This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
van Dijk Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona An earlier version of this book was used as an internet course for the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Open University) in 2000. A Spanish version of this book has been published by Ariel, Barcelona, 2003. An Italian version of th is book, with the title “Ideologie. Discorso e costruzione sociale del pregiudizio” (translated by Paola Villano) was published by Carocci, Roma, 2004.
.. About the author Teun A. van Dijk was professor of discourse studies at the University of Amsterdam until 2004, and is at present professor a t the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. After earlier work on generative poet ics, text grammar, and the psychology of text processing, his work since 1980 ta kes a more critical perspective and deals with discursive racism, news in the pr ess, ideology, knowledge and context. He is the author of several books in most of these areas, and he edited The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (4 vols, 1985) the introductory book Discourse Studies (2 vols., 1997) as well as the reader Di scourse Studies (5 vols., 2007). He founded 6 international journals, Poetics, T ext (now Text & Talk), Discourse & Society, Discourse Studies, Discourse & Commu nication and the internet journal in Spanish Discurso & Sociedad (www.dissoc.org ), of which he still edits the latter four. His last monographs in English are I deology (1998) and Racism and discourse in Spain and Latin America (2005), and h is last edited book (with Ruth Wodak), Racism at the Top (2000). He is currently completing a new interdisciplinary study in 2 vols. on the theory of context, a nd planning a new book on discourse and knowledge. Teun van Dijk, who holds two honorary doctorates, has lectured widely in many countries, especially also in L atin America. With Adriana Bolivar he founded the Asociación Latino-americana de E studios del Discurso (ALED), in 1995. For a list of publications, recent article s, resources for discourse studies and other information, see his homepage: www. discourses.org. E-mail: email@example.com
-3Contents 0. Summary 1. Defining ideology 2. Ideology as Social Cognition 2.1. The structu re of ideologies 2.2. From ideology to discourse and vice versa 2.3. Mental Mode ls 2.4. From Mental Models to Discourse 2.5. Context Models 3. Ideologies in Soc iety 4. Racism 5. Ideological Discourse Structures 5.1. Meaning 5.2. Proposition al structures 5.3 Formal structures 5.4 Sentence syntax 5.5 Discourse forms 5.6 Argumentation 5.7 Rhetoric 5.8 Action and interaction 6. Examples 7. Conclusion Appendix
a multidisciplinary introduction to the notion of "ideology" i s presented --involving cognitive and social psychology. The social dimension expla ins what kind of groups. metaphors and argumentation. we shall theref ore specifically pay attention throughout the course to the example of racist id eology and how it is expressed by discourse. Discourse Structures Discourse play s a fundamental role in the daily expression and reproduction of ideologies. presuppositions. Most of the time. and many other -isms. and how discourse is involved in the reproduction of ideology in society. pacifism or co nsumerism. we do not use it in a very positive sens e. from intonation.-40. Racism Racism is one of the major problems of contempora ry European societies. relations between groups and institutions are involved in the development and reproduction of ideologies. To illustrate the theoretical discussion. Summary What is ideology? We all use the notion of ideology very often. how we unde rstand ideological discourse. . sociology and discourse analysis. society and discours e In this course. But what are ideologies exactly? Ideology in cognition. syntax and images to the many aspects of meaning. and so do newspa pers and politicians. coherence. but seldom qualify our own ideas as an "ideolog y". Thi s course therefore pays special attention to the ways ideologies influence the v arious levels of discourse structures. The discourse dimension of id eologies explains how ideologies influence our daily texts and talk. or neoliberalism. The cognitive definition of ideology is given in terms of the social cognitions that are shared by the members of a group. such as topics. among many more. We may speak of the ideologies of communism.
construed or legitimated by discourse. and in the mass media. which is explicitly addressed to y oung people.-5Chapter 1 Defining 'ideology' This book provides a multidisciplinary introduction to the notion of 'ideology' and especially focuses on how --for instance racist-. in politics.ideologies are expressed.the minds of established scholars are already f ull of "fixed ideas" that are very difficult to change: . 'Ideology' as a vague and controversial notion The notion of 'ideology' is widel y being used in the social sciences. There a re thousands of articles and books written about it since the notion was invente d by French philosopher Destutt de Tracy at the end of the 18th century. because --he says-. This is how Destutt de Tracy begins his famous book.
et qu' elles tiennent à une infinité d' autres idées qu' il faudrait déranger avant de rectifier celles-là. and especially with the social. dans un moment. elles se renouvellent tant de fois dans un jour.L. the notion remains one of the vaguest and most "contested" concepts o f the social sciences. political or religious ideas shared by a so cial group or movement. ideologies have something to do with systems of id eas. sont trois choses différentes. qu' il paraît d' abord fort difficile de débrouiller comment cela se passe en nous. dans une heure. elles s' exécutent si rapidement. mais vous faire remarquer tout ce qui se passe en vous quand vous pensez.-6Eléments de Idéologie Par A. C' est pour vous préserver de l' un et de l' au tre que je veux dans cet écrit. Dans la moindre phrase ces trois opérations se trouvent : elles sont si mêlées. for Destutt de Tracy ideology was nothing less than a general "science of ideas" (the study of "how we think. Despite the huge scholarly attention paid to the study of ideology since Destutt de Tra cy's book. and monitor thei r social practices. racism and antiracism. observez-le avec soi n. feminism and sexism. I shall begin with a definition of what in this book I understand by 'ideology'. speak and argue…"). et vous verrez qu' il est dans une disposition d' esprit telle qu' il lui est impossible de comprendre les raisons qui vous semblent les plus claires : c' es t que les mêmes idées se sont arrangées d' avance dans sa tête dans un tout autre ordre que dans la vôtre. parlez. non pas vous enseigner. Communism as well as anti-communism. Destutt-Tracy Jeunes gens. les exprimer. We thus get the following very general working d efinition of ideology: . pacifism and militarism. mais étroitement liées entre elles. As we see in this quotation. guide their interpretation of events. les combiner. et raisonnez. Avoir des idées. Ideology as a system of beliefs As we already see in Destutt de Tracy's writings. socialism and liber alism. So. c' est à vous que je m' adresse . Instead of the rather vague and ambiguous notion of 'ideas' we shall henceforth use the term that is mostly used in psychology to refer to ' thoughts' of any kind: beliefs. are examples of widespread ideologies. Group members who share such ideologies stand for a number of very general ideas that are at the basis of their more specific beliefs about the world. som ething what today would be called psychology or even 'cognitive science.C. c' est pour vous seuls que j' écris (…) La première fois qu' il arrivera à un de vos camarades de s' attacher obstinément à une idée quelconque qui paraîtra évidemment absurde à tous les autres.
Until quite recently. For Engels' interpretation of Marx. in the ideolog y of anti-communism that for decades dominated politics and even scholarship in much of the Western World. Note that there are many d efinitions and approaches to ideology. popular but misguided beliefs inculcated by the ruling class in order to legitimate the status quo. and to conceal the real socioeconomic condi tions of the workers. where it was traditionally being used in opposition to true. misguided or misleading beliefs. this negative concept of ideology -namely. and h ence in many directions within Marxism. For instance. 'Ideol ogy' as 'false consciousness' or 'misguided beliefs'. This .has been prevalent in the social sciences. ideologies were forms of 'false consciou sness'. scientific knowledge. THEY have ideologies. that is. I shall develop this conception of ideology in more detail. as systems of self-serving ideas of dominant groups-. 'Ideology' as a general notion Although the legitimiza tion of dominance is an important function of many ideologies. namely as a system of false. we shall propose a more general notion of ideology. We shall encounter this social polarization between ingroup and outgroup very of ten throughout this book.-7Ideologies are the fundamental beliefs of a group and its members. This negative notion of 'ideology' has also become t he central element in the commonsense and political uses of the term. this negative use of the notion presupposes the following polarizat ion between Us and Them: WE have true knowledge. Mor e generally. In this book. ideology was typically associated with communism.
such as those of religious sects or right-wing extremists. and ecological ideologies will guide actions against pollution. namely as systems that sustain and legitimatize op position and resistance against domination and social inequality. it is useful to have a general notion of power which need not imply a negative evaluation. Often. thus. Thus.. we shall make clear that these are two different notion s. humanitarian) ideology -. although ideologies and social practices of group memb ers are closely related.g. and that ideologies cannot simply be reduced to 'ideological practices. such as those of feminism and anti-racism in the same way. In the same way as ideologies need not be negat ive.-8will also allow us to study 'positive' ideologies. In other words. ideolog ies thus emerge from group conflict and struggle. simply because critical analysis is directed against all forms of power abuse and dominance. Karl Mannheim called such positive or oppositional ideologies 'utopias'. a general theory of ideology allows a bro ader and more flexible application of the notion. a criti cal account of negative or dominant ideologies. pacifist ideologies may be used to protest against nuclear weapons . However.just as feminist ideolo gies are not merely anti-sexist. and they thus typically pitch Us against Them. a s long as we are able to critically study power abuse or dominance. they need not be dominant -. sexist or racist ideologies may be at the basis of di scrimination.' The role of discourse .there are also non-dominant ideologies that ar e often widely considered to be 'negative'. This does not exclude. 'Ideology' as the basis of social practices As systems of ideas of social groups and movements ideologies not only make sense in order to understand the world ( from the point of view of the group). are not just opposing racism and racist ideolog ies. Hence we do not agree with those scholars who claim that a general notion of ideology does n ot allow critical study. and will henceforth also focus on the ideological basis of dominance. "Anti-ideologies" suc h as those of anti-racism. but also as a basis for the social practic es of group members. In the same way. but have their own (e.
Ideo logy and discourse are not notions that can be adequately studied in one discipl ine: They require analysis in all disciplines of the humanities and the social s ciences.-9One of the crucial social practices influenced by ideologies are language use an d discourse. advertising. party rallies. Much of our discourse. language use. The mental aspects of i deologies. Cognition and Society. and communicati on will be studied under the broad label of 'discourse'. talk. A multidisciplinary framework: Discourse. we shall reduce this large number of potential disciplines to three main clusters. We learn most of our ideological ideas by re ading and listening to other group members. expr esses ideologically based opinions. and their status as socially shared representations. their relations with opinio ns and knowledge. Thus. a lso in the examples. among a multitude of other forms of talk and text . we shall pay special attention to 'racist' ideologies and discourses. However. ethnicis m and xenophobia. indoctrinati on and political propaganda indeed have the explicit aim of 'teaching' ideologie s to group members and newcomers. The general term 'racism' shall be used to refer to related but different ideologies such as those of anti-Semitism. Cognition. . especially when we speak as members of groups. reading text books at scho ol. We want to know how ideologies may be expressed (or concealed!) in discourse. text. We shall pay special attention to these discursive dimensions of ideologies. beginning with our parents and peers . such as those of catechism. and h ow ideologies may thus also be reproduced in society. where xenophobic ideologies against immigrants and minorities have grown rapidly. learn or change ideolo gies. and Socie ty The theoretical framework that underlies this book is multidisciplinary. which in turn also influence how we acquire. the newspaper. verbal interaction. An example: racist ideologies Given the current situation in Europe and North Am erica. namely those involved in the study of Discourse. novels or participating in everyday conversation s with friends and colleagues. Later we 'learn' ideologies by watching television. eurocentrism. such as their nature as ideas or beliefs. Some discourse genres.
however. Note that these conceptual distin ctions are merely analytical and practical. or resistance against.. dominance.10 will all be covered under the label of 'Cognition'. We make the distinction. will be examined under the broad label of Society. theories and me thods of analysis are rather distinct for these three areas of inquiry. and so are the socially shared ideas of group members. And the social. They do of course overlap: Discourse for instance is part of society. and espe cially their role in the reproduction of. political. their group-based nature. c ultural and historical aspects of ideologies. because the concepts. .
Types of beliefs Contemporary cognitive and social psychology make a distinction between many types of 'beliefs'. rather than about trivial everyday thing s like the color of our car. And we may have beliefs such as norms and val ues that are the basis of such evaluations in opinions and attitudes. about being poor or rich. about the physical or the social world. and not of personal opinions. depending on whether the beliefs have an evaluative element or not. as the conflicting attitudes about abort ion and euthanasia show. compared to those in the social sciences . They are about people and their health in relation to t heir natural environment. Ideologies are about life and death. So ideologies cons ist of shared. they are often about important social and political issues. as is obvious in ecological ideologies. detailed psychological studies of ideology are quite rare. complex. Strangely. and so on. birth and reproduction. beliefs may be personal vs. as . it is this cent ral 'mental' character of ideologies that has been studied much less than their social and political functions. Moreover. abstract. simple vs. They are about class. everyday terms such as 'ideas' are si mply too vague to be able to serve for the definition of what mental objects ide ologies are. we do not have individual ideologies. about the redi stribution of wealth and resources. or between knowledge and attitudes. being a woman or a man. Ideologies often have such an evaluative dimension. or the brand of our computer. rather fleeting or more permanent. Traditional terms such as 'false consciousness' and commonsense. In the same way that we do not speak o f individual languages. Similarly. They are fundamentally about gender. namely those issues that are relevant for a group and its existence.. we first ne ed some insight into their mental or cognitive dimension. specific vs.11 Chapter 2 Ideologies as social cognition Whatever the differences may be between the many definitions of ideology through out the history of the social sciences. Thus. we distinguish between knowledge and opinions. concrete vs. or reduced to studies of political beliefs. Indeed. as socialist or communist ideologies profess . and until today. social. In order to explain the proper nature of ideologies and their relations to social practices and discourse. about ourselves or about others. social beliefs. they all have in common that they are ab out the ideas or beliefs of collectivities of people. having power or having nothing. general.
of our last vacation or the first time we met the person we are in love w ith. But we need to disting uish between various kinds of 'beliefs'. it is not surprising that the majority of these episodic memories are no longer ac cessible after some time. This is the kind of 'memory' we speak about in everyday life. We shall later see how ideologies may influence the beliefs in our episodic memory. these episodic beliefs define what is usually called 'episodic memory. this does not mean that ideologies do not influence our pers onal beliefs. but not that I bought croissants at the bakery this mornin g. their relations to other groups. they are often called 'episodic. Yet. subjective and consist of specifi c experiences. their position in soc iety. activities and encounters. for instance the following ones: Episod ic memories. we have episodic memories of our breakfast this mo rning. Since this notion of 'group' is still pretty vague. or with different systems of cognit ion. Since ideologies are basic and socially shared. Self plays a central role in them. Episodic memory is the location of the things we 'rememb er'. such as their identity. Thus. we'll have to come back to i t later. their interests and aims.. Given the multitude of our daily experiences. and their natural environment. When beliefs are more personal and based on experiences. This is one of the reasons why we provisiona lly defined ideologies in terms of the socially shared basic beliefs of groups. their reproduct ion. Well-known is the distinction between Short Term Memory (STM) and Long Term Memory (LTM). In sum. as is the case for racist and antiracist ideologies. we would not typically look f or them in episodic memory. our first step is to recognize tha t ideologies consist of socially shared beliefs that are associated with the cha racteristic properties of a group. Types of Memory and Representations Psychologists often associate diffe rent beliefs with different types of memory. The ideological belief s we have encountered above are usually 'located' in LTM.12 feminist or sexist ideologies show.. .' Together. autobiographic and subjectiv e: it registers our personal experiences. to which we briefly shall come back below. Since episodic memories are about individual people themselves.' This memory is personal. or about race and ethnicity. After some years one is likely to remember this unique and exotic vacation. which is personal.
