graphic, syntax, meaning, speech act, style or rhetoric of any

conversational interaction can be said as political discourse structure

and strategy as far as the structure and strategy is in the politic context.

It means the content of the text that included some structure and

strategy above is talking about politic. So, in having political discourse

analysis (PDA) is necessary to know structure and the strategy of the

text or talk.

In other words, maybe the structures of political discourse are

seldom exclusive, but typical and effective discourse in political

contexts may well have preferred structures and strategies that are

functional in the adequate accomplishment of political actions in

political contexts. Some of the various levels and dimensions of

discourse structure and typical structures and strategies seem to have

this status of preferred discursive methods of doing ‘politics' are;

1. Topics

Based on the definition of political discourse that has been

discussed before, we may consider thinking that political discourse

also exhibits certain topics. The first thing that is necessary to know

is that political discourse will be primarily about politics, it means

the topic will always relate to the politic both act and talk. Therefore,

we may typically expect overall meanings related to political

systems, ideologies, institutions, the political process, political

actors, and political events.

“……… political discourse usually combines its topics with

those from other societal domains. Thus a debate about
immigration policies is not only about government policies,
but also about immigration or minorities, and the same is true
for political meetings, discussions, debates, speeches or
propaganda about education, health care, drugs, crime, the
economy, (un)employment, or foreign affairs. This seems to
open up a Pandora-box of possible topics and to suggest that
formulating topical constraints in political discourse seems
pointless.” (Teun A van Dijk, 1993: 25)
 Based on the statement above can be summarized that the

topics in political discourse is not only derived from politic fields

only but also combined with other fields such as; education,

economy, health care, etc. It happens because when we talk about

political discourse in a certain topics it will also influence or creep to

the other field, therefore, if we arise a topic to talk in public it will

make the other field necessity to be discussed because it may be one

of the factors or impacts from the topic of the political discourse that

is spoken. For example, the government planning legalizing

pornography rules last years was able to make people to speak up in

public. For the public who agree with government decision they said

that that planning was good and would be suppose to be able to solve

morality problem that had spread to the youngsters as like viruses. In

this case, government in their political discourse legalizing the law

of pornography had been able to creep to the morality field as one of

the factors that make people agree in legalizing the law. In other

side, there were also some people who disagreed with the

government rule because they considered thinking that it would only

limit the actress and actors in creating their work. Moreover, some

people who work as model they will feel that they way to improve

their carrier is blocked. If the rules are too tight, it would definitely

influence to the economic life, because directly it would decrease the

income of many people who are involved in the production. So,

 political discourse has a high power to influence others both in bad

and good side to argue each other. So, political topics will be mainly

about political actors (politicians, elites, public figures and social

institutions and organizations) and their typical actions, in past,

present and especially the future.

2. Superstructures or textual 'schemata'

Discourse structure also talks about abstract schematic form

that consists of conventional categories that define their nature and

the overall structure of the semantic content. So, every kinds of text

has its structure from, such as; an argumentative text (in the

schematic form of premises and conclusion), stories (in the

schematic form of complication and resolution), and news report

(summaries, recent event, and background).

The first general property of such schematic structures (as is

also the case for sentential syntax, see below) is that they may
make (global) meanings more or less prominent for obvious
partisan reasons. Whether or not some information is
highlighted in a headline, a summary or a conclusion depends
on the way meanings are distributed in discourse (Teun a Van
Dijk 1993: 29).

Based on the statement above can be concluded that the

function of textual schemata is giving a highlight (emphasizing) to

the meaning that is produced, whether the meaning is tried to cover

the global meaning more or less prominent for a certain reason. So,

the meaning of the speech or statement that is produced is depending

 on the way we distribute the meaning. Sometimes, we deliver the

meaning in purpose of promising, arguing, or concluding.

3. Local semantics

We have seen that political context models define what

information of models of current events will be relevantly included

in discourse or not. As the explanation above that not all model

information can be called as discourse, and this is also true both for

global (topical) meanings, as well as for local meanings expressed in

the actual sentences of text or talk. Actual sentence means, a

meaning that is on the surface of the text of the sentence that is

produced. It doesn’t need am effort to get the beyond meaning by

understanding the context. But, an important context category which

is controlling this selection is the political ideology of the speaker

and the recipients, which also may influence the complexity of local

meanings.