Knowledge is what WE think is true and for which we have reasons (cri teria) to believe it is true. people usually make a distinction between knowledge and belief. the objects a round them. without sharing a large amount of knowledge about al l aspects of the world and our daily lives. or even with most others in a whole society or culture. as we shall see. and th at sociocultural knowledge is a central system of mental representations in soci al memory. Although what is knowledge or 'mere be lief' may thus vary for different groups or cultures. presupposes vast amounts of such beliefs in order to be comprehensible. like children a nd immigrants from other cultures. about the rest of the world. knowledge that has passed the scientific criteria of truthfulness. These are the kind of beliefs people presuppose to be known in their everyd ay interaction and discourse. From birth to death people thus acqu ire an enormous amount of knowledge. or fantasies.13 Sociocultural knowledge. the notion of knowledge is relative. and hence the beliefs that need not be expressed. Discourse. other people may think that what we thi nk we 'know' are merely beliefs. but also share more general beliefs with others. Opinions and attitudes. also within the same group or culture. nor would we be able to speak or to interact with others. about which we have different views. obviously. some originally controversial opinions of scholars (and Galileo Galilei is merely one of them) later turned out to become widely accepted scientific 'fact'. Of course. or opinions. O n the other hand. such as other member s of the same group. prejudice. bet ween fact and opinion. and dependen t on the beliefs of our group. and conversely. that are contro versial. and even accepted as k nowledge in everyday life. . or -indee d-. This k nowledge may simply be called the sociocultural common ground of a group or cult ure.ideologies. So. the people and groups they interact with. and later. often through various forms of media or educational discourse. there are beliefs of which we are not certain. What was knowledge in the Mid dle Ages may be described as superstition today. There is an enormous body of knowledge nobody ever disput es. that is. the institutions of society. Our sociocultural knowledge is perhaps the most crucial example of such shared beli efs: We would be unable to understand each other. unless when to teach or recall to those who don't know them yet.. society or culture. Common ground. We shall assume that these socially shared beliefs form what may be called social memory. and that is accepted by virtually all competent members of a culture. People not only have personal beliefs about personal ex periences. beginning with their language(s) and the pr inciples of interaction.
we shall assume that ideologies are the basis of the social memory shared by groups. and hence represent our personal opinion s associated with our episodic beliefs. i mmigration or nuclear energy. we need to restrict ideologies to groups or social movements. and canno t be presupposed to be accepted by everyone. more specific beliefs. on the relation between im migration and crime. because within the same society or culture there are man y ideologies. These different attitudes. we also prefer to associate them with social memory. ideologies allow new soci al opinions to be easily inferred. In sum. typical group opinions and attitudes m ay also be taken for granted. contended and defended. alongside with social knowledge and attitu des. ideologies are not sociocultural. ideologies form the basic social representation s of the beliefs shared by a group. These beliefs may be personal. Thus. about immigration. we need to locate them in what w e have just defined as social memory. about the role of immigrants on the labor market. the same 'ideological group' may be defined precisely by th e fact that its members share more or less the same ideology. But such beliefs may also be socially sh ared by groups of people. and therefore no longer asserted or defended. e. Indeed. within the group. pertaining to differe nt areas of society. as is the case for our attitudes about say abortion. a racist ideology may organize many prejudices or racist attitudes. On the contrary. acquired and distributed in a group when the . about the intellectual capacities of minoriti es. may depend on them or be or ganized by them. These are the beliefs that typically need to be as serted. Yet.14 and which in general can therefore not be presupposed and tacitly be assumed to be true. feminists or anti-racists as groups. That is. Ideology as social representations If ide ologies are the basic beliefs shared by groups. Sinc e these group opinions are social. especially also in interaction with members of o ther groups. and so on. Thus. ideologies typically give rise to differences of opinion. as is the case for attitudes.g. Of course. may be organized by some basic beliefs about the negative p roperties of the Others. unlike common ground knowledge. and individual members of a group may aga in have individual opinions on certain issues. as was the case for knowledge. We called ideologies 'basic syste ms' of beliefs because other. as is the case for socialists. and precisely function as the framework that defines the overall coherence of these beliefs.. to conflic t and struggle. Thus. There are of course subgroups with variants of the general ideology.
they are beliefs which are not usually dispu ted within the same culture. groups and s ocieties alike. as was the case for large scale immigration during the last decades in Europe. And individualism and pers onal responsibility are again prominent in conservative and liberal ideologies. whereas id eologies are typical for groups. both are fundamental for social memory. and those who do explicitl y place themselves beyond the boundaries of the socially acceptable. it is not surprising that there is also a connection between ideologies and values. feminism and antiracism. . Gi ven the close relationships between ideologies and evaluative beliefs such as at titudes. although norms and values may be very gene ral. However. freedom. the freedom of the press in the professional ideology of journalists. permitted or prohi bited. However. whereas intelligence. Indeed.. equality is a value that will be prominent in most oppositional ideologies. group-related and interest-defined. and the freedom from discrimination in a feminist or antiracist ideology. That is. values have an even more general. Thus. and culturally accepted. They basically define what is good and bad. the system of sociocultural norms and values is part of what we have calle d the Common Ground above. it is the specific. we finally should mention the norms and values that organize our actions and evaluations. In a sense thus. and in principl e are valid for most competent members of the same culture. whatever our ideology. In other words. beauty or patience are typically values for people. Simila rly. independence. and autonomy may be values for grou ps. few of us are against freedom or equality. we may all be for freedom. more basic. but the freedom of the market will typically be defended in a liberal ideology. they may be applied in different areas and in ways about which controversy is fundamental. such as those of socialism. interpre tation of values that forms the building blocks of ideological beliefs. Thus.15 group and its members are confronted with new events and situations. When that happens we witness the 'trans lation' of values into component of ideological beliefs. cultural function. and may determine group conflict and struggle. Indeed. and the fundamental aims to be striven after by individuals. Ideologies a nd values Among the mental representations typically associated with our social memory.
However. They make it easier to speak or write about beliefs in some natural language. Propositions are units of meaning. despite the vast number of studies on ideology. Indeed. how they in teract. Propositional format for ideological beliefs Unfortunately. such as Women and men are equal or Harry and Sally are friends. propositions are usually said to be composed of a predicate and one or more arguments. and so on.1. they might be re presented first of all in the same formal terms as other beliefs. think of p ropositions simply as units of meaning that are typically expressed as a simple clause. we shall say some more about the ways ideologies may be expressed in propositions. this is of course far from adequate when we really want to understand the nature and functions of ideologi es in society. We might also represe nt them as a network of conceptual nodes or in other formats that bear some rese mblance to the neural network of the brain. . for instance a s propositions (see definition). traditionally defined as those meanings that express a 'complete thought'. However. As clusters of beliefs in social memory. In the same philosophical traditi on. We provisionally described them in terms of (systems of) 'basic social beliefs'. However. propositions provide merely a convenient format. we need to examine the structure of beliefs in the same way as we later need to examine the structures of discourse.16 2. Propositions are typically expressed in simple clauses. we have not even asked the crucial question what ideologi es actually look like. for instance by modalities ('it is possible that' . Mary). For the moment. In our sample analysis below. In brief. as mental repre sentations. and more specifically as the basic beliefs that underlie t he social representations of a social group. The structure of ideologies We now have a provisional. but still rather inf ormal framework for a theory of ideology. look like. but we don't know yet what such beliefs. 'it is known that').. or in philosophy as something that can be true or false. Such a simple proposition may then further b e modified in various ways. they are not ex actly an ideal format to represent mental representations. how they are mutually related into 'systems'. as in beats(John. in which ideology is defined as a form of social cognition. Although it is certainly not arbitra ry for a theory of ideology how they are organized. we as yet have very few ideas about the ways ideologies should be represented in memory. we shall not further conside r this question of format.
We should only remember that thes e propositional elements of ideologies are not linguistic units. then the identity and identification of group members must follow a m ore or less fixed pattern of basic categories. The organization of ideologies Whatever their format. categories that may b e good candidates for the schema that organizes the ideologies of the same group : Categories of the ideology schema Membership criteria: Who does (not) belong? Ty pical activities: What do we do? Overall aims: What do we want? Why do we do it? Norms and values: What is good or bad for us? Position: What are the relationsh ips with others? Resources: Who has access to our group resources? . That is. we briefly assumed above that the following categories reflect rather fundamental categories of group life and identity. although sometimes in ways we s till do not understand. Thus. As many other c omplex representations in memory. Thus. or 'All citizens h ave the right to elect their representatives'. The categories t hat define the ideological schema should probably be derived from the basic prop erties of the social group. th at is. suggests order and organization. reject or modify an ideology. such as sentenc es. consist of a number of conventional categories that allow social actors t o rapidly understand or to build. we shall also assume that ideologies somehow form 'systems' of beliefs. if ideologies underlie the social beliefs o f a group. ideological beliefs ar e most probably not organized in an arbitrary way. All we know about the mind an d about memory.17 and simply assume that the general beliefs of ideologies can be represented by p ropositions such as 'Men and women should have equal rights'. together with flexible rules of a pplication. as was said in the beginning of this book.. ideologies may have a 'schema-like' nature.
18 We thus arrive at a schema of six categories which not only organize collective and individual action. which we find in the pronoun pair US vs. this schematic structure is purely theoretical. including discourse. these categories in fact define what it means to feel a member of a group. a nd to jointly feel as "one" group. For instance. Overa ll. because an ideology in a sense is a form of self . 2. That is.(and Other) representation. and hence in concrete discourses. depending on the circumstances) 'apply' these general opinions in concrete situations. In that respect they define a 'group self-sch ema'. because they should apply in a large variety of everyday situations. an ideology is one of the basic forms of social cognition that at the same time define the identity of a group and hence the subjective feelings of social identity (belonging) of its members. as is the case for political propaganda. We can only make it plausible when it explains social practices. and summarizes the collective beliefs and hence th e criteria for identification for group members. or the pamphlets o f social movements. S uch discourses may feature rather general formulations about what WE stand for. general ideologies on the one hand. racist ideologies embody how WE think about THEM in general. They need to be. Thus. there may be a wide gap between the abstract. such as those that teach or explain ideologies to new group members or that defend ideologies against attacks from outsiders. then category number 5 will typically appear as some form of ingroup -outgroup polarization. THEM and in a h ost of other discourse structures. their discourse should somehow system atically display these categories.3. For i nstance. but which also organize the ideologies of our mind. ideologies are by definition rather general and abstract. . Below we shall deal in more detail with the w ays ideologies (both as to their content and as to their structures) may control the discourse of group members. and how people produce and understand discourse or engage in other social practices on the other hand. In other wor ds. religious teachings. if people speak as group members. This is how it should be. One exception to this are of course the discourses that are explicitly ideological. and individual grou p members may (or may not. Of course.. From ideology to discourse and vice versa Just like other forms of social c ognition. if they speak about themselves and others.
and hence feminist ideologies. because knowledge has traditiona lly often been defined precisely as free from ideology. much insight into domination and inequali ty will. if some racist psychologists hold that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. and such dependence may be evaluated more or less positively or negatively. abstract ideologies only indi rectly appear in text and talk. This means that we need 'intermediary' represent ations between ideologies and discourse. Thus. may embody ideological propositi ons as applied to specific social domains. while obtained by what they see as scientific evidence. we already have seen that attitud es. now often will be seen and rejected (also by scientists) as biased. we shall accept that also knowledge may be affected by ideology. More generally. but others may well see this as a form of racist prejudice. much of the knowledge we today have about pollution is undoubtedly formulated u nder the influence of ecological ideologies. at . There are many examples where we would say that group-knowle dge is dependent on group-ideology. based on biased argumentation and misguided application of scientific method. while also being forms of social cognition. then. they might see this as knowledge. This seems contradictory. On the other hand. For instance we may 'apply' a feminis t ideology in the area of the labor market. and hence consider them to be knowledge and not i deological beliefs. knowledge may also be controlled by more positive ideological principles. Thus. Thus. What once was considered by scholars to be scien tific knowledge about women or blacks. Ideological knowledge is often seen as a contradiction in terms. it is als o beyond doubt that the feminist movement. This will probably be the case for many forms of critical knowledge that opposes traditional views. in education. and was often seen merely as some form of 'ideological belief'. or in the area of repr oduction or sexuality. Ideological knowledge? Similarly. Thus.19 Ideological attitudes More often than not however. because those who hold such beliefs think these belief s are true by their standards.. are at the basis of many of the insights that today are widely accepted as characteriz ing gender relations in society. Thus. It is in this way that we may have feminist or antifemini st attitudes about abortion. prejudiced beliefs or stereotypes. group ideologies may affect knowledge.
Representing our discussion so far in a si mple schema.. we may represent the relation between social cognition and discours e as follows: Interaction/Discourse Social Cognition Group Knowledge Group Attitudes Group Ideology Socio-cultural K nowledge (Common Ground . be based on ideologies of resistance. that all our knowledge or all our beliefs are ideological. But thes e are still general and abstract. t his may first happen through other forms of social cognition. or from the point of view of another culture. may later. which say 500 years ago was nearly generally accepted as 'true belief' by most members of European societies. and only later be accepte d by other groups and by society at large. no conflicting views of the world. such as socially s hared opinions (attitudes) or through various forms of group knowledge. what w e now accept to be non-ideological Common Ground beliefs in our own society or c ulture. because it precisely needs to distinguish between ideological and other beliefs. and we hence need a more specific interface be tween social cognition and discourse. Of course. And conversely. We see that in order to relate ideology to discourse. no struggle. no conflict of interest. precisely because there is no controversy about these beliefs. a table is a table for all social groups in our culture. no opposition. Indeed. This is typically the case for a religion like Christianity. That w ould make the notion of 'ideology' rather useless. become ideologi cal beliefs. and its propert ies or functions hardly a matter of deep-rooted controversies. as some sc holars may do. Thus.20 least initially. by definition. but which now is associated with the ideological beliefs of just one group of people. what once was controversial belief (for instance about the form and position of the earth) is now generally accept ed Common Ground belief. Note that we do not claim. Common Ground beliefs are non-ideological within a given society or culture. no WE-THEM groups.
3. individual. Mental models are subjective In other words.21 2. Participants (Things. Such a schema should on the one hand be relatively simple. abstract schema that we use in the interpretation o f the millions of events we have experienced in our lives. Such schemata allow fast. w itness (in reality or on TV). it should be rather flexible and allow applicatio n to less current situations with which we are confronted in everyday life. Thus. M odels also embody opinions about the events we participate in. etc. consist only of a few. until we fall asleep a t night. Models of ac tions more specifically feature participants who are actors in various roles (ag ents. from the moment we wake up in the morning. we not only form mental models of the events. People) and some occurrence.). patients. they probab ly feature a rather general. Models are therefore personal and subjective: They represent the way I see and understand e vents. The structure of mental models We have only speculative ideas about what these m ental models in episodic memory look like. or read about. Place). situations. fixed cate gories.. that is. are called (mental) models. understand or interpret our daily reality takes place through the const ruction or reconstruction (updating or modification) of such models. These episodic representations of the daily events we participate in. reading the newspaper about the civil wars in Bosnia or Kos ovo. witness or read a nd hear about. If they are about events. the way we p erceive. and more personal. Such a representation is often influenced by previous experiences (old mo dels). we may assume that model schemata for events feature categories such as Settin g (Time. Mental models Above we have seen that it makes sense to make a distinction between social memory on the one hand. and the ways these may bias my current perceptions and interpretations. of which the autobiographical models of the events we participate in ourselve s are a specific case. autobiogra phical memory on the other hand. actions. Thus . The latter was called 'episodic' because it is made up of the mental representations of the episodes that give rise to our dail y experiences. We may thus have models of events. as well as of their participant s. but probably also associate t hese with negative opinions about the war crimes and 'ethnic cleansing' being pe rpetrated in these wars. strategic processing of relevan t information and (provisional) interpreta- . but on the other hand.
socially shared knowledge about civil wars. and that will proba bly affect my future models of events in which such immigrants appear as partici pants.22 tion. or on the basis of other knowled ge and ideologies. They only must be present in the background. although I may share an anti-immigration attitude. subjective and possibly biased information about the events we experience in our everyday lives. based on principles of equality. People are not (fully) dependent on their ideologies. examples) of more general. for instance. In the interpretation of (a discourse about) a current event. from which they may be inferred when actually needed to under stand an event. about armies and arms. abstract beliefs. Note though that th e ideological influence on mental models is not purely automatic. This also means that we are able to 'translate' gener al ideologies to specific experiences as embodied in mental models. Personal models and social representations Although separately rep resented as general social representation.may have of a recent arrival of immigrants may feature the more specific (situ ation dependent) opinions derived from the general ideology. Closer inspection or interpretation may reveal that we need to correct our "first impression" of the event. we may only need to activate a small fragment of our knowledge. and so on. If WE oppose the immigration of more people from Africa. Or I may at the same time have a socialist ideology. about war. Thu s. The interesting property of mental models is n ot only that they represent personal. . without activating all we know about guns. Thus. my p ersonal experiences with African immigrants may be positive. we shall assume that models only feature the relevant instantiations of gener al knowledge. knowledge. as part of an anti-immigration atti tude controlled by a racist ideology. including social cognitions. attitudes and indirectly i deologies may affect the structures and the contents of the mental models we con struct of specific events. and may of construe their everyday model s on the basis of earlier personal experiences. about atroc ities. Mental models also featur e 'instantiations' (specifications. and such ideological principles may contradict those of racist atti tudes I have about immigration. that the use of guns may kill people. These need not all be spelled out (actively thought about) in the mental model.. pointing to more general knowledge. may involve specific instantiations of our general. Reading about a specific event in the civil war in Bosnia or Kosovo. then the mental model I --as group member.
talk and coope rate in a group. we do not take that position. ther e is no doubt that also across different situations. they argue. and these may lead to dif ferent ideological positions. however. abstract. Social knowledge. peop le may be confronted by ideological conflict and confusion. We need to have at least some shared world knowledge. and some general attitudes. on the spot. as they are represented in social memory. and a socialist. This similarity cannot simply be explained by similar circumstances. Social repre sentations cannot be reduced to mental models In the theory of ideology presente d here. social cognitions. in each context. but many social actors. otherwise we would be unable to communicate. not only one social actor. This is also what we find in empirical research on opinio ns. people construct their opinions ad hoc. and allow us to pr edict what others expect of us. and a feminist and an atheist. Mental models account for such uniqueness. and the representations of your personal life experiences may require opinions or a perspective that is not always compatible with these various iden tities and ideologies. We agree that in everyday situati ons people may live. Rather. This is also the reason why in concrete situations we will often do or sa y different things than we would like to -. an d for the contextual nature of the ideological opinions expressed.. So much so. and that these expre ssions or interactions are unique.we know that shared social cognition s and partici- . and how they will probably evaluate what we do o r say. You may be a woman. that many scholars have concluded that there are no such things as stable attitudes or ideologies. but need to be accounted for by more permanent mental structures. These scholars conclude that there is no need to postulate general. attitudes and ide ologies precisely need some form of permanence and continuity across different s ituations. attitudes and ideologies: individuals may express a wide variety of conflict ing opinions about an issue. that at the level of personal experiences. norms and values that monitor our actions. However. and a professional journalist. may have and express and use the same or very similar op inions. shared with other s. express or enact different ideologies.23 Ideological conflict This means. interact. and do so typically when talking or writing to other people. We may identify with several social groups or formations at the same time. and so on. and at the same time a mother.
In sum. what I try to do is to construct a mental mode l (mine!) which allows me to understand the story. despite the multiplicity of factors involved in the construction of t he mental models of everyday life experiences. Note however that models are usually much richer in information than discourses. we'll say that such models are ideologically 'biased': they represent or construct events from the perspective of one (or mor e) ideological groups. If affec ted by ideological-based opinions.. . Such mental models are not only important for the represe ntation of our personal experiences. 2. feminist or anti-feminist. we need not express that information as part of the semanti c representation in our discourse. From menta l models to discourse We now have found the most important interface between ide ologies and discourse: mental models as represented in episodic memory. In other words. and understanding the construction (or upd ating) of mental models. such information may be left implicit in discourse production. This explains why we are often able to i deologically categorize and recognize actors or speakers as being progressive or conservative.24 pation in a group require us to act and talk as competent and cooperative member s. Indeed. I need to use my event model in which I have represented that event. speaking invo lves the expression of mental models. if I want to tell about an ev ent. racist or anti-racist. How does this happen? One way to explicitly connect models with discourse is to derive the meanings of a discourse (its semantic representation) from the propositions of the model. They are also the basis of the production a nd comprehension of action and discourse. And co nversely. thus giving rise to what we usually call presuppositio ns. mental models also at the same time exhibit f ragments of socially shared ideologies.4. and despite the personal and cont extual variations these may imply. but sin ce we all know that. That is. if I listen to a story. A model may feature the information that one can kill people with guns.
After all. and of which most other information m ay be tacitly presupposed. In other words: The semantic representations that define the 'meaning' of discourse are only a s mall selection of the information represented in the model that is used to under stand such discourse.. and hence remain implicit.25 In this sense discourses are like icebergs of which only a small amount of meani ngs (propositions) are actually expressed. and are therefore able to instantiate such social beliefs in the models they are constructing during discourse comprehension.5. Let us now try to represent the theory just discussed again in a schema that sho ws how various kinds of cognition are related to discourse: Discourse/Interaction Episodic Memory Mental Model Social Memory Knowledge Attitudes IDEOLOGY Common Ground 2. speakers and recipients often share the same Common Ground. and what information to leave implicit? . simply because recipients of the same culture are able to supply this information themselves in the constr uction of their own models of an event. Context models The crucial question now is: How do speakers know what infor mation to include in a discourse.
such as parents . which precisely presuppose tha t we have beliefs (knowledge. ongoing communicative event in which you and I are now being inv olved as participants. with the difference that they represe nt the current. models are not al ways personal and private. whereas the ac tual situation of the communicative event is a social notion. w e may need to know whether our recipients actually want to get the information t hey are lacking. spouses or friends. These context models (or simply: contexts) are models like tho se of any other event.. That is. whether we a re journalists writing for a newspaper or teachers in front of a classroom. as explained above. This means that we not only need general i nformation about social beliefs. we need to represent the other participants in the current situat ion. knowing other people personally and intimately. Mental Context Models vs. such specific public beliefs may be presupposed in the models that are the basis of our discourse. Also. At the same time. Social Situations Note that the notion of context defi ned here is a cognitive notion. We m ust conclude for these arguments that what is still lacking in the link between social cognition and discourse is what we may simply call a model of the communi cative situation. children. namely defined as a mental model. This is also the case for the socially shared but specif ic information about events as it is distributed (and presupposed) by the mass m edia. . but may also be public. attitudes) in common with other members of the sam e culture. sociocultural beliefs of our Common Ground. This is trivially the case when we speak about the socially shared beliefs that belong to the Common Ground. This is inform ation that simply may be presupposed. speakers must have beliefs about the be liefs of recipients. featuring 'real' s ocial actors as participants. so that also that information need not be expressed in discourse. mostly implies that we know what more specific ( model) information they already have. as well as their probable specific and general beliefs. In this sense. but also about who we are talking to or writing for. Our communicative intentions may vary accordingly. and limited to face to face encounters. To wit: A newspaper article need not expla in to its readers what the Second World War or the Holocaust are.26 Beliefs about mutual beliefs Apparently. and for the same reason as for the general. knowledge which we may call 'historical'.
In that sense. context models are not only abou t relevance. as professor or student.g. situationa lly sensitive. they let us know what we believe our recipients to know already. where we are now. and engag ing in the overall genre of a lesson. whereas in other situations such representations are irrelevant. and other elements of the communicative situation may have changed. They keep track of our intentions and goals. the presence of c ertain objects. understand and represent communicative events.. what the current social relations are b etween the participants. We may therefore assume that these categories are stan dard elements of the schema that defines context models: This is the way we rout inely analyze. and will construct their discourse meanings accord ingly. These and several other categorie s of the context model are required to be able to engage in adequate. and features all informati on that is relevant for the interpretation of the ongoing discourse. a plea or news-report. e. Not all categories may always be relevant. discourse. as communist or anticommunist. and what time it is. talk or text. the time. Since speak ing/writing are ongoing activities. But also the social relations between the participants. and in what soci al situation we are now. or the media.27 The mental model of that situation (that is. context models operate as some kind of overall control mechanism in discourse p rocessing. This is why it was emphasized th at a context model is a representation of what is relevant-for-discourse in the current communicative situation. as part of the Social Role category of the contex t model it may sometimes be relevant to represent ourselves or others as man or woman.. context models must be dynamic: They evolve. thus leading to continuously updated context models. Without this kind of contextualization. law. the context or context model) is me rely a subjective construct of that social situation. we woul d be unable to adapt event models or social cognition to the requirements of eve ryday interaction. but also about people's ability to adapt themselves to current situ ations on the basis . in a classroom. Thus. courtroom or pressroom. Spea kers and writers thus may adapt what they say constantly to what they believe th e recipients to know already. within the general domains of (say) education. and change with each word being said or written -thus making all previously utt ered and understood text or talk automatically part of the (known) context. Thus defined.
Context models and style As we shall see in more detail below. With the discussion of the role of context models. for instance about other participants in the commu nicative event. and media ideo logies of journalists similarly control their ways of writing or editing news.28 of a combination of old information and the capacity to analyze current situatio ns.after all. we have completed our sketch of the cognitive part of a theory of ideology. As speaker I may categorize myself and other participan ts as members of various social groups. ideologies not only may control what we speak or write about. tomorrow.. b ackground stories or editorials. In the next section we offer the important societal basis for this cognitive fragment -. sexist or racist. representing current participants and space-time coordi nates. Context models have the same property. In other words. We are aware of the curr ent context by the choice of deictic expressions. but also the beliefs and opinions I may have about the current situation. such as I. bu t also how we do so. professional ideologies of teachers will of course influence the context models of their didactic discourse. group members do not merely exist as disconnected minds. he. as a professor or student. and may choose one word rather than another. and this will not only affect the things I speak abou t (as represented in event models). and with what intentions. Ideological Conte xt Models We have argued that models may be ideologically biased. and in order to . when and with whom we speak. Context models enable us to represent the social relations that allow us to distinguish between different kinds of recipients. or the technical vocabulary used in court or the classroom. there. a nd the political vocabulary used by politicians and the media. more or l ess polite. as a function of where. I may speak as a man. Similarly. and therefore to use Usted or Tu in Spanish. Thus. but also address them in that way. such discursi ve adaptation especially shows in our ability to adapt the style of our discours e to the current communicative context: We may be more or less formal. you. men may not only speak derogatorily about women. here. today. she.
29 acquire and use an ideology we need social actions and discourses of real people in the real world of society and politics. however. let us summarize what we have so far i n an overall schema: Social situation Interaction/Discourse Episodic Memory Context Model Event model Group Knowledge Group Attitudes IDEOLOGY COMMON GROUND Social Memory .. Before we start with our discussion on the social basis of ideology.
as is also the case for language. . although groups of course do not have a brain-bas ed mind. but socially learned and collectively represented by a group of peo ple. we need to deal with many other aspects of social structure. but at another level they are a jo int representation.. we have emphasized that id eologies also have an important cognitive dimension: They may be studied as stru ctures represented in the minds of members of groups. There are unresolved theoretical and philosophical is sues involved here. distributed over the minds of the members of a group. It makes sense to speak of ideologies onl y in this combined sense of being at the same time cognitive and social.30 Chapter 3 Ideologies in society Contrary to most earlier work in the social sciences. but these will not be further discussed here. as a group. just like knowledge. however. Thus. Even in the cognitive account we spoke of social cog nition. At one level of theoretical description ideologies are part of the minds of individual people (because only individuals have minds). wh en they share an ideology. someth ing they have in common. Ideology and s ocial interaction The social dimensions of ideology are not limited to an accoun t of social cognition. social memory and of the shared social representations of the members of a group. It wo uld however be very misguided if we would limit a general theory of ideology to such a cognitive approach. we may still say they have something 'mental' in common. If we want to understand the emergence and funct ions of ideologies in society. It has been stressed from the start that ideologies a re essentially also social. This means that ideologies are not merely acquired and represented by individuals.
Since ideologies are shared by a group they socially speaking belong to a macro -level of description. although this is merely a practical distinc tion that has led to much controversy. Profess ionals have their typical professional ideologies and also will exhibit those wi th other professionals (as politicians and journalists may do). customers. let us begin at the microlevel where we may wit ness how ideologies actually manifest themselves. In reality macro and micro aspects of soc iety are often intermingling. Professors and students may have opposing ideologies about education. whole states or societies.31 Instead of beginning the social account of ideologies at the abstract macro-leve l of groups and group relations. the young against the aged. At the micro-level one usually describes social ac tors. as soon as people act as members of social groups. whereas the individual opinions of a social actor at a gi ven moment would belong to the micro level of description. and the rich against the poor. institutions. The macro level (or rather several macro levels. Given the fund amental role of discourse in the expression and reproduction of ideologies. Many of our everyd ay social practices are imbued by ideologies. In sum. they may bring to bear their ideologies in their a ctions and interaction. intermediate or meso-levels) is mor e abstract: Here we talk about groups of social actors. such as those of sexism or feminism. such as those of power. The social aspects of ideologies may be defined both at the macro and the micro level of society. whites against blacks. One crucial form of that everyday interaction is discourse . In sociology as well as in other disciplines — such as discourse studies — one distinguishes often between the macro level and the mic ro level of description or analysis. People of different ages will often show ageist ideolog ies. . readers or constituents. we s hall deal with discourse separately and in more detail below. Members of d ifferent ethnic or 'racial' groups may manifest racist. and t his will also reveal itself in their daily interaction in the classroom. namely in the social practices of everyday life. and the social interaction between these actors in social situations. This may hap pen by text and talk. organizati ons. as Macro and micro in sociology.. Class ideologies will affect many aspects of the interactions betwee n the rich and the poor. Women and men interacting may exhi bit various gender ideologies. that is. and their relationships. men may discriminate against women. among social actors who are participants in various forms of interaction. Thus. ethnicist or antiracist ideologies. as well as with their clients. both as monological text as well as in dialogical conversation.
as well as by num erous forms of sexual and other harassment. b oth by their own spouses. The same is true for the social practices that define people's everyday life in the family. But ideologies may also be expressed in the many 'paraverbal ' activities that accompany talk. as well as by their male bosses and colleagues as well as other men. by criticizing them without any grounds.. we first need to say a bit more about the notion of a 'group'. Every woman knows how men many show their sexism/machismo only by the way they l ook. by not admitting them to their country. or problematize the members of other. city.way s we may show whether we consider someone to be an equal. body posture and distance. violence. exploitation. they may do so by paying no (or too much) att ention to them. In this way. And when not with such overt and blatant forms of sexism. harassment or violence. Whether controlled by relationships of power or re sistance. superior or inferior. gestures or proximity. and we shall therefore come back to the se in more detail below. exclude. as well as by many forms of physical rudeness. group members may typical ly marginalize. Sexist ideologies imbue virtually all aspects of the everyda y interactions between women and men. Thus. for instance in gestures. racial. neighborhood. will show in many ways the underlying i deologies that characterize these groups. Many of these forms of ideological based discr imination will also appear in discourse. Similar remarks may be made for the social practices defining the relations between members of different ethnic. r eligious or political groups. dominated. the everyday actions of group members interacting with group members o f other (and especially opposed) groups. in infinitely subtle ways. comp any or house. during study. and so on: Also in these -sometimes very subtle-. by their tone of voice. Groups If we now move to the macro-level account of ide ology.32 we shall see below. and so on. facial expressions. and so on. The basic idea is here that not each collectivity of people constitutes a social group tha t may have an ide- . by not giving them a job or not promoting them even when qualified . at leisure. Women may be discrimin ated by the daily tasks their husbands expect them to fulfill. at work. groups . the eve ryday lives of women are replete with the more subtle and indirect ways of being treated unequally.