However, not all meanings derive from ideologically based

models of events, but may also be inspired by context models

featuring images political action. In addition, political analysis of

local meanings will try to relate the selection of propositions

expressed in text and talk to underlying event and context models as

well as socially shared (group) representations such as knowledge,

attitudes and ideologies. Thus, whether or not local meaning is

explicit or implicit, asserted or presupposed, detailed or global,

 general or specific, direct or indirect, or blatant or subdued, will

typically be a function of the ideologically based event models.

4. Lexicon

Most of the studies of political acts often focus on the special

words that are used in politic. That’s why we need to know the

global and local meaning of the words at the level of lexical

variation. It means we need to know what kinds of lexical variation

that is used in politic. Thus, politician considers thinking about a

suitable lexical variation before they state something, because they

aware that their opponents may interpret other meaning from their

sentence that may can be used to make them in down position.

However, when they consider taking a good choice of lexicon they

will seem to be a good figure for the public, and then they can attract

the public attention easily.

5. Syntax

Something that is more complex than a lexicon is syntax style.

Politician often manipulate syntactic style such as the use of

pronouns, variations of word order, the use of specific syntactic

categories, active and passive constructions, nominalizations, clause

embedding, sentence complexity and other ways to express

underlying meanings in sentence structures. Therefore, the use of the

political plural we (or possessive our) has many implications for the

political position, alliances, solidarity, and other socio-political

 position of the speaker. We often hear politicians use the political

plural we in their speech, such as ‘we must fight for our children on

the street. It is our responsible to take care of them or sometimes

they say Indonesia is our country (in this case we are forced in

directly to admit Indonesia as our country based on their political

view).

………syntactic structures are able to put more or less

emphasis, focus or prominence on specific words, phrases or
clauses, and thus indirectly contribute to corresponding
semantic stress on specific meanings, as a function of the
political interests and allegiances of the speaker or writer
(Teun a Van Dijk 1993: 34).

Based on the statement above can be concluded that syntactic

structure may be used to give more or less emphasizing to the

specific words, phrases and clauses with a certain purpose. Thus, it

relates to the semantic field in the study of semantic stress which

focuses on the specific meaning in order to create a political interest

which is able to attract other people’s attention.

6. Style and Rhetoric

“Rhetoric is the contextual models that are used as the

reference to get the meaning of any texts (Teun a Van Dijk 1993:

36). According to the statement above can be summarized that

rhetoric is a contextual model of speech which is arranged to have an

intended meaning to be effective in order to influence people. So,

rhetoric is grammatical text that is arranged start from the opening

 until closing that is made attractively to express or confirm political

identity and relationships.

7. Expression structures

Beyond those of syntactic sentence structures, the expression

structures of sounds and graphics usually also play an indirect
function in emphasizing or de-emphasizing partisan meanings.
Volume (shouting and whispering), pitch and intonation of
speakers may influence modes of attention and understanding
of what they say following the principles of the ideological
square. The same is true for graphical display through
headlines, letter type, and use of colors or photographs, (Teun
a Van Dijk 1993:36).

Based on the explanation of expression structure above can be

assumed that in a message of a text both spoken and written is not

only can be delivered from the syntactic structure but also can be

seen from the expression structure of the sounds and graphics.

Indirectly sound and graphic that is produces influence people to

catch the meaning of the text. Beside that, the intonation and pitch is

useful to give emphasizing to what are talking about. In other hand,

written text is not exactly the same with spoken one, in written text

the expression structure is usually in the form of graphical display

through headlines, letter type, symbol, photograph, etc.

8. Speech acts and interaction

“………a pragmatic analysis may examine which speech acts

are preferred in what sub-genres of political text and talk (Teun A.

van Dijk, 1993: 36).” According to the statement we can take a

conclusion that there are some kinds of text that we have but not all
kinds of the texts can be identified as political text. We can differ

which one is political text and which is not. After knowing the

limitation of kinds of text and context that is already emphasized to

the interactional nature of political discourse, therefore, political

discourse analysis on approach of pragmatic may examine which

speech acts are preferred in what sub-genres of political text and

talk. Thus, whereas government declarations may largely be

assertions, and official laws and regulations have the same

illocutionary force as directives (orders, commands, advice),

parliamentary debates will be more varied and typically feature

assertions, questions, accusations or apologies.

So, speech act and interaction is the way of how the politician

deliver the illocutionary, in order people will produce the

perlocutionary that will not far form the meaning that means by the

politicians. Sometimes, speech act and interaction is also used to

emphasize that what is said is right, moreover when the politician

need to persuade other people to follow and believe in what they say.