new members need to learn the ideology of . when based on preferred dress or mus ic styles. grou p selfschemata and the social construction of the group suggests that groupness may be inherently linked to having an ideology. defense or inculcation of ideologies. thes e may be organized by underlying ideologies. language. as discussed above. On the other hand. such as the relative permanence of the group. Sometimes these group criteria will be quite loose and superficial..g. but also individuals or su bgroups who fulfill specific positions or have special roles. as may be the case for gender. such as common goals. resist ance. As we have seen.. religion.33 ology. also in social terms we may define a number of th e properties that people routinely use to identify themselves and others as ingr oup and outgroup members. sprea ding. beliefs and values. this conclusion may be too bold. discrimination.. e. groups may be fo rmed quite loosely only on the basis of a common goal of a shared attitude. The 'group' of people waiting for a bus. also social groupness may be defined in terms of membersh ip criteria (origin. appearance. That is. and maybe some common goals that go be yond one situation or event. They may have ordinary members. bring the news). religio n and profession. But it is cer tainly true that the identification with a group not only manifests itself in a number of social practices (like professional activities. This kind of organization of the group is vital for the acquisition. is not typically the kind of soc ial group that shares an ideology. Hence. norms. who may be more or less officiall y part of the group (e. having a membership card). and a host of other activities). demonstrations. we probably need some criteria. specific goals (teac h students. Although this is a position that might be defended (dep ending on how we define a group).as we may expect when we define ideologies basically as some kind of gr oup self-schema. heal patients. diplomas or a membership ca rd). ethnicity. group relations and resources . We have leaders an d followers. social identity. sometimes they organize virtually all aspects of the life and activit ies of the members of a group. teachers and ideologues. In our account of the categories that define the id eological schema. This would mean that all social groups have an ideology. and to act accordingly. typical activities (as is the case for professionals). Thus. Groups are themselves oft en structured. Thus. and these need not (yet) have a broader ideological basis. for a collectivity of social actors to form a group that may develop an ideology. as well as offices that have similar funct ions.g. The close relationship between ideology. some of these social dimensions of groupness seem to be repres ented -. but also in joint social representations.
human rights and pacifi st movements. or cited. and other aspects of companies or institutions. the environmental. Leaders or ideologues may have to teach and preach and keep the ideology alive. deadlines. listened to.and not merely as a specific form of 'behavior' or a ction -through discourse. group organization as well as institutionalization may be crucial. etc). Professional as well as other social (gender.34 a group. and the organization of the professional activities of journalists (meetings. the school and the mass media fulfill that role. For instance. The reason s we mention the institutional nature of ideologies also in relation to discours e and its reproduction is that it is not merely text and talk that does the job. who will be covered. the "ideological li fe" of a group may be based on a complex organization of functions. but ideologies are largely acquired as such -. polit ical parties as well as the feminist. The ideological dimension of public discourse is also shaped by (and shapes) th e many non-verbal practices. In other words. etc) ideologies of journalists fundamentally control who will be searched for. as it was once fulfilled by the church. but imbues all aspects of new s gathering. Ideological institutions These last remarks also show that an effi cient reproduction of ideologies usually requires more than just a couple of peo ple who have a common goal and shared attitudes. New members may have to be recruited by various forms of propaganda. People may acquire partial ideologies through the imitat ion of everyday activities of other group members (as would be the case for male chauvinist forms of violence and harassment against women). . The same is more generally true of the most influential ideological institutions of modern society: the sch ool and the mass media. attending to sources. Indeed. and fundamentally i nfluenced by social actors participating as members of various social groups.and program making in the newsp aper or on television may themselves be ideologically based. Thus. organization s and institutions and their daily practices. interaction with other journalists as well as news actors. or the efficiency of some current NGO's suc h as Amnesty International or Greenpeace have shown. as the history of the Catholic Church. ethni c. the multitude of activities that define daily news. as is obvious from churches. class.. interviewed. age. the organizational structures. This ideology may have to be defended or legitimated in the public sphe re. the ideology of news reporting is not only limited to content and style of news reports. Books a nd other media may be used to help doing so. values or ideological principle s. More than most other institutions.
Thus. condoned or accepted.. and teacher-student i nteractions. in which also gender. interaction and cooperation of ing roup members. or by vari ous elite groups or organizations. ideo logies function as the mental dimension of this form of control. but in the wh ole organization of school life. a nd discourse in particular. ideologies may be developed because they organize social represen tations. Ideology and power The fundamental social question for a theory of ideology is why people develop ideologies in the first place. They provide the principles by which these forms of power abuse may be justifie d. That is. ideologies were traditionally often defined in terms of the legitimization of dominance. textbooks. legitimized.35 Similar remarks may be made for the daily. this means that people are better able to form groups based on identification along various dimensions. the obvious further social function of ideologies is that they enable or facilitate joint action. Traditionally the term 'dominant ideologies' is used when ref erring to ideologies employed by dominant groups in the reproduction or legitimi zation of their dominance. Indeed. the source and the goal. if power is defined here in terms of th e control one group has over (the actions of the members of) another group. In other words. such as those of power and dominance. among other affiliations will play a role besides the professional ideologies o f the teachers. Since ideologies indirectly control social practices in general. i deologies are most commonly described in terms of group relations. and thus geared towards the reproduction of the group and its power (or the challenge towards the power of other groups). institutional organization of educati on in schools. of group practices. namely by the ruling class. teaching. curricula. including sharing the s ame ideology. in lessons. At the macro-level of description. These would be the social micro-level functions of ideologies. ideologies are the beginni ng and end. Cognitively. ethnicity and class. At the level of groups. as we have seen. . as well as interactions with outgroup members. age. Ideologies not only show up in educational discourse. ideolo gies are the basis of dominant group members' practices (say of discrimination).
the set of arrangements. In a more critical approach to pow er. It is also in this sense that ideologies are often related to group interests. for instance through the mass media -also control the minds of other people. capital. As is the case for many very general and abs tract notions in the social sciences and the humanities. attitudes and ideologies.. the powe r of a group A over another group B. Ideologies may thus be geared especially towards the formulation of the principles by which a group 'deserves' such advantages o ver other groups. laws and resource s that favor the group in any way. as well as knowledge. income. Usually this means the control of action: A is able to control (limit. discourse. housing or work. Here we only speak of social power. prohi bit) the actions of B. thus increasing (or maintaining) its power. sexuality. Power needs a 'powe r base'. and how ideologies may be used to legitimate such dominance. o r its style. opposition to immigration will often be legitima ted by claiming that WE were 'here' first. its topic. For instance. If there is one notion often related to ideology it is that of power. powerful groups may --indirectly. that is. Since discourse is also a form of action. and therefore that WE have priority o ver scarce social resources such as citizenship. know ledge. there are many definiti ons and theories of power. or to those having to do with lifestyle. money. Many modern ideologies are rather oriented toward symbolic resources and aims. .36 Power. or how we r epresent society in our knowledge. and so on. as we also see throughout this course. real estate. One of the important social resources of much cont emporary power is the access to public discourse. t hat is. we are especially interested in power abuse or dominance. health. Who controls public discourse. rules. the mind and control. information or status. We then speak of persuasion or manipulat ion. In terms of our cognitive theory this means that powerful discourse may inf luence the way we define an event or situation in our mental models. indirectly controls the minds (including the ideologies) of people. Note that such interests need not at all be merely material. This power may be defined in terms of contr ol. a nd the resources on which these are based (strength. education or fame). activities. as was the case in traditional cl ass-based ideologies. such as scarce social resources such as force. We shall often encounter this relation between s ocial power. such control ma y also be exercised over discourse and its properties: its context. And because such discourse may also influence the mind of the recip ients. and therefo re also their social practices. processes.
society and culture If ideologies are typically defined for social gro ups. The same is true for whole cultures. we now have the basic social not ions that will be needed to study the relations between ideology and discourse. no competition over scarce reso urces. but not a generally share d ideology as we have defined it. Cultures may have a sha red Common Ground. This means that if there is no conflict of goals or interests. The point is that ideologies develop as mental forms of group (self-) id entification. This is sometimes said for Western. which we would define in terms on political or reli gious ideologies.37 Ideology. and often in relation to other groups.. we propose to distinguish between the two for the same reasons as we d id refrain from assigning ideologies to whole societies. and not at the leve l of society as a whole. it i s only within and between groups that ideologies make sense. Although ide ologies and cultures are often compared (when they characterize groups or organi zations). and when these (and their members) would int eract and vie for power. Ch ristian and Muslim cultures. it would be strange if we would also define them for whole societies and cu ltures. That is. Although the social anal ysis of ideology and the ways ideologies are acquired and used by social groups may be detailed with many further observations. rather than in "cultural ideologies". . no struggle. as two countries at war might be.and Non-Western. then ideologies have no point. as and nationalist id eologies would typically show. This would only be the case if a whole society would be related to another one. as well as shared norms and values. nor over symbolic resources. This would at most be a relevant notion when w e again compare competing cultures.
- 38 Chapter 4 Racism Ideologies may in one sense be mental objects, systems of socially shared ideas of a group, but we have just argued that they do not exist in a social vacuum. O n the contrary, they emerge, are being used and reproduced as inherent part of s ocial life, and are related to groups and social movements, with power, dominanc e and struggle. Thus, it is impossible to fully understand socialist or communis t ideologies without knowing something about the history of class struggle and t he dominated position of the workers in capitalist societies. The same is true f or the feminist movement and hence for the various ideologies of feminism: They arise in the broader societal context of male chauvinism, gender inequality and the institutional arrangements that have supported and perpetuated the subordina te position of women. That is, ideologies are so to speak the 'cognitive' counte rpart of social struggle and inequality. They are not only shaped by these socia l structures, but largely also sustain and reproduce them by monitoring the disc ourses and other social practices of group members, which at the micro-level rea lize the structures of inequality, domination and resistance. Thus, when we want to study racist ideologies in more detail, and especially examine how discourse expresses and reproduces ethnic or 'racial' inequality, we need to know a littl e bit more about these social dimensions of racism. Indeed, no relevant ideologi cal analysis of racist discourse is possible without a thorough insight of the b roader context of racism in contemporary societies. We therefore briefly provide a theoretical framework that also explains the role of racist ideologies and di scourse in society. Racism as system of social inequality As is the case for ine quality of class and gender, also racism is a complex system of social inequalit y, in which some groups (in this case "white" Europeans) have more power than ot her (non-white, non-European, etc.) groups in society -- and indeed, in the whol e world. This power difference essentially shows in differential access to scarc e social resources, such as having less of most material goods, but also having less access to or control over symbolic resources, such as education, knowledge, information and status, among a host of other resources. In Western Europe and North
- 39 America today, this also means that immigrants have less access to the country, and have less residence rights. And once they are within the country, they will have worse neighborhoods, worse housing, and worse jobs, if any at all. This ove rall system of social inequality in which Europeans have more power than non-Eur opeans, is sustained as the 'micro-level' by a host of everyday discriminatory p ractices. If minorities or immigrants have fewer jobs, this is also because they have a harder time to get hired or promoted, and very often their work tends to be valued less than that of other workers. The same may be true for immigrant c hildren at school, who for a variety of reasons may also be problematized, if on ly by the textbooks which until today often are biased, if they take the present of non-European children into account at all. Throughout society, thus, non-Eur opean minorities are daily confronted with a sometimes subtle system of inequiti es, in their neighborhoods, at work, at school, in shops, public transport as we ll as in the mass media. This system is called 'everyday racism' in order to str ess that racism only occurs occasionally and in very blatant forms that are repo rted by the media. The overall consequence of these forms of problematization, m arginalization and exclusion at the micro-level is social inequality at the macr o level. It should be emphasized that racially or ethnically based social inequa lity need not be very explicit, blatant or overt. Although racist violence is a daily phenomenon, and much more widespread than most white people think, also in today's Europe, it is not the main characteristic of contemporary European raci sm. Everyday racism, as suggested, may be subtle and indirect and appear in some times minor forms of daily interaction -- in such a way that someone of the Euro pean majority treats someone of the non-European minority in a way in which he o r she would not treat another European person. In that respect, everyday racism is a violation of norms -treating someone differently and more negatively than o ne should. Everyday racism Although this may also happen among white people, the typical ch aracteristic of racism is that this may happen to minority group members everyda y, so that the inequities accumulate and thus become a massive system of psychol ogical and social stress if not oppression. At the same time, this
- 40 everyday nature of subtle racism has become so natural that it seems to be taken for granted. Racist slurs, jokes, harassment and marginalization are so common that they no longer raise much concern among most members of the dominant white group. It is only the more overt, more explicit and more extremist form of racis m that is being noticed and written about in the paper, and of course officially condemned. Ordinary racism is simply part of everyday life for minorities in Eu rope and North-America. These everyday social practices that define racism at th e micro-level of course have a cognitive foundation. That is, other people can o nly be treated differently if they are being perceived and categorized as being different. And they are treated more negatively, they are problematized, margina lized and excluded if they are being evaluated as being "less" on all relevant d imension of social evaluation. In other words, discrimination as unequal treatme nt can only be subjectively justified when dominant group actors believe that su ch treatment is normal or otherwise legitimate. For instance, a European employe r may not give a Moroccan immigrant a job because he thinks that the newcomer is less intelligent, less competent or less diligent, or simply because he or she prefers to hang out with his friends. In other words, the everyday social practi ces of discrimination presuppose a cognitive basis of negative beliefs about the Others: stereotypes, prejudices, racist attitudes or other socially shared nega tive opinions as they are organized by racist ideologies. In other words, racist ideologies are not some kind of an abstract system that floats over European so ciety. On the contrary, they are beliefs that are historically, socially and cul turally deeply ingrained in the social mind of many Europeans, and that more or less subtly control their beliefs about non-European others. Such attitudes may for instance show up in the fact that at present more than on average two thirds of the population in Western Europe opposes further immigration. This need not be (although in practice it often still is) a feeling of ethnic or racial superi ority -- but more often than not, negative treatment of the others implies at le ast one form of negative categorization. Through the complex structures of every day life and culture in Europe, thus, people of African descent, as well as othe r non-Europeans are thus routinely being perceived and evaluated not only as dif ferent, but also as deviant, problematic if not as dangerous. It is in this prof ound way that racist ideologies hold sway over social attitudes in many domains of life in multicultural Europe and North America. This is also true for those E uropean groups and in those institutions where this is most resolutely denied: a mong the elites, that is, in politics, in the mass media, in scholarship, in edu cation, in the courtroom, in the ministries, and
including discourse. at the local (micro) level..41 so on. and cognitively supported by racist ideologies. In other words: racist ideologies are the socially shared foundations of the ethnic/racial beliefs that enable the daily discrimination defined as everyd ay racism. reproduced by discrimin atory social practices. and by institutions. Racism is a system of ethnic/racial inequality. organizations and overall group relations on the global (macro) le vel. . We shall see below how fragments of such racist ideologies also show up in discourse. Summary.