They will consider using the speech act and direct interaction to the

people to make sure they want to believe in them.

2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis is concerned to analyze how social and

political inequalities are manifest in and reproduced through discourse. It

means that critical discourse is an effort to analyze how political atmosphere

produces factually through discourse. It’s often to see that politician uses

discourse to criticize their opponents in order to against them, but sometimes,

discourse is also used by the politician to create a unbalance political

atmosphere to make their opponents are reluctant to their power. It makes sure

that they have a big role in the political life.

“……. all critical discourse analysts try to explore the role of discourse
in the production and reproduction of power relations within social
structures. In particular, they focus on the ways in which discourse
sustains and legitimizes social inequalities, (Robin Wooffitt, 2005:
138).”

Based on the statement above can be assumed that critical discourse

analysis (CDA) is a way to examine the role of discourse which relates to the

power relations or dominance in social structure. Sometimes, CDA is used to

evaluate or analyze the political atmosphere that is happening. By knowing the

political atmosphere, politician knows what they will do for the next step,

included taking decision to sustain or maintain their inequality argument.

Thus, they often flip a coin to sustain what they stated though it is no

absolutely right.

Confusingly, the label ‘critical discourse analysis’ is used in two

different ways: Norman Fairclough uses it both to describe the approach that

he has developed and as the label for a broader movement within discourse
analysis of which several approaches, including his own, are part (Jorgensen,

Marianne and Louise J. Philips, 2002: 60).

So, according to the Norman Fairlough critical discourse has two

different ways in analyzing the social inequalities of the political atmosphere.

The first usage is used to describe how critical discourse analysis (CDA)

describes the political approach. Then, the second usage is used to labeling the

broader movement included the discourse analysis from several approaches.

Actually there are some approaches that can be used in analyzing a critical

discourse, included Fairlough’s approach. As we know that Fairlouhg is not

the only researcher who is associated to the critical discourse analysis, but still

there are others, such as Teun A. van Dijk and Ruth Wodak. Among them

have different opinion in giving the approach of analyzing critical discourse.

However, among the different approaches to CDA, five common features can

be identified. It is these that make it possible to categories the approaches as

belonging to the same movement. In the following account we draw on

Fairclough and Wodak’s overview (1997: 271).

2.2.1 Five Common Features of Critical Discourse Approach

1. The Character of Social and Cultural Processes and Structures

is Partly Linguistic-Discursive

Discursive practice considers talking about or dealing with

subjects which are only slightly connected with the main subject

for longer than necessary. It is usually included text and speech. So,

discursive practice is a text or speech which is produced and

 consumed as an important form of social practice which contributes

to the constitution of the social world including social identities and

social relations.

The aim of critical discourse analysis is to shed light on the

linguistic discursive dimension of social and cultural
phenomena and processes of change in late modernity
(Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise J. Philips, 2002: 61).

It means that CDA is a way to fall of the discursive language

in the dimension of social and cultural phenomena. Sometimes, we

find some discursive text or speech which is produced in the aim to

make people confused about the case that is happening or talking

about. It is done to conceal the fact or what actually happened to the

public. Thus, critical discourse analysis tries to clarify anything

about it to make it clear and separate the discursive ones from the

fact.

2. Discourse is Both Constitutive and Constituted

Discourse is a form of social practice which both constitutes

the social world and is constituted by other social practices.

‘Constitute’ means discourse is making or considering a thing in the

aim to get the beyond meaning, then ‘constituted’ means discourse

is formed to get the beyond meaning based on the social context. As

social practice, discourse has a dialectical relationship with the other

social dimension. It does not only contribute how to form or re-form

the social structure but also gives reflection to them. Thus, media

also takes part in creating social structure because media often

 present discursive discourse among the society in giving

information to the public. The information that is created or written

by the media has a big role in forming the people’s paradigm and

thinking of some cases. Because people tend to believe media

though they do not know exactly whether it is right or wrong. Thus,

people sometimes trap in the media’s information because

sometimes they do not have a clear evidence and fact about the case

but hey dare to share the case to the public in order to know or in

script to form people’s opinion.

3. Language use should be Empirically Analyzed within its Social

Context

Critical discourse analysis always relates to the language use

in social interaction. It happens because linguistic textual analysis

can be done if we understand well about the context. However, to

get the meaning of the linguistic textual analysis is needed to know

and understand about the context that is talked in the text. So, the

empirical study of analyzing language should be done because by

knowing the empiric we can know the improvement or the changing

meaning of the text.

4. Discourse Functions Ideologically

In critical discourse analysis, it is admitted that discursive

practices gives role to the creation and reproduction of unequal

power relations between social groups – for example, between

social classes, women and men, ethnic minorities and the majority.

These impacts are understood as ideological effects.

In contrast to discourse theorists, some critical discourse analytical

approaches derive from a productive force – rather than as a

property possessed by individuals. But, at the same time, they

deviate that they enlist the concept of ideology to theories the

subjugation of one social group to other social groups.

The research focus of critical discourse analysis is accordingly

both the discursive practices which construct representations
of the world, social subjects and social relations, including
power relations, and the role that these discursive practices
play in furthering the interests of particular social groups
Jorgensen, Marianne and Louise J. Philips, 2002: 63).

It means that, the research of critical discourse analysis covers

both the discursive practice and the role one. The discursive practice

is included the representations of the social (subject and relation)

and power relation. So, discursive practice talks more about the

social relationship which is in text or speech. Sometimes, a text or

speech explores more about social phenomena and relation in the

aim to show the power dominance. Beside that, discursive role also

becomes one of the considerations of the research of the critical

discourse analysis because the role of the discursive practice shows

the effect of the text or speech to the public. As we know that

everyone has their own interpretation based on their understanding,

and of course this point will influence public in understanding the

 discursive practice in the text of speech that aims to spread to the

public to attract their attention of something. And as we know that

critical discourse analysis is ‘critical’ in the sense that it aims to

reveal the role of discursive practice in the maintenance of the

social world, including those social relations that involve unequal

relations of power. Its aim is to contribute to social change along the

lines of more equal power relations in communication processes and

society in general.

5. Critical Research

Critique aims to uncover the role of discursive practice in the

maintenance of unequal power relations, with the overall goal
of harnessing the results of critical discourse analysis to the
struggle for radical social change (Jorgensen, Marianne and
Louise J. Philips, 2002: 64).

It means that critique is an effort to explore and reveal the role

of discursive practice in the social which relates to the politic in the

purpose to maintain the power dominance relation which aims to

struggle for radical social change. So, critical research is a way to

analyze the effort and effect of revealing a discursive practice in

social which include the social power dominance.

2.1 Conspiracy

In the daily life we have been usual listen the word ‘conspiracy’, and

the tendency of the meaning conspiracy considers being understood by public

as a negative things. Public paradigm tends to admit conspiracy as an act that

is done to spread a political issue in a purpose to defeat the rival. Thus, it is

always related to the political act, because politicians are usual to against each

other in public by arguing in public or mass. So, it is, sometimes, difficult to

get the point what the meaning of conspiracy is. Based on Adrian Vermeule

and Cass R. Sunstein “Conspiracy Theories”, conspiracy is an effort to

explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful

people, who have also managed to conceal their role. In this case conspiracy

considers doing by some groups or individual who have a power or position.

They do it because they have an intended purpose to defeat their rival only by

stating to the public about some events or acts that is referred to the

references. The references that are used are not only theory but it can be in a

form of photo as the evidence and fact, sometimes. By showing the

references that emphasize, of course it makes their rival flounder about how

to argue what have been stated. In this case the theory of conspiracy seems

done well. However, their rival won’t let themselves seen lost. Thus, they

also will think to take a way how to defeat it back by spreading a political

issue too.

Some of the example of conspiracy theory that we see around us, such

as: Munir, the hero of human-right, was killed by a group of politician in

purpose to conceal what they have done that is known by him; the issue of

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesian President, that states before

becoming a soldier, he has been married with the other woman, etc.

According to Hugo Antonio, “The consequences of a conspiracy can be

positive (arguably, all conspirators are convinced of the positive
 consequences of their actions); we can conspire to surprise a friend with
a party, for purposes of beneficence and charity, or to advance a
political position we consider correct.” (International Journal of Human
and social science 3:4 2008).

Based on the explanation of conspiracy above means conspiracy is not

always a bad act but it also has a positive side. It relays on to the actors

intention why they take or use the conspiracy for. When a friend try to give a

surprise party to their friend by stating something to make their friend

confused, worry, and angry with the statement or act that is played means that

it is one of a conspiracy theory that is done for a positive purpose. Though

conspiracy also has a positive use but it tends to use more as negative one.