T his is however only a first step. and such an opinion in turn depends on our id eological position. we also believe that this may be more typical for some than for other structures. attitudes and biased models actually are being expressed in discours e and what role discourse plays in the social functions of ideologies. That is. To clarif y these matters. concealed or in less obvious structures of discour se. implicitly. how they affect the other mental structures that are involved in the production and understanding of disc ourse and how ideologies function in society. Which structures? Discourse is very com plex. which may be combined in innumerable ways. semantic meaning and style wi ll more likely be affected by ideology than morphology (word-formation) and many aspects of syntax (sentence-formation).. . We have reason to believe that ideology may exhibit in virtually all structur es of text or talk. ideologies m ay be expressed explicitly and then are easy to detect. simply because the latter are much less context dependent: In English and Spanish the article precedes the noun. In this section. It does not tell us much about the ways these ideologies. a hesitation or a pronoun. As we have seen. In other words. event mo dels and social attitudes. we have an elementary the ory of ideological discourse processing and the beginning of a social theory of the role of ideologies in the life of groups and the relations between groups. and the attitudes we have about the group that person belong s to. but on the other hand. and no ideological influence will change that. But whether we call someone a 'freedom fighter' a 'rebel' or 'terrorist' is a lexical choice that is very much dependen t on our opinion of such a person. featuring many levels of structures. Thus. such as an intonation.42 Chapter 5 Ideological discourse structures We now have a first impression of what ideologies are. we now finally turn to the more detailed study of the ways ideo logies manifest themselves in discourse. each with their own categories and el ements. we need to look for those properties of discourse that mos t clearly show the ideological variations of underlying context models. we shall explore some of the structures that typically exhibit underlying ideologie s. but this may also happen very indirectly. then.
These were represented as some kind of basic self-sch ema of a group. etc. These categories typical ly organize information of the following kind: Membership: Who are we? Who belon gs to us? Who can be admitted? Activities: What are we doing. a method to 'find' ideology in text and talk.whether we are in a dominant or dominated position. such as their membership criteria. whereas religious ideologies in addition will feature propositions a bout people's relation to God. Them. group activi ties. relations to others. let us go back for a moment to the nature of ideologies. and how we distinguish ourselves from others by our actions. anti-racist ideologies.Resources: What do we have that ot hers don't? What don't we have what others do have? These then are the kind of q uestions that typically are associated with group identity and hence also with i deologies. as well as ou r resources. and hence ideological structures can be expressed in so many different ways . id eologies typically organize people and society in polarized terms.43 A practical. racist vs. Given this informal rendering of 'typical' ideolo gies and their typical contents. resources. featuring the fundamental information by which group members ide ntify and categorize themselves. norms. We see that much of this information is about Us vs. Some other ideologies. it is useful to have a more practical 'heuristic'. we may try to formulate the heuristic that trie s to combine such underlying social beliefs to their expression in discourse.. Many social ideologies of groups and movement s have these properties. Group members hip first of all has to do with who belongs or does not belong to Us. feminist. aims and norms. allowed or not in what we do? Relations: Who are our friend s or enemies? Where do we stand in society? . Socially fundamental is what position we have relative to the Other s -. etc. com bine these social views with views about nature and how people should interact w ith nature. as is typically the case in chauvinist vs. general strategy of ideological analysis Since discourse is so comp lex. To formulate such a heuristic. Ba sically. or whether we are respe cted or marginalized. such as the ecological ones. aims. the overall strategy of most ideological discourse is a very general on e: . Indeed. planning? What is expected of us? Aims: Why are we doing this? What do we want to achieve? Norms: What is good or bad.
but also characterizes the way we talk about ourselves and others. De-emphasize positive things about Them. As to their content. prominently or not. and as soon as these h ave an ideological basis. 5. It may be applied to the analysis of all levels of discourse structures. of which we shall now give some examples.Say positive things about Us . with hyperbo las or euphemisms. we need to extend it in some ways so that also other discou rse structures can be characterized by it. which may be called the 'id eological square'. we are able to analyze the expression of ideology on m any levels of discourse. we modify the four princip les as follows: Emphasize positive things about Us. Meaning . In other words. This four of possibilities form a conceptual square. we need to complement it w ith its opposite meanings: . and would therefore be r ather limited. Now. and so on. So in order to enable a more subtle ideological analysis that also applie s to others structures in the expression of ideology. disco urse has many ways to emphasize of de-emphasize meanings. with big or small headlines.Do not say negative things about Us .1.Say negative things about Them This form of pos itive self-presentation and negative other-presentation is not only a very gener al characteristic of group conflict and the ways we interact with opposed groups . As formulated. this o verall strategy typically applies to meaning (content). they may apply to semantic and lexical analysis . Thus. but the use of the opposing pairs 'emphasize' and 'deemphasize' allows for man y forms of structural variation: we may talk at length or briefly about our good or their bad things. the strategy is too absolute and too ge neral. De-emp hasize negative things about Us. Emphasize negative things about Them.. But first. explicitly or implicitly.44 .Do not say po sitive things about Them.
for instance in summaries. deviance or problems allegedly caused by minority groups. Since the meaning of words. We may render such topics in terms of (complete) propositions such as 'Neighbors attacked Moro ccans'. Such propositions typically appear in newspaper headlines. such as 'topics' or 't hemes'. And conversely. For instance. and tell us what a discourse 'is about' . the fir st thing we do is to topicalize such information. ideological 'content' is most directly expressed in discourse meaning. we distinguish here between topics --as they can b e represented by a proposition-. Discourse also has more 'global' meanings. in much public discourse in multicultural so ciety this means that topics associated with racism are much less topicalized th an those related to the alleged crimes. globally speaking. Although topics abstractly characterize the meaning of a whole discourse o r of a larger fragment of discourse. we' ll make a selection of its most relevant aspects. These will only be briefly and informally characterized. then we'll tend to de-topical ize such information. such as 'Immigration' . The meaning of discourse is not limited to the meaning of its words and sentences. carried out in the Nether lands and in California. without a lengthy theoretical summary of its properti es. abstracts. Incidentally. titles or headlines. typically expressed b y single words. in order to avoid confusion. they may also be concretely formulated in t he text itself. Yet . if we want to de-emphasize our bad things and their good things. So we s hall pay special attention to the semantics of ideological discourse. we found that the preferred topics white autochthonous people speak about may be categorized by the following three concepts characteri zing the Others: .and more abstract Themes.45 We have argued that ideology may in principle show up anywhere in discourse. Topics typically are the information that is best recalled of a disco urse. The i deological functions of topics directly follow from the general principles menti oned above: If we want to emphasize our good things or their bad things. For a research project on conversations on minorities. Topics. Such topics represent the gist or most important information of a discou rse. sentences and whole discourses is extraordinarily complex.. 'Discrimination' or 'Education' which ar e broad categories that may define classes of texts with many different (specifi c) topics.
. All propositions that appear in a model but not in t he discourse may thus be called the 'implied' meaning of a discourse.46 Difference Deviance. transgression Threat Level of description. Degree of detail. it will typically be at a fairly hig h level of abstraction. that is. When necessary. . in rather general and abstract terms. we may include many or few details. on e finds much detail about the deviance and crimes of minorities.and if something is said about Our racism at all. language users have another option in the realization of their mental model (= what they know about an event): To give many or few details about an event. It has been explained that discourse productio n is based on mental models we have about some event. or at the level of specifics. or to describ e it at a rather abstract. Implications and presuppositions. or we may 'go down' to specifics and spell out what precisely the police did. A nd once we are down to these specifics. it hardly needs much argumentation that we will u sually be more specific and more detailed about our good things and about the ba d things of the others.remain pretty vague and general when i t comes to talk about our failures. and vice versa -. missing information may thus be in ferred by the recipients. Once a topic is being selected. namely from their model for a discourse or their gener al sociocultural knowledge. We may s imply speak of 'police violence'. and that for many reasons (such as the knowledge a recipient already has) we need only express part of the information in such a model. general level. As i s the case for topicalization. for instance in terms of popular "resentment". but very little detail about the everyday forms of racism to which they are submitted -. In much public discourse in Europe. and especially in the conservative press.
In more intuitive terms this means that we may call a discourse (or discou rse fragment) coherent if we can imagine a situation in which it is or in which it could be true. Global coherence m ay simply be defined in terms of the topics we discussed above: a discourse (or discourse fragment) is globally coherent if it has a topic.. The option to express information or leave it explicit. Because this kind of coherence is defined in terms of the 'fac ts' referred to. One of the typical characteristics of discourse meaning is coherence: T he meanings of the sentences (that is. A well-known move is to presuppose informatio n that is not generally shared or accepted at all. people tend to leave information implicit that is inconsistent with their positive self-ima ge. and should rather be about the unemployed. Going down to the lo cal meanings of discourse. Local Co herence. In even more succinct (but formally impeccable) terms we may say that a discourse sequence is coherent if it has a m odel. for instance . for instan ce by relations of causality or enablement. There is also coherence that is defined for relations between propositions themselves. Such coherence may be global or local. Although it is not easy to define this notion very precisely. we deal with what may be called 'local coher ence'. or may be true for all young boys who have no jobs. For instance. It is easy to predict that within our general schema. events or situations that are mutually related.47 In ideological discourse analysis making explicit the meanings implied by a sent ence or text fragment may be a powerful instrument of critical study. we may call this referential coherence. however. any information that tells the recipient about the bad th ings of our enemies or about those we consider our outgroup will tend to be expl icitly expressed in text and talk. and thereby introduce it so t o speak through the backdoor). On the other hand. if the police declares to "worry ab out the high crime rate of young immigrant boys" then such a declaration tacitly presupposes that young immigrant boys indeed do have a high crime rate. their propositions) of a discourse must b e related in some way. This ma y not be true. so that the p resupposition is misleading. is not ideologically neu tral. we shall si mply assume that a sequence of propositions is locally coherent if it is about a sequence of actions. however.
man or woman. not very many. such as synonymy and paraphrase. and whether one is left or right. These may feature a causal relation between to facts F1 and F 2 that explains why proposition P1 and P2 are locally coherent. they also cannot vary with the i deology of the speaker.48 when one has the function of being a Specification. wha t are the ideological options language users have in the management of discourse coherence? Obviously. and not to discriminatory employment practices of employers them selves. racist or anti racist. Since these rela- . for whom high minority unemployment is primarily due to lacking abilities of minorities. namely via the mental models on which it is based.. attitudes or ideologies. and in such well-known examples as "He is from Nigeria. And yet. a sentence that presupposes that workers from Nigeria Synonymy. but a very good worker". But such a model of a situation may very much depend on one's opinions. there are many other semantic properties of discourse defin ed in terms of relations between propositions. In other words. I often observed a very typical case in the discourse of employers in the Nether lands. an Example or a Contrast of another: we may call this functional local coherence. because coherence is a very general condit ion of discourse. coherence is relative. paraphrase. coherence is ideologically controlled. The conditions of coherence for a discourse that explains minority unemp loyment in the Netherlands thus completely depends on the model one has of the c auses of such unemployment. Whe reas coherence is defined for relations between propositions in a discursive seq uence or in a model. Now. a Generalization. and henc e do not change under the influence of context. See also the kind of coherence that presupposes certain assumptions to be true. one needs to respect some basic conditions of coherence in order to be m eaningful. and this relativity also has an ideolo gical dimension. More in general we may say that if discourse structures are obligatory. models that may be more or less racist or anti-racis t.
And different words means le xical and stylistic variation. is characterized by examples and illustrations. Examples and illustrations. designating ingroups and outgro ups. In racist discourse. but whose meanings-of-use and ideological implicatur es are different. a form of polarization that is semantically implemented by contrast. to speak of 'foreigners' in Western Europe today usually implies reference to ethnic minorities or immigrants and not to 'real' foreigne rs. are deviant or even criminal. Functio nally. to prevent negative evaluation by the hearer. . In other words. for which it may give proof or evidence (as we ha ve seen above). ideology do es not seem to have grip on them: a synonym is one whether one votes communist o r conservative. It is precisely this kind of recurrent discursive contrast that suggests that probably also the underlying attitudes an d ideologies are represented in polarized terms. mostly pre viously expressed proposition. such propositions (or whole stories) serve to support another. we may of co urse speak about immigrants in terms of many expressions and descriptions that a re more or less synonymous. They easily get jobs (housing etc). But. and so on. Contrast. about Our good deeds and Their bad behavior. thus. we may find a general opinion statement. and are usually formulated in different words. for insta nce about how They break the rules. Ideologies often emerge when tw o or more groups have conflicting interests. Thus. We have already seen that the overall strateg y of ideological discourse is to emphasize Our good things and Their bad things. In racist discourse. for instance. depending on context. when there is social struggle or co mpetition. we discover many statements and stories that are organi zed by this form of contrast: We work hard. and that paraphras es are typically expressions that have more or less the same meaning. More generally discourse about Us and Them. A very credible story in that case provides the experiential 'ev idence' for the general statement. but not qu ite. of ten in the form of stories. and in situation of domination. speakers usually feel obliged to give some example or illustration of a general statement that is negative ab out immigrants. and we do not.49 tionships are not defined in a different way for different contexts. Thus. the use of the word may sound more negative than for instance 'ethnic minorities'. do not adapt. as the well-known pro noun pair Us and Them illustrates. such op position may be realized by various forms of polarization. They are lazy. stories may serve as premises in an argumentatio n. Moreover. and hence also racist discourse.. which is dependent on context. But note that strict synonymy does not exist. Cognitively and discursively.
but my clients… Reversal. of which the Apparent Negation is the best known: I have n othing against X. but… Apparent Effort: We do everything we can. Apparent E mpathy: They may have had problems.50 Disclaimers. and thus directly instantiates the contradictions in ideolog ical based attitudes. blaming the victim: THEY are not discriminated against.. Very typical of any type of prejudiced discourse is the semantic mo ve of the disclaimer. with negative ones of the Others. Note that in those cases where speakers are really ambivalent about their attitudes about minorities. there are many types of d isclaimers. while t he rest of the discourse may say very negative things about the others. Propositional structures Local discourse meaning is (theor etically speaking) organized in propositions: One sentence expresses one or more propositions -. but… Transfer: I have no problems with them. the traditional philosophic al . of face keeping: Speakers want to avoid that the recipients have a negative opinio n about them because of what they say about immigrants. The nega tion in such a case primarily serves as a form of positive self-presentation. with positive or neutral and negative parts. DISCLAIMERS Apart from the well-known Apparent Denial. but…. also the propo sitions themselves have internal structures. but… We call this an Apparent Negation because it is only the fi rst clause that denies adverse feelings or racism against another group.things that may be true or false. we do not typically find such disclaimers but discourses that are ambivalent throu ghout. or which (intuitively speakin g) express one complete 'thought'. Indeed. but… Apparent Apology: Excuse me. but WE are! All these disclaimers combine a positive aspect of our own group. In the same way as the meaning of sequences o f sentences and whole discourses are constituted by propositions. such as: Apparent Concession: They may be very smart.
. identified by their name. the further analysis of actors is v ery important. Propositions may be modified by modalities such as 'It is necessary th at' . as belonging to some outgroup. 'It is possible that' or 'It is known that'. patients. for instance in te rms of generalized or generic expressions ('the Turks'. Modality. 'the Turk'). in racist or anti-racist discourse. that is. Actors. all Others are being homogenized. Depending on text and context. specifically or generally. depending on the underlying opinions (as represented in ment al models). as ingroup ('we') or outgroup members ('they'). the predicates of propositions may be more or less po sitive or negative. we may wan t to examine in detail.) structure. For our ideological analysis. Instead of talking ind ividually and specifically. in British tabloids as well as in conservative political disco urse. in personal or impersonal roles. or beneficiaries of an action. and simil ar negative evaluations may be found in virtually any kind of discourse about mi norities. In other wo rds. and so on. Argument. group. More specifically. For one. We here deal with the core of discursive racis m: the selection of words that express underlying negative predicates about the Others. we may typically find propositions such as 'Refugees are bogus'. Thus. how immigrants are being represented. actor descriptions that are ideologically based are semantically reflecting the social distance implied by racist ideologies. a proposition s uch as "Many African refugees have arrived in the country' may also have the fol lowing form: "It is well-known that many African refugees have arrived in the co untry. p rofession or function. discourse that is controlled by racist attitudes and ideologies will have the tendency to represent minorities or immigrants firs t of all as Them. collectively or individually. Argument…. immigrants or refugees. For instance. Representing (say) police brutality a s 'necessary' may imply some kind of . The arguments of a propositions may be about actors in various r oles. namely as agents. Since ideologic al discourse is typically about Us and Them. the structure s of propositions have some interesting properties which however we shall deal w ith only briefly.51 and logical analysis of propositions assigned them the well-known Predicate(Argu ment. We already have seen that these modalities have something to do with the way we represent the world and its events. Actors may thus ap pear in many guises.