“Conspiracy theories generally attribute extraordinary powers to certain

agents to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and so forth. Those
who believe that those agents have such powers are especially unlikely
to give respectful attention to debunkers, who may, after all, be agents
or dupes of those who are responsible for the conspiracy in the first
instance. It is comparatively easier for government to dispel false and
dangerous beliefs that rest, not on a self-sealing conspiracy theory, but
on simple misinformation or on a fragile social consensus. The
simplest governmental technique for dispelling false (and also harmful)
beliefs – providing credible public information – does not work, in any
straightforward way, for conspiracy theories. This extra resistance to
correction through simple techniques is what makes conspiracy theories
distinctively worrisome (Adrian Vermeule and Cass R. Sunstein
2008:5).”

The statement above emphasizes that conspiracy consider doing by a

certain group of people who have power to attract the public attention to

follow what they conspire. Thus, they often use their power to spread their

argument in a public in purpose to plan, control, maintain a secret and so

forth. They, sometimes, spread a wrong argument in order to create a bead

environment that will be harmful, and it is comparatively very easy for the
government to dispel what they have stated as far as their statement is untrue.

It often happens in the reality, some group of people who have interest they

spread a bad and harmful issue that is not factual and provable to the

government to make the government get less support form the people and the

house. In this case government only need to take the simplest governmental

technique to defeat the conspiracy theory, however, government has more

power than other, so, it helps the government to take over of everything

easily. Moreover, when the government is stated in misinformation, so, the

government just needs to confirm and show the evidence and the sequence act

or event what actually happens.

“A further question about conspiracy theories – whether true or false,

harmful or benign – is whether they are justified. Justification and truth
are different issues; a true belief may be unjustified, and a justified
belief may be untrue (Adrian Vermeule and Cass R. Sunstein, 2008:5).”

According to the statement above can be concluded that conspiracy

covers issues that are talked about are true or false. However, people never

consider thinking about the issue that is used to conspire is true or false

because they tend to think about it is harmful enough or not to against their

rival. Thus, it is usual to know that there are some issue that is justified belief

may be untrue, and the unjustified one may be a true. It happens because the

actors, politicians, are usual to play the issue or some statements by ignoring

the justified view. Therefore, people say that conspiracy is bad and harmful.

2.1.1 How Conspiracy Theories Arise and Spread

Based on Adrian Vermeule the way of spreading conspiracy are

divided into sevens ways, they are; crippled epistemologies, rumors

and speculation, conspiracy cascades (1. the role of information),

conspiracy cascades (2. the role of reputation), conspiracy cascades (3.

the role of availability), group polarization and selection effects.

1. Crippled epistemologies

Sometimes, people like to spread any issues though they do not

know whether the issue is true or false. The fact, the relevant

information that they get relates to the issue is very little. It usually

happens because they do not know a lot about the issue that is

talked about, and they get it from other people who have the same

capacity as them. Then they ask to the other who also does not

know about the issue. Indirectly the ambiguity issue has been

spread. However, it is sometimes doing in extreme when the

ambiguity issue which is clear whether true or false but it has been

stated as the true one, and most of public have believed that the

issue is right, though the issue brings a very weak evidence or even

nonexistent. In this case, conspiracy is called as “crippled

epistemology”, because what they know very few things and what

they know is wrong. Many extremists fall in this category; their

extremism stems not from irrationality, but from the fact that they

have little (relevant) information, and their extremist views are

supported by what little they know.

2. Rumors and speculation.

It is necessary to classify how exactly conspiracy begin.

 Sometimes, conspiracy considers starting by spreading bad or

ambiguity information about something that is happening. Thus,

recent event is usually taken as news that will be discussed.

However, people tend to conspire by starting from a bad event,

because when a bad event occurred, rumors and speculation are

inevitable. For example, there is a terrorist explode a city with their

bomb. That’s a bad event that is able to raise rumors and

speculation from many people. Moreover, people who don’t know

about why the terrorist attack the city, will be influenced by others

by speculating about it based their own view or other view. It

makes rumors and speculation, sometimes, spread well and widely

if there is no clear explanation from the expert about what actually

happens. So, rumor is a piece of news that might be true or

invented which quickly spread from one person to the others.

3. Conspiracy cascades (the role of information)

…….onspiracy cascades arises through more complex

processes, in which diverse thresholds are important. In a
standard pattern, the conspiracy theory is initially accepted by
people with low thresholds for its acceptance. Sometimes the
informational pressure builds, to the point where many
people, with somewhat higher thresholds, begin to accept the
theory too. As a real-world example of a conspiracy cascade,
consider the existence of certain judgments about the origins
and causes of AIDS, with some groups believing, implausibly,
that the virus was produced in government laboratories
(Adrian Vermeule and Cass R. Sunstein 2008:11).”

Based on the statement about conspiracy cascades above can be

concluded that conspiracy cascades consider starting by spreading

a speculation of information. The information which is spread to

the public is usually unclear information that is still speculated.

As the example; Hadi is the first person who states. He suggests

that the event was caused by a conspiracy of powerful people.

Revy now knows Hadi’s judgment; he should absolutely agree

with Hadi’s statement. But if his independent judgment is

otherwise, he would be indifferent about what he wants to do, and

he might simply does the opposite of Hadi’s stated before. He

might against what Hadi states because he has got the other

information that is not the same with what Hadi has stated. Then,

now the information turns to a third person, Sofa. Knowing that

both Hadi and Revy have supposed to endorse the conspiracy

theory, but that Sofa has own her point of view to this case. Based

on the limited information, she suggests that they are probably

wrong. However, Sofa might well ignore what she knows and

follow Andrews and Barnes. It may happen because both

Andrews and Barnes bring the evidence for their conclusion, and

unless Sofa thinks that his own information is better than theirs,

she should follow their lead. If Sofa considers thinking to follow

what Hadi and Revy’s state it means Sofa is in a cascade. Of

course Sofa will resist if she has sufficient grounds to think that

Hadi and Revy are being foolish. But if she lacks those grounds,
 she is likely to go along with them.

4. Conspiracy cascades (the role of reputation)

Conspiracy theories do not take hold only because of

information. Sometimes people profess belief in a conspiracy
theory, or at least suppress their doubts, because they seek to
curry favor. Reputational pressures help account for
conspiracy theories, and they feed conspiracy cascades. In a
reputational cascade, people think that they know what is
right, or what is likely to be right, but they nonetheless go
along with the crowd in order to maintain the good opinion of
others ((Adrian Vermeule and Cass R. Sunstein 2008:12).”

According to the statement above can be summarized that

conspiracy cascades in the role of reputation is a conspiracy that is

done because of reputational pressures. Sometimes, we find a

group of politicians know which one is right and should be right,

but in the fact they pretend not to know about something in case.

They consider doing that because they want to keep an opinion

that is built by the other politician to get public attention. They

prefer keeping it as secret and acting as person who doesn’t know

anything. As we know the fact, Gayus is a corruptor who knows

about all the corruptors in our country, but the government cannot

catch all the corruptors who take part in Gayus’ case. They

consider making Gayus as the victim and let the others free

because they try to keep a good reputation that they have built.

They don’t want to see their institution or their personal name is

bad. In politic everything is possible to happen, and flipping coin

is a usual act that is done to maintain reputation, because

 reputation is a thing that cannot be cost with anything.

5. Conspiracy cascades (the role of availability)

Conspiracy cascade in the role of availability is a conspiracy that is

different from both informational and reputational cascades. Both

informational and reputational cascade can occur without any

particular triggering event. However, availability cascade arises

when such an event is highly salient or cognitively “available.” In

the context of many risks, such as a terrorism case, and it stands as a

trigger or a symbol justifying public concern, whether or not that

concern is warranted.

“Availability cascades occur through the interaction between a

salient event and social influences, both informational and

reputational, (Adrian Vermeule and Cass R. Sunstein 2008:12).”

Based on the statement above can be assumed that availability

cascade is a combination conspiracy between informational and

reputational cascade. It derives from a highlighted event and social

influences.

6. Group polarization

Group polarization occurs for reasons that parallel the

mechanisms that produce cascades. Informational influences
play a large role. In any group with some initial inclination,
the views of most people in the group will inevitably be
skewed in the direction of that inclination. As a result of
hearing the various arguments, social interactions will lead
people toward a more extreme point in line with what group
members initially believed, (Adrian Vermeule and Cass R.
Sunstein 2008:13).”
 According to the statement above can be concluded that a group

polarization is a group of politicians which consider gathering

because of the parallel mechanism produces cascade. The unclear

information that they get influence them to gather and discuss what

actually is in the case. In this case, any polarization group with

some initial inclination, their point of view of most people in the

group will inevitably be skewed in the direction of their inclination.

In this case, people will consider thinking to believe to the group of

politicians which has had power. Thus, reputation has big role as

well. The reputation explains their positions at least slightly in the

direction of the dominant position. For purposes of understanding

the spread of conspiracy theories, it is especially important to note

that group polarization is particularly likely, and particularly

pronounced, when people have a shared sense of identity and are

connected by bonds of solidarity.