Of course. and the same is true for ' proof' in everyday life. Rather typical for instance is to support claims about the all eged criminality of immigrants with reference to the mass media: "You read about it in the newspaper everyday". . selectiv e attention and reporting in the media is thus reproduced and magnified by the p ublic at large. such "evidence" may also be ide ologically based. Obviously. A p olitician or journalist may oppose immigration.52 legitimization for such violence. even when such information is irrelevant. we may precisely witness the use of vague terms such as "popular discontent " or "resentment" instead of using the more specific term racism. and yet do not want to appear ignorant. But we may also hedge a discourse for political reasons. as the well-know n example of diplomatic language shows. and engage in a debate with those who deny it. Scholarly proof in the natural sciences. Since the newspapers indeed often provide the et hnic background of criminals. most knowledge is borrowed from the media. euphemism and indirectly also a denial. for instance when precise statements are contextually inappropriate or simply "politically incorrect". Evidentiality. We may hedge or be vague when we do not know a precise answer to a question. And selective attention and recall for the crimes of outgroups m akes such news items more salient. i f they express a belief. they are often expected to provide some 'proof' for the ir beliefs. Thus. Speakers are accountable for what they say. In contemporary society the media are a promin ent criterion of evidentiality: "I have seen it on TV" or "I read it in the news paper" are rather powerful arguments in everyday conversations. Since the use t hat may be made of media messages may be biased. vag ueness may imply mitigation. A powerful political a nd ideological tool is the management of clarity and vagueness. but may hedge such an opinion le st he or she be accused of racism. social sciences o r humanities may require different types of evidence. each genre . context and culture has its own evaluation criteria for what is good. which may range from "I have seen it with my own eyes" to more or less reliable hearsay. And both in the media and in political discou rse. Hedging and vagueness.. So media information f orms an important part of the evidentiality strategy people use. In discourse abo ut immigrants. acceptab le or bad 'evidence'. as is often the case in newspaper accounts of 'race riots'.
One of the discursive implications of the use of topoi is that as standard arguments they need not be defended: They serve as basic criteria in argumentation. Thus. which characterizes much media reports on immigra tion -. the order o f a news story. although often more indirectly. because of widespread discrimination and prejudice in our country. Formal structures I have argued before that content or meaning is the most obvious discourse level for the expression of ideology. 5. not to be too strict with immigration rules. toler ance. education. are u sually based on topoi that refer to general humanitarian values (equality. etc). the claim that we should not close our borders. and so on). but therefore also more subt ly. brotherhood and sisterhood. On the contrary. but also anti-racist discourse. and racist discourse in particular. Latin: loci communes). we may find the well-known 'topoi' (Greek: places. . 3. however. Or even more cynically: To stay in their own count ry .53 Topoi Halfway between semantics and rhetoric. the form of an argument.. we find topoi that emphasize that They a re a "burden" for our country (economy. In much official discourse against immigration. the size of a headline.but only the influx is thus quantified and emphasized: the media very se ldom report how many people have left. and so on. They are like topic s as earlier defined. or of Our Western Culture. underlying ideologies may also affect the various formal structures of text and talk: the form of a clause or sentence. that ideological analysis should be limited to semantic s. is usually replete with such to poi. Note that topoi not only define racist te xt and talk. refugees and other immigrants are recommended to stay in their own co untry -. if not a "threat" of the welfare state. social services. Ideological discourse in general. so that they are typically used as 'ready-mades' in argumentation. It is here that the general and specific propos itions of models and social representations can be most directly exhibited.to help build it up. This does not mean. hospitality. as in common places. Thus. Equally standard is the topos of (large) numbers. but they have become standardized and publicized. and so on.
or the conventional schemata of a conversation. Thus. and hence independent of groups and ideologies. a news article o r a scholarly article in a psychological journal. such 'biased' pronoun use could be seen as a form of derogation. However. po sition. Given the ideological square tha t we have found to characterize discourse. syntactic o r schematic (superstructural) form consists of a number of categories that appea r in a specific hierarchical or linear order. such as the social role. belief or opinion of the participants. so that there is no possible contextual variation of structure. the well-known variation between Spanish 'tu' a nd 'Usted' is based on the social relation between speaker and recipient. This means that article placement generally is not the kind of struc ture one would study in an ideological analysis. Sentence Syntax As suggested above. la mesa. This is true independent of context. their ideological function can only be ex ercised together with meaning or (inter)action. and hence as an expression of underlying racist ideologies. active and passive senten ces. the table. There are many types of discourse forms. Some of these rules are obligatory. For instance. and ma y therefore in principle be deployed ideologically. all forms th at may change as a function of some context feature. such as word order. Words may be put up front through so called 'topicaliz ation'. such as argumentative or narrat ive structures. In all such cases. 5.4. For instance. or they may be 'downgraded' by . may in principle also have an ide ological function. a white person may use familiar 'tu' when addressing a black person who because of social position wou ld normally have been addressed with 'Usted'. following some rules or other gene ral principles. and hence independent of speaker. On the other hand. That is. The same is tr ue for the overall schematic forms of discourse. others do allow at least some variation. many sentence structures are not contextually variable and h ence cannot be used to ideologically 'mark' discourse sentences. this means that discourse forms are t ypically deployed to emphasize or de-emphasize meanings. una mesa.. and nominalizations.54 Since forms 'as such' have no meaning. In sentence syntax alone there are dozens of possible structur al forms that might be used to emphasize or de-emphasize meaning. as was already said above. in English and Spanish (but not in Scandinavian languages) the article always prece des the noun: a table.
or by using a cleft sentence tha t topicalizes the demonstrators: "It was the demonstrators who the police arrest ed". for instance by using a passive construction: " The demonstrators were arrested by the police". And conversely. will typically appear up front -. are cha racteristic examples. "The police arrested the demonstrators. This kind of sentence order in discourse has many f unctions. and others in sentences at the end of text or talk. Discourse forms What is true for the expression of meanings in variable syntactic forms. announcements or initial summaries of stories. the order of words may signal whether the meaning expr essed by some words is more or less emphasized. or leaving them out completely. as shown above . Headlines and leads in newspapers. information that is expressed in the beginning of a text thus receives extra emp hasis: it is read first and therefore will have more control over the interpreta tion of the rest of the text than information that is expressed last. meanings that embody information that is bad for our image will typically tend to appear at the end. In other words." But we may make the agency of th e police in this example less prominent. 5. by moving the expression 'the police' t owards the back of the sentence. this funda mental property of discourse meaning and its associated forms closely correspond s to the ideological square that assumes ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogat ion: Sentences that express positive meanings about us.5. for instance in such sen tences as "The demonstrators were arrested". or using the nominalization (verb t urned into a noun): "The arrest of the demonstrators". Indeed. abs tracts. and negative meanings ab out them. which are typically in first position.55 putting them later in a clause or sentence. leads. more generally. and it needs little argument tha t such emphasis or lack of emphasis has ideological implications. and titles and abstracts in scholarly articles. as is the case for sentences.. This overall strategy controlling th e order of discourse may also affect the various categories that conventionally define the schematic structure of .if possible in headlines. In general. for ins tance. The canonical (standard. or be left implicit altogether. word and sentence meaning in discour se may become foregrounded or backgrounded by their position in the semantic str ucture as it is expressed by sentences order in the discourse. including ideological ones. preferred) order in English and Spanish is to match semanti c agents with syntactic subjects. Thus. the agent may be completely left implicit. is also true for whole propositions at the level of the whole discourse: some propositi ons may be expressed in sentences that are put up front. Again. by using different sentence forms.
scholarly articles. and thus tend to be filled by p ropositions that express the most important meaning. in the Headlines and in the Leads. The oppos ite will be true for bad information about Us. such as reports about racism. Thus. if not on the fist page. for instance as a Summary . last. even the intertextual order in the newspaper obeys this principle: such news will tend to be placed higher on the p age. for instance editorials in the press..but the basic idea is that importance of information is related to importance of meaning which in turn is related to p rominence of position (first. etc. scholar. also argument ative structures as such do not appear to vary with ideology. This will be so for news st ories in the press. in news rep orts about minorities. As is the case for many formal structures. as is often the case. letters to the editor.56 text or talk. or any other information that violates the norms and values we find important in ou r culture. that is. such a discourse may be conventionally divided into two m ain categories: Arguments and a Conclusion. That is. dependi ng on what comes first. Argumentation Many discourse genres have argumentative structures.6. an everyday fight of a cou ple or parliamentary debates. or Standpoint and Arguments. like any genre. The content of an argumentation may depend on our ideologies. In the argumentative discourse of such a situation one or more of the p articipants then tries to make his or her standpoint more acceptable. various argumentative genres may be le arned. on top. 5. Indeed. and be associated with a profession and hence with professional ideologie s: An experienced politician. And it is this general princi ple that may be interpreted as ideologically relevant. different standpoints or points of view. lawyer or teacher probably is more experienced in 'good' argumentation .). Title or Summary ar e typically realized at the beginning of a text. as Conclusions or as Recommendations -. for scholarly articles. the conventional categories of Headline. Of cours. For instance. Sometimes. credible o r truthful by formulating 'arguments' that are purported to sustain the chosen p oint of view. but the argumentation structure itse lf is probably independent of our ideological position. for everyday storytelling and so on. the most important information comes last. And 'good' and 'bad' arg umentation is rather something that varies with individual speakers than with gr oup membership. Typical of such genres is that participants (or sp eakers and addressees) have different opinions. we thus may expect that negative information about the Ot hers will typically be expressed first and on top. and more towards the front of the paper. journalist.
Note that these are not the same.. namely through education. But this still does not link discourse structures. or rationalized in terms of m ore 'respectable' arguments about the labor market or lack of housing. with ideology. Fallacie s. training and experience. which in turn may be linked to shared group attitudes. th en the arguments involved may of course be hidden. T hus. In other words. but still respect interaction principles (for instance of respect or cooperation) or still be a ve ry efficient arguer. and hence the theoretical possibility of ideological interf erence. has a function that is similar to that of a headline. the very choice of a standpoint rather than another one might already be seen as one of the means language users have to emphasize meaning and hence underlying beliefs. whi ch also represents the most important information of a text. the main point of view. there is some variation here. on th e defense of such a position. interaction principles are violated when we do not let . As is the case for other discourse genres and schematic structures. But this i s as close as one may get to relate (expertise in) discourse structures with gro ups. for instance by using fallacies. That is. and focus the whole text. usually expressin g a prominent opinion. Given the rat her direct links between standpoint and opinion. For instance. one ma y oppose immigration mainly because of possible labor market problems. and whose content a lso globally controls the production of the rest of the discourse.57 than those who do not have such professional training and experience. when some of t he underlying ideologies are politically incorrect. One may break the rules of argumentation. argumentation is c ontrolled by a number of normative rules. we see that argumentation structures may be powerful sig nals of the underlying structures of ideological attitudes. both in content and form. Note though that these variations of ideology are expressed in the meaning or content of the argument. as is the case for any structure. interaction principles and efficient s trategies of actual performance. or cultur al problems. and that would signal the ways ethnic ideologies are combined with labor ideologies in sp ecific attitudes about minorities on the labor market. Of course. for instance when the speake r specifically does not want the immigration of African refugees or laborers. such as those of argumentation. Not quite trivially. very generally defined. one may choose to oppose the immigra tion of more refugees. are breaches of argumentation rules and principles. Thus. not specifically in its structures.
euphem isms. . irony. Or. In sum. similes.. or because some authority says so. and many other figures of style ideologically variable? Having re viewed the arguments made above for other formal structures. are begging the question. we use an irrelevant argument. use false analogies.populism is also something of the right. we need to conclude that there is no direct link between fallacies or ways of arguing and ideology. they are only semantic: The contents of arguments are of course related to ideological attitudes. any ideological group and its members defends points of views by referring to leaders. racists and anti-racists. we engage in fallaci es when we overgeneralize. racist discourse may feature many euphemisms when it refers to ethnic inequality. heroes and cre dible authorities. or ass ume that from bad one necessarily goes to worse. Where these links exist. for instance. interrupt them. a bit less superficially we might hold that the fallacy of autho rity is typically used by authoritarian people. racism or discrimination. True.7. argue that something must be true because everybo dy thinks so.is a privilege of fa scism only. metaphors. but m ay not do so when talking about the Others alleged misdeeds. 5. It depends on which opinions are formulated about whom. as ar e many disclaimers ('I have nothing against X. play on people's emotions. or in any other way obst ruct or prevent argumentative interaction. litotes. feminists as well as male chauvinists. the ideological nature of rhetoric seems implausible: the left and the right. Similarly. Does the left prefer some fallacy and the right another? Are some fallacies typical for racist talk. as far as our anal ysis goes. threaten them. The question now is whether the se and other fallacies may be ideologically variable. such as those of ar gumentation. And argumentation rules are broken if . And not only socialists will have recourse to an argument "ad populum" -. Rhetoric What about the kind of structures typically described in classical rhetoric in t erms of 'figures of style'? Are alliterations. but t hat assumes that violence --in argumentation or elsewhere-. but…')? Quite superficially one mig ht say that it is typically 'fascist' to use force to prevent an argument.58 others speak their mind. ask th e opponent to show I am wrong. But again. they probably all use all forms of rhetoric.
However. Except from a few institutional speech acts. etc. slurs . racists and anti-racists may use different metaphors. not of form. True. interruptions. accusat ion. of a question. derogation. may have more often recourse to commands or threats. What about conversational interaction? Could one say that turn taking. delegitimization. but again not with specific ideolo gies. when talking to members of dominated groups. And it is true that the le ft and the right. self-presentation. that is a question of meaning. Do these speech acts differ by speaker or social group? Hardly. euphemisms. . Thus. and so on. two of which we have exam ined above: Meaning and Form. and vice versa for our bad things and their good things. as the N azis used special metaphors (dirty animals. In a broader sense of social action (actions that are not only accomplish ed by language. They might be associ ated with power. but again. that is a matter of meaning and content. But again.) to denote its opponents and vi ctims. 5.59 What does happen among speakers of various groups. among each other.8. a rhetorical study of ideological discourse will generally follow the same principles as abo ve: It will focus on those figures of style that can be deployed to emphasize ou r good things and their bad things. and most socia l dimension: Action and interaction. We now need to introduce the third. but may be accomplished that way) there are many acts that are p art of the very definition of dominance: discrimination. never engage in commands or threats. such as hyperbolas. problematization. that presupposes that members of dominated groups . pau ses. not the choice of a figure of style rather than another. Action and interaction Discourse is roughly defined by three main components. and so on. discourses when uttered in a specific situation may accomplish the speech act of an assertion. which is clearly implau sible. promise or threat. we again need to examine the meanings they organize. though. it may be s o that members of dominant groups. To know what ideological implications such figures of style have. closing conversation. laughing. such as to marry or baptize someone.. marginalization. given the social conditions of such speech acts. as we have seen before. not of f orm. Thus. and power groups in society. virtually all speech acts can be used by all people. is the rhetorical emp hasis on our good things and their bad ones. content and cognition.
socialist.60 and so on. what they decide or how they speak or govern that is monitored by ideo logies: It is here that they may do so in a democratic. at the macro-level. progressive. and children lea rned to use them even before any ideological group affiliation. quarreling or managing a company. both loc ally at the micro-level. It is only what they say. are acts one ideological group typically engages in more t han another? In general terms.. In other words. in some contexts some (ideological) group may engage in specific acts more of ten than others. and so on. but largely as to their "content" . The same is true for macro-level actions that are largely accomplished b y discourse. such as education. chauvinist or feminist. this does not seem likely: These are interactiona l resources that happen to be available to the whole community. authoritarian. racist or antiracist way. and legislation takes place in any parliament. for instance wh en the conservative parties in the French Assemblée Nationale use many more interr uptions than the socialists. may be being carried out by social actors with any ideology. such differences need not (only) be ideologically based. discursive act s such as speaking. On the other han d. debating. for instance when they have the power to do so. but may depend on who happens to have the power. . conservat ive. legislation or governing the country. or the ma jority. neoliberal. These are of course imbued by ideology. as well as globally. among many other s. In other words. not as macro-a ctions: Both a conservative and a socialist government by definition 'govern' a country.
That is. In the description of a category sometimes other categories are mentioned. not e ach category can be illustrated with an example of course -. Apart from an alphabetically ordered set of an alytical categories that are used to illustrate the ideological based properties of discourse structures. so that you know that that category is defined elsewhere in the list. but by name of the relevant s tructural category. also because some categories belong to various levels of ana lysis. such as * The complete text of the debate can be found in the Appendix. 1997. more moderate conservatives and Labour MPs (L abour was still in the opposition then).61 Chapter 6 Examples Now we have dealt with the theoretical aspects of the relations between discours e and ideology.but for completenes s we mention it anyway.. on the one hand we find an ant i-immigrant attitude which we associate with a form of political racism. if necessary repeating some o f the theory given above. Since the examples come from one debate. as we have seen above. That is. the following may also be taken as a brief summary of some properties of political (and especially parliamentary) discourse and rhetor ic. let us have a look at some examples. ideologies usually translate into more speci fic social opinions and then to discourse within a specific social domain. after an earlier discussion about whether certain inner city boro ughs of London (such as Westminster) will have to pay for the extra costs for re ception of those refugees who are entitled to benefits. we have not ordered them by level as we did above. These will be taken from a debate in the British Parliament (House of Commons). indicate what ideological functions it may have. and f inally give one or more examples.* The debate especially deals with the issue of benefits for specific categories of a sylum seekers. Sometimes the examples are summ arized in the description of the category and (to save space) not actually quote d. . or anti-racist ideologies that control more tolerant attitudes about immigration. an d these will then be written with capitals. The debate is interestin g because it nicely shows the various political and ideological positions being taken by right-wing conservatives. held on March 5. and on the other hand various humanitarian. then we briefly summarize its definition. even without an example. To make the examples as practical as poss ible for future reference (so you can search for discourse properties by name). Of each of the categories we first classify it by one or more levels of a nalysis.
by their position or relation to other people. work. education. refugees. this is also true in our examples. and by L for a Labour speaker. ingroup-outgroup polariz ation will typically reverse that role for ingroup members when conservative spe akers describe "our own" people as victims (see VICTIMIZATION). In our examples then racist and anti-racist ideologies especially are articulated in the crucia l political domain -. actors may be described as members of groups or as individuals. Ind eed. as we shall see in many of her and other conservative interventions. rhetorical and argumentative functio ns in the expression of opinions and standpoints about the (il)legitimacy of imm igration. immigration officials and more generally of prejudice and discrim ination at home. research or the law.62 politics. by first or family name. That is. media. Gorman (Conservatives) who took the initiative of the debate. and minorities. and whose populist speech pitches the poor British "rate-payer" (tax -payer) against foreign refugees whom she largely defines in negative terms. Descriptions of Othe rs may be blatantly racist. descrip tions are never neutral. and specifically the "Loony Left"). In antiracist discourse. and so on. and by extension those w ho defend them (like Labour.crucial because it is here where it is decided who will be able to (legally) enter the country or not. but have semantic. by their actions or (alleged) attributes. business. role or group name. Many of the quotes come f rom the lengthy speech of Ms. as spe cific or unspecific. Besides this characterization of THEM. Categories of ideological analysis (alphabetical) ACTOR DESCRIPTION (MEANING). and asylum seek ers will primarily be described as victims of oppressive regimes abroad or of po lice officers. the opposite will be true. we cite a ty pical one in which negative other-presentation and positive self-presentation ar e combined so as to emphasize the contrast: . Thus. Since this debate is on asylum seekers. where WE are the (white. All discourse on people and action involves various types of actor description.. or they may more subtly convey negative opinions abo ut refugees. The examples are followed by C for a Conservative speaker. Of the large number of actor descriptions in this debate. the ov erall discursive strategy based on racist ideology is that of positive selfprese ntation and negative other-presentation. The overall ideological strategy is that of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. function. original) Brit ish. and THEM are immigrants.
and adds: "He is a great author ity on the matter". by iro nically asking whether she has not read the reports of Amnesty and Helsinki Watc h. International organizations (such as the United Nations. anti-immigrant ideologies may be expressed in discourse by emphasizing that the Others are a (financial) b urden for us: † These examples can be found in the text of the debate in the examples by searchi ng for the number of the example between parentheses. which also shows that Authority often is related to the semantic move of Evidentiality. who claims that Eastern European countries are democratic now and hence safe. as self-evident and as sufficient reasons to accept the conclusion.. which focuses on benefits for asylum seekers. it is especially prog ressive discourse on minorities and immigration that often has recourse to the s upport of morally superior authorities. also Ms. Gorman. Argumentation against im migration is often based on various standard arguments. the main topos is that of a financial burden: We can't afford to pay the benefits or othe r costs of immigration and reception. scholars. And Mr Corbyn (L) attacks Ms. Why should someone who is elderly and who i s scraping along on their basic income have to support people in those circumsta nces? (Gorman. and on local councils that may have to pay for such benefits. AUTHORITY (ARGUMENTATION). Many speakers in an argument. and hence with Objectiv ity and Reliability in argumentation. . who came over here on a coach tour for a foo tball match--if the hon. Thus. Similarly. or Amnesty). Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) would list en she would hear practical examples--decided that he did not want to go back. In other words. In this debate. usually organizations or people who are above the fray of party po litics. or who are generally recognized experts or moral leaders. the church or the courts often have that role. a man from Romania. she refers to the Daily Mail. He has neve r done a stroke of work in his life. C).63 (1)† In one case. which represen t premises that are taken for granted. he refers to the "Churches of Europe" who have drawn attention to the exploitation of asylum seekers. the media. have recourse to the fallacy of mentioning authorities to suppor t their case. And for a concrete example of a woman who has stayed illegal ly in the country. or topoi. also in parliament. d eclared himself an asylum seeker and is still here four years later. Precisely because the overall strategy of La bour is to attack conservative immigration in moral terms. BURDEN (TOPOS). Gorman thanks a colle ague (a "honourable friend") for supporting her.
if those people are here for long enough under such terms. etc. nor out of ill will. they can be attribu ted positive or negative characteristics (see below).64 (2) (. a categorization formulated in the following ways: (7) There are.. especially when Others ( immigrants. (4) The problem of supporting them has lan ded largely on the inner London boroughs. and "bogus" asylum seekers. as the following examples show. CATEGORIZATION (MEANING). It is not surprising. Most typical in this debat e is the (sub)categorization of asylum seekers into "genuine" political refugees . they will have to be provided with clothing. (3) It is wrong that ratepayers in th e London area should bear an undue proportion of the burden of expenditure that those people are causing (Gorman. but also a social one. or because of other prejudices.. and so do speakers in parliament. because it implies that we do not refuse immigrants for what they are (their color. shoe leather and who knows what else (Gorman. The burden-topos not only has a financial element. with young children who must be supported (Gorman.) are involved.. Once groups have thus be distinguished and categorized (with lexically variable terms. that it is widely us ed in EU political discourse that opposes immigration. but only because we can't. As we also know from social psychology.) an all-party document that pointed out that it was costing about £200 mi llion a year for those people (Gorman. and not only on the right . C). C). C) (6) Presumabl y. C). of course. culture or origin). people tend to categorize people. where most of those people migrate as there is more to do in central London (Gorman. see below). . asylum seekers and asylum seekers (Gorman. C) Note that the burden-topos is one of the "safest" anti-immigration moves in discours e. therefore.0 00 families. refugees. alt hough even then the implication is often financial: (5) There are also about 2. C).
C) COMPARISON (MEANING.65 (8) I entirely support the policy of the Government to help genuine asylum seeke rs (Gorman. (9) . th e refusal to accept refugees will be compared to the refusal to help the Jews du ring the Second World War. or anti-immigration policies) with similar situations in the past. The issue is not simple. those of refugees have been incomparably wor se. na mely when speakers compare ingroups and outgroups. as in the typical everyday argument: "If we go abroad we learn another language" in an argument or story in which "foreigners" are accused of not want ing to learn "our" language.g. That is no different from th e position of people who have been tortured in Iran.. as to their hospitality for asylum seekers) with other countries. those people. L). when the speaker claims that. such comparis ons typically imply the negative score of the outgroup on the criteria of the co mparison... has caused great concern (Burns. In racist talk. to remain in Britain (Gorman. Different from rhetorical similes. compa red to "our own" daily experiences. not because of persecution but because of the economic situation in this country and the benefits it affords them. many of whom could reasonably be called ec onomic migrants and some of whom are just benefit seekers on holiday. CONSENSUS (POLITICAL STRATEGY). (Corbyn. compa risons as intended here typically occur in talk about refugees or minorities. C) (10) The Government's reasoning was the same then as it i s now: they still talk about economic migrants and benefit scroungers (Gerrard. One o f the political strategies that are often used in debates on issues of "national importance" --and .. In anti-racist talk about refugees such comparisons may favor the outgroup or their case. Typically. Similarly in anti-racist discourse. They feel a sense of failure. C). e. Iraq. west Africa or anywhe re else. L). (11) But the escalating number of economic and bogus asylum seekers who have come here. ARGUMENTATION).g. Here is another example of a comparison that explains why not all asylum seekers can talk about their experiences upon arrival in the UK: (12) Many soldiers who were tortured during the second world war found it d ifficult to talk about their experiences for years. a sense of humil iation and a sense of defeat. "our" own country may be compared negati vely (e. An other well-known comparative move is to compare current immigrations (refugees..
or precisely the compellingness of a story about refugees and their ex periences when WE would be in the same position. This is a very typical po litical-ideological move in arguments that try to win over the opposition. the British Government would say that it was a terrible indictment on the human rights record of that regime that prisoners w ere . As a warning or advice. L). and decisions and legislation should ideally b e non-partisan. This means that racist ideologies often combine with nationalist ones.. C).. cohesion and so lidarity (WE English) against Them. is the standard formula that def ines counterfactuals.66 immigration is often defined as such--is the display. In argumentation they play an important role. "What would happen.". ARGUMENTATION). with cross-party backi ng. In th is case it is a means to persuade the (Labour) opposition that earlier immigrati on policies or regulations were developed together. Suppose he had to flee this country beca use an oppressive regime had taken over. th e country should "hold together". counterfactuals typically occur on the left. so that present opposition t o new legislation is unwarranted and a breach of earlier consensus politics. for instance about illegal immigration: (13) The Government. In other words. ingroup unification. Facing the "threat" of immigration. po litical divisions among US. if. They are clear examples of what me might call a humanitarian ideology: (14) I suggest that he start to think mo re seriously about human rights issues. (15) If that happened in another country under a regime of which we disapproved. in wh ich the unity and the interests of the nation are placed before any internal. counter factuals are relevant in political debate in parliament to show what would happe n if we would NOT take any measures or formulate policies or a law. Where would he go? Presumably he would not want help from anyone else. or bipartisan as in the UK or the USA. because he does not believe that help should be given to anyone else (Corbyn. for instance by eliciting emp athy when people are put in the place of others. because they allow people to demonstrate absurd consequences when an alternative is being co nsidered. and support the viewpoint of Lab our to soften immigration law. In our debat e.. Here are a few more extensive examples that clear ly show the argumentative role of counterfactuals. thus. COUNTERFACTUALS (MEANI NG. claim or wish of "consensu s". decided to do something about the matter (Gorman.
Concessions.that only a tiny proportion of people who claim asylum are genuine refugees. thu s. (Gorman. but the fact is that only a tiny proportion of applicant s are detained (Wardle. L). One of the ways US-THEM polarization may be expressed in talk is by words that imply distance between ingroup speakers refer to outgroup speakers. we cannot de fend a policy that leaves genuine refugees destitute (Gerrard. on Their negative attributes. Rather. This famili ar sociocognitive device may for instance be expressed by the use of demonstrati ve pronouns instead of naming or describing the Others. . Conservatives will often refer to refugees as "those people". However.67 forced to undertake a hunger strike to draw attention to their situation (Corbyn . . in which both positive and negative aspects of immigrati on are mentioned. disclaimers briefly sa ve face by mentioning Our positive characteristics. etc. Also in this debate. as in Apparent Denials.. Note that disclaimers in these debates are not usually an expression of attitudinal ambiguity. C). [Apparent Concession]. but then focus rather exclus ively. C). Hence our qualification of the positive par t of the disclaimer as 'Apparent'. C) [Apparent Denial] (20) Protesters may genuinely be concerned about refugees in detention. or in which humanitarian values are endorsed on the one hand. [Apparent Empathy] (18) The Government are keen to help genuine as ylum seekers.: (17) I understand that many people want to come to Britain to work. but do not want them to be sucked into the racket of evading our i mmigration laws (Gorman. are the many types of disc laimers. Empathy. (16) Even if we accepted the Government's view--which I do not-. [Apparent Benevolence] (19) I did not say that ever y eastern European's application for asylum in this country was bogus. DISTANCING (MEANING. DISCLAIMERS ( MEANING). but the "burden" of refugees is beyond our means.. L). C). but t here is a procedure whereby people can legitimately become part of our community (Gorman. A well-known combination of the ideologically based strategy of positi ve self-presentation and negative other-presentation. LEXICON) .
we will typically encounter accusations of lacking empathy of the Government with respect to refugees.g. empathy appears to be mor e genuine. represented as victims (see VICTIMIZATI ON). managing on their state pension and perhaps a lso a little pension from their work. EUPHEMISM (RHETORIC. They pay their full rent and for all their own expenses (Gorman. taken into custody with no rights of access to a j udicial system. the second example at the same time illustrating a form of ingroup-outgroup COMPARISON: (21) Many of those people live in old-style housing association Peabody flats. th us. Both ingroup and outgroup empathy may be in a generalized form. Positions in immigration debates. Gorman claims to feel "great worry" about Labour's aim to change the current law. the expression of empathy my be largely strategic and serve espec ially to manage the speaker's impression with the audience (e. no hon. the apparent nature of the empathy is supported by the fact that the part of the discourse that fol lows "but" does not show much empathy at all. dramatization is a familiar way to exaggerate the facts in one's favor.. Together with hyperbolas. C). Thus. The well-known rhetorical figure of euphemism. we give an example of both forms of empathizing. In anti-racist and proimmigration points of view. a semantic move of mitigation."). especially since the experiences of political refugees may be demonst rably horrendous. tend to represent the arrival of a few thousand refugees as a national catas trophe of which we are the victims (see VICTIMIZATI0N). They are on modest incomes. or in the form of an EXAMPLE. MPs will variously show sympathy or empathy wit h the plight of refugees or the ingroup (the poor taxpayer). but. with his or her family. It is not an experience that most British people have had." EMPATHY (MEANING). In that case. Empathy in that c ase will be accorded to ingroup members. "I understand t hat refugees have had many problems. and we s hould think very carefully about what a major step it would be to undertake such a journey (Corbyn.68 DRAMATIZATION (RHETORIC). L). forced to flee into exile for their own safety.. and. on the contrary.. and finds su ch an aim "extremely irresponsible. In disclaimers (see DISCLAIMERS). Ag ain. MEANING). Ms. In the same discourse. Depending on their polit ical or ideological perspective. Member has been wo ken up by the police at 4 am. (22) So far as I am aware. Within the broader framework of the strat- . Many of them are elderly. plays an important role in talk about immigrants.