7. Selection effects

A conspiracy can be arisen not only from informational and

reputational dynamics but also from self-selection of members into

and out of groups with extreme views. When a polarization holds

or cascade arise, then the member of the group who are in the

median view consider thinking about what things are happening.

They may be thinking to move in a certain direction, doubters and

halfway-believers will tend to depart while intense believers remain.

 In this case, the unity of the group may shrink, but the group may

also pick up new believers who are even more committed, and in

any event the remaining members will, by self-selection, display

more fanaticism. We often find the fact about selection effect in

political atmosphere in our country. We know that before ORBA

there were only three parties. During the time, the selection of the

leader of the parties gets pro and contra argument form the member.

The member of the party doesn’t feel satisfied with the decision of

the party to raise someone as the leader and it makes one of the

members consider staying in the party. Finally the members who

disagree with the decision tend to go out of the party and join

another party or hold a new party. However, there are still other

people who are still agree with the decision and it may also

influence other people out side of the group of the party to join the

party. In this case, the conspiracy is played because of the selection

that is held. It makes people in and out of the group of the party take

part to give their role, whether they support or not.

2.2 Speech Acts

Communication has become the most important thing for people to get

information. Moreover, by communicating each other we not only can get

information but also we can share and get a problem solving or references to

solve the problem that we face. It is common for people paradigm to know
that the form of communication there are two, they are written and spoken

communication. However, the study of communication more explore in

speech act theory. Based on Jerrold Sadock in his writing about “Speech

Act”, the theory of speech acts, however, is especially concerned with those

acts that are not completely covered under one or more of the major divisions

of grammar—phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics—or

under some general theory of actions. Then, according to Austin's

posthumous "How To Do Things With Words", a speech act should be

analyzed as a locutionary act (ie the actual utterance and its ostensible

meaning, comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts corresponding to the

verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance), as well

as an illocutionary act (the semantic 'illocutionary force' of the utterance, thus

its real, intended meaning), and in certain cases a further perlocutionary act

(ie its actual effect, whether intended or not).

So, in studying speech act we will learn about the speaker means to convey

in producing the sentence (illocutionary), the message that is delivered

(locutionary) and the hearer reaction to the speaker’s message

(perlocutionary). It means that in analyzing speech act in a purpose to get the

intended meaning of the message, it doesn’t concern more about the grammar

of the sentence because the thing that analyzed here is the beyond meaning.

So, grammar, sometimes, doesn’t take any role to influence the result of the

analysis. Thus, to make us easy in analyzing a speech act we have to really

understand and able to differ what the meaning of locutionary, illocutionary

and perlocutinary.

2.2.1 Illocutionary

Illocutionary act is commonly defined as the intended meaning that is

supposed by the speaker to be understood by the hearer. Based on

Jerrold Sadock “Speech Act” What meant by the illocutionary point

of a speech act can best be explained by defining the point of some

types of acts. So, we can see the illocutionary act meaning based on

the type of the acts such as; promise, request, statement, apology etc.

For example, the act type of a request can be defined as an attempt to

have the hearer do something as what the speaker what, “would you

mind closing the window, please! The act type promise is an

engagement of an obligation by the speaker to do something as the

speaker has said to the hearer, “I swear I will keep it as secret”. The

act type of statement is sentences that are speaker states in order to

deliver information or clarify something. The act type of apology is an

intention to apologize from the speaker to the hearer.

According to Austin’s central innovation illocutionary acts are

acts done in speaking including and especially that sort of act
that is the apparent purpose for using a performative sentence:
christening, marrying, and so forth. Austin called attention to the
fact that acts of stating or asserting, which are presumably
illocutionary acts, are characteristic of the use of canonical
constatives, and such sentence are, by assumption, not
performatives.

So, the illocutionary acts is divided into two types, they are

performative and constantive utterance. Performative utterance is the

way of the speaker in performing an action in uttering specific words.

Then constantive utterance is the stating or the asserting of the speaker

that are potentially true or false.

2.2.1.1 Performative Utterance

As we have known that performative utterance talks

about the utterance of how the speaker mean of the specific

word that is produced. The form of the utterance is usually

applied in an action. For example, I say, “I Promise to do the

homework” in appropriate context then I thereby do not just

say something, in particular I do not just describe what I am

doing, but in making the utterance I perform the promise; since

promising is an illocutionary act, the utterance is thus

performative utterance. Moreover, Austin states that there are 3

main types of the performative utterance; they are declaration,

directive and commission.

1. Declaration

According to John R. Searl, declaration is the

successful performance of the speech act is sufficient to

bring about the fit between words and world, to make the

propostional content true. It means the performative

utterance is an utterance that is performed by the speaker to

state the sentences that perform an explicit action specified

by the verb. So, without doing anything and only by saying

 something through a verb the action is being performed. For

the example;

“We find the defendant not guilty.

The meanings that can be caught are;

Implicit meaning: “We find the defendant not guilty.”

Explicit meaning: “We declare the defendant to be not

guilty.”

State of mind meaning: [none]

2. Directive

Austin define that directive means the speaker directs

a demand or a request to the listener. So, directive utterance

is an utterance that is acted by the speaker in stating to the

listener in order to ask the listener to do something as what

the speaker stated. The example of directive utterance is

below;

“I order you to leave town immediately.”

The meanings that are caught from the statement are;

Implicit meaning: “Leave town immediately.”

Explicit meaning: “I {demand, order} you to leave town

immediately.”

State of mind meaning: “I want you to leave town

immediately.”

3. Commissive
 Commissive utterance means an utterance in which

the speaker commits him/herself to a future course of

action. The example of commissive utterance is;

•“I will repay the money I borrowed.”

The meanings from the statement above are;

•Implicit meaning: “I will repay the money I borrowed.”

•Explicit meaning: “I {promise} that I will repay the money

I borrowed.”

•State of mind meaning: “I intend to repay the money I

borrowed.”

2.2.1.2 Constative Utterance

Constantive utterance is usually also called as assertive

utterance is an utterance that is potentially talk about true or

false. So, in constantive utterance we learn about a statement

that is admitted as a true or false statement. The example of

constative utterance are;

a. “It is raining outside right now.” [present]

b. “Columbus discovered America in 1492.” [past]

c. “There will be a major earthquake on April 15, 2012.”

[future]

2.2.2 Locutionary

According to Austin, “locutionary acts are acts of speaking, acts

involved in the construction of speech, such as uttering certain
sounds or making certain marks, using particular words and
using them in conformity with the grammatical rules of a
 particular language and with certain senses and certain
references as determined by the rules of the language from
which they are drawn.”

So, based on the definition about locutionary above can be

concluded that a locutionary act is an act that contains the structure of

the speech, such as the punctuation, intonation, word stress, and

diction that is used to deliver the speech in order to make a certain

sense of the speaking utterance. Thus, locutionary talks about the

message that is delivered by the speaker. The example locutionaty act;

"Don't go into the water!" (the locutionary act with distinct phonetic,

syntactic and semantic features) counts as warning you not to go into

the water (an illocutionary act).

2.2.3 Perlocutionary

The third of Austin’s categories of acts is the perlocutionary act,

which is a consequence or by-product of speaking, whether intended

or not. As the name is designed to suggest, perlocutions are acts

performed by speaking. According to Austin, perlocutionary acts

consist in the production of effects upon the thoughts, feelings, or

actions of the addressee(s), speaker,…… .John L Austin(How to Do

things with Word). It means a perlocutionary act is the effect of the

speaking utterance of some sense external to the performance. It may

be thought as the effect of the illocutionary act and locutionary act.

Perlocutionary, sometimes, are produced in some varieties because

perlocutionary is produced by the listeners, moreover, listeners are

different person who also have different way of thinking. So, it is

possible if among the amount of the listeners have their own

interpretation that will influence different perlocutionary appeared.

Therefore, when examining perlocutionary acts, the effect on the

hearer or reader is emphasized, and a perlocutinary act is the closest

interpretation to the illocutionary act.

As an example, consider the following utterance: "By the way, I

have a CD of Debussy; would you like to borrow it?" Its illocutionary

function is an offer, while its intended perlocutionary effect might be

to impress the listener, or to show a friendly attitude, or to encourage

an interest in a particular type of music.

Austin (1962:101) illustrates the distinction between these kinds

of acts with the (now politically incorrect) example of saying “Shoot

her!”, which he trisects as follows:

Act (A) or Locution

He said to me “Shoot her!” meaning by shoot “shoot” and referring by

her to “her.”

Act (B) or Illocution

He urged (or advised, ordered, etc.) me to shoot her.

Act (C) or Perlocution

He persuaded me to shoot her.