the Labour (Corbyn) opposition f inds the condemnation of oppressive regimes by the Government "very muted" inste ad of using more critical terms. of course such evidence must be s upplied by the victims themselves. or by variou s forms of Evidentiality: How or where did they get the information. Similarly Ms. especially in foreign talk. of how they had been treated by the regime in Iran (Co rbyn. often in the form of a . and thus mitigates the actions of the c onservative government she supports. heard it from reliable spokespersons.. (25) The people who I met to ld me. such mitigation of the use of euphem isms may be explained both in ideological terms (ingroup protection). EVIDENTIALITY (MEANING. evide ntiality is linked to INTERTEXTUALITY. Gorman in this debate uses the word "discourage" ("to discour age the growing number of people from abroad. she has cost the British taxpayer £40. of course. racism or discrimination will typically be mitigated as "res entment" (in our debate used by Nicholson.") in order to refer to the harsh immigration policies of the government. Especially in debates on immigration. She was arrested. Here are a few examples: (23) According t o the magistrates court yesterday. or have seen something with their own eyes. e..69 egy of positive self-presentation. negative opinions about immigrants are often mi tigated. The same is true for the negative acts of t he own group. Obviously. the avoidance o f negative impression formation. (24) This morning. EXAMPLE/ILLUSTRATION (ARGUMENTATION). I was reading a letter from a constituent of mine (. as part of politeness conditions or other interactio nal rules that are typical for parliamentary debates. chapter and verse. Thus people may have read something in the paper... Claims or points of view in argument are more plausible when speak ers present some evidence or proof for their knowledge or opinions. reliability and hence credibility. Thus. i n which negative beliefs about immigrants may be heard as biased.g. C). When sources are actually being quoted.) (Gorman). for stealing (Gorman). as well as in contextual terms. A powerful move in argumentation is to give concrete examples. or "unequal treatment".000. AR GUMENTATION). Similarly.. This may hap pen by references to AUTHORITY figures or institutions (see above). respectiv ely. and especially its correlate. In stories that are intended to provoke empathy. evidentials ar e an important move to convey objectivity. L).
- 70 vignette or short story, illustrating or making more plausible a general point d efended by the speaker. More than general 'truths' concrete examples have not on ly the power to be easily imaginable (as episodic event models) and better memor able, but also to suggest impelling forms of empirical proof (see also EVIDENTIA LITY). Rhetorically speaking, concrete examples also make speeches more 'lively' , and when they are based on the direct experiences (stories of constituents) of MPs, they finally also imply the democratic values of a speaker who takes his o r her role as representative of the people seriously. As such, then, they may al so be part of populist strategies. In anti-racist discourse, examples of the ter rible experiences of refugees may play such a powerful role, whereas the opposit e is true in conservative discourse, where concrete examples precisely contribut e to negative other-presentation. Note also, that the concrete example often als o implies that the case being told about is typical, and hence may be generalize d. In sum, giving examples has many cognitive, semantic, argumentative and polit ical functions in debates on asylum seekers. Here are two fragments that illustr ate both the conservative and Labour type of storytelling, respectively: (26) Th e Daily Mail today reports the case of a woman from Russia who has managed to st ay in Britain for five years. According to the magistrates court yesterday, she has cost the British taxpayer £40,000. She was arrested, of course, for stealing ( Gorman, C). (27) The people who I met told me, chapter and verse, of how they ha d been treated by the regime in Iran--of how they had been summarily imprisoned, with no access to the courts; of how their families had been beaten up and abus ed while in prison; and of how the regime murdered one man's fiancee in front of him because he would not talk about the secret activities that he was supposed to be involved in (Corbyn, L). EXPLANATION (MEANING, ARGUMENTATION). Characteris tic of anti-racist discourse is the (empathetic) explanation of possibly illegal acts of asylum seekers or other immigrants. Social psychology uses the notion " Ultimate Attribution Error," according to which negative acts of ingroup members tend to be explained (away), whereas the negative acts of outgroup members tend to be explained in terms of inherent properties of such actors (e.g., because t hey are unreliable or criminal) . The inverse is true in anti-racist talk, which focuses on the terrible circumstances of their flight which leave asylum seeker s often no choice but to break the rules or the law, as is the case in the follo wing example:
- 71 (28) If one has grown up in Iraq and has always been completely terrified of any one wearing any type of uniform, it is fairly unlikely that-after managing to st eal oneself out of Iraq, possibly using false documentation, aliases, guides and other measures--one will trust a person wearing a uniform whom one encounters w hen first arriving at the airport. It is more likely that one would first get ou t of the airport and then think about the next step (Corbyn, L). FALLACIES (ARGU MENTATION). Parliamentary debates, just like any other dispute about contested p oints of view and opinions, are riddled with normative breaches of 'proper' argu mentation, that is, with fallacies. These may pertain to any element of the argu mentative event, namely to the nature of the premises, the relations among the p remises and the conclusion, the relations between speaker and recipients, and so on. There are numerous fallacies, which cannot all be specified here. Thus, as we see have seen above, claiming the support for one's standpoint by referring t o an AUTHORITY (incorrectly) implies that one's point is true because someone el se says so. Similarly, the relations between premises and a conclusion may be fa ulty as in a non-sequitur, as in the following example where the availability of work in the cities seems to be a sufficient condition for refugees to work ille gally: (29) I am sure that many of them are working illegally, and of course wor k is readily available in big cities (Gorman). Another fallacy quite typical in these debates is that of extreme case formulation. An action or policy is deemed to be condemned but only because it is formulated in starkly exaggerated terms. Here is a typical example, which has become so conventional, that it is virtual ly a standard-argument or TOPOS (We can't take them all in): (30) We must also f ace the fact that, even in the case of brutal dictatorships such as Iraq, we can not take in all those who suffer (Shaw, C). GENERALIZATION (MEANING, ARGUMENTATI ON). Most debates involve forms of particularization, for instance by giving EXA MPLES, and Generalization, in which concrete events or actions are generalized a nd possibly abstracted from, thus making the claim broader, while more generally applicable. This is also the way discourse may signal the cognitive relation be tween a more concrete example as represented in a mental model, and more general opinions such as those of social attitudes or ideologies.The problem of example s, even when persuasive and compel-
- 72 ling stories, is that they are open to the charge of exceptionality. It is there fore crucial that it be shown that the given examples are not exceptional at all , but typical or representative, so that they may be generalized. This may happe n with standard expressions, such as quantifiers for nouns ("most", "all"), or e xpressions of time and frequency ("always", "constantly") or place ("everywhere" ). These properties of the dynamics of singularity and generalization are also t ypical of immigration debates, since it is politically crucial that negative exa mples as reported by the press, constituents or the police may be shown to be ty pical and of a general nature, so that effective policies can be developed. The same is true for the opposite case, in which negative experiences of asylum seek ers in their own countries or in their new countries can be generalized, so as t o support the argument for empathy and policies to help them. Note also that (ov er)generalization of negative acts or events are the basis of stereotyping and p rejudice. Of course, the opposite may also be true as part of positive self-pres entation: Current acts or policies that are found beneficial are generalized, ty pically in nationalist rhetoric, as something 'we' always do. Here are a few exa mples: (31) Such things go on and they get up the noses of all constituents (Gor man, C). (32) In the United Kingdom there has been a systemic erosion of peoples ' ability to seek asylum and to have their cases properly determined (Corbyn, L) . (33) If someone has a legitimate fear of persecution, they flee abroad and try to seek asylum (Corbyn, L). (34) I heard about many other similar cases (Corbyn , L). (35) First, it matters crucially that this country honours, as it always h as, its obligations under the Geneva convention (Wardle, C). HISTORY AS LESSON ( TOPOS). As we have found also for COMPARISON, it is often useful in an argument to show that the present situation can be relevantly compared to earlier (positi ve or negative) events in history. Such comparisons may be generalized to the mo re general topos of the "Lessons of history", whose argumentative compellingness are taken for granted, as were it a law of history:
Whereas the overall strategy on the right is to limit immigration and benefits for refugees. Gorman's use of "opening the floodgates" in order to refer to the arrival of many asylum see kers. and so on. and in particular to derogate (bogus) asylum seekers. and vice versa. their interpretation may depend on political point of view: What is exaggerated . Secondly. praising people who stood up for human rights. HUMANITARIANISM (TOPOS. Similarly. showing understanding for an d listening to the stories of refugees. L). show emp athy for the plight of refugees. recognizable strategy. MACROSTRATEGY). There are many ways humanitarianism is manifested in parliamentary debates. and laws that deal with human rights. explicitly antiracist opinions. recip ients are explicitly recommended to pay more attention to human rights. in terms of what 'we' should or should not do. and the condition s of refugees coming from those countries "appalling". Labour speakers will of course emphasize the bad nature of authoritarian reg imes.. and the formulation of general norms and values for a humane tr eatment of refugees.73 (36) History shows that unless we stand up for human rights wherever they are ab used around the world. Corbyn. Sometimes such forms of hyperbol e are implied by the use of special METAPHORS. critique of those who violate or disreg ard such rights. reference to authorities. within the Hou se he also deems a racist question of a conservative MP "totally ludicrous". Within th e overall strategy of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation . And conversely. as with many moves studied here. that is. Not e though that. As is the case for DRAMATIZATION. we may also categorize this argument as a topos (in the same way as "law and order" would be one for the right). HYPERBOLE (RHETORIC). to emphasize that asylum requests take a long time to handle by the courts. denouncing human rights abuses. we may thus expect in parliamentary debates about immigrants that the alleged bad actions or properties of the Others are expressed in hyperbolic terms (our b ad actions in mitigated terms). the defense of human rights. Similarly. as we observe in Ms. eventually it will come back and our human rights will be abused (Corbyn. hype rboles are semantic rhetorical devices for the enhancement of meaning. condemn policies that infringe the rights of re fugees. will call them "deeply oppressive". agreements. the overall strategy of the left could be summarized in terms of its overall underlying ideology: humanitarianis m. international bodies. on the le ft. and like Mr. One basic way is to formulate NORMS. making appeals to our moral responsibility. Since in argumentation of various kinds this may be a conve ntional. she will call such a procedure "endless".
and of course work is readily available in big cities (Gorman. Apart from this general cognitive-pragmatic rule of implicit ness (Do not express information the recipients already have or may easily infer ). C). may be the simple and objective truth. such as those monitored by politeness. large part of discourse remains implicit. which implies th at these need no help from us. and i n particular of criminalization. so that it is fully understood and tackled (Wardle. Indeed.74 for one group. and such implicit in formation may be inferred by recipients from shared knowledge or attitudes and t hus constructed as part of their mental models of the event or action represente d in the discourse. C). Or conversely. and the "correct" way of r eferring to an issue. Gorman says that many refugees come from countries in Eastern Europe wh o have recently been "liberated". there are other. when Ms. facekeeping or cultural norms or propriety. For many conservative speakers. for another group. For many 'pragma tic' (contextual) reasons. most refugees are or remain in the country as "illegals".. In debates about immigration. implicitness may especially be used as a means to convey meanings whose explicit expression could be interpreted as biased or racist. Such criminalization is the standard way minori ties are being characterized in racist or ethnic prejudices: (37) I am sure that many of them are working illegally. Negative details about ingroup actions thus tend to remain implicit. or otherwis e break the law or do not follow procedures. IMPLICATION (MEANING). information may be left implicit precisely bec ause it may be inconsistent with the overall strategy of positive self-presentat ion. Thus. interactional. And the same is true when she describes these refugees as "able-bodied males". speakers do not (need) to say everything they know or believe. (38) It is equally important that abuse of the asylum ru les by the large number of people who make asylum applications knowing that thei r position as illegal immigrants has no bearing on the Geneva convention should be debated openly. ILLEGALITY (ARGUMENTATION). she is implying that people from such countrie s cannot be genuine asylum seekers because democratic countries do not oppress t heir citizens (a point later attacked by the Labour opposition). socio-political and cultural conditions on im plicitness. This also means that such law and o rder arguments may be part of the strategy of negative other-presentation. .
that is as inherent part of a context consisting of overall politica l action categories (legislation). e.75 (39) . INTERACTION AND CONTEX T. participants in m any different roles (speaker. goals.). in the same way as many social practices may b e controlled by ideologies.. thus an 'attack' or an 'accusation' in parliament us ually is directed against the political and hence the ideological opponent.. style. In o ther words. MPs. setting (session of parliament). C). prejudices. various form s of interaction (discussing a bill.. it is obvious that the debate is also a form of interaction between MPs. member of a government or opposition party. beliefs. argumentation a nd rhetoric. biases. aims. Large part of the properties of this debate therefore can only be described and explained in an interactional framework. yields the following (alp habetical) list of interactional elements and context features -. at the levels of meaning... etc.because there are many attempts at illegal immigration using asylum tec hniques. many of the following actions not only characterize political intera ction in a parliamentary debate. and apply especially to the way asylum seekers are being talked ABO UT. representatives of their district s. An analysis of all acts and interactions in this debate.g.and many of th ese acts are ideologically based. as well as their cogn itive properties (knowledge. but also what may be called 'ideological' inter action: -Accusing other MPs -Addressing the whole House -Agreement and disagreem ent with MP -Answering a question -Asking a (rhetorical) question -Attacking (me mber) of other party -Calling other MP to attention -Challenging other MPs -Coll ective self-incitement ("Let us…") -Congratulating other MP -Criticizing the Gover nment -Defending oneself against attack of other MP -Denying a turn. or between MPs and representatives of the government. and so on). opposing the government). refusing to yield the floor -Disqualifying a contribution of other MP -Formulating goals of legislation -Formulating the aims of a speech -Interrupting a speaker . Whereas most other categories of analysis discussed here deal with structural properties of discourse. recipients. fraudulent documents or other methods (Shaw.
when speaking about immigrants.which is of course a standard argument (and hence a topos) within a legislative body like parliament : (41) (…) there is a procedure whereby people can legitimately become part of our community (Gorman. irony may also serve to derogate asylum seekers. but in appa rently lighter forms of irony.. implying that such a "sudden discov ery" can only be bogus. -Reference to one's own role as representative of district -Reference to parliamentary procedure -Reference to present time and place -Reference to p revious debates -Referring to (un)desirable consequences of current policies -Re mind MPs of something -Requesting a turn -Self-obligation of MPs -Suggesting MPs to do something -Supporting own party member -Supporting the Government -Thanki ng other MP IRONY (RHETORIC). and then s uddenly discover that they want to remain as asylum seekers (Shaw. C).76 -Praising a member of own party -Recommendation to Government -Recommending a po licy. Accusations may come across as more effective when they are not made point blank (which may violate face constraints). as is the case for the phrase " suddenly discover" in the following example. and these characterize the proper interactional dimension of the debate. of course. tourists. C). Part of the arguments that support a standpoint that opposes im migration. There is much irony in the mutual critique and at tacks of Conservatives and Labour. LEGALITY (ARGUMENTATION). is to have recourse to the law or regulations -. etc. (42) The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 stated that peo ple whose application to remain in Britain had been turned down could no longer . since the asylum seekers allegedly knew all along that t hey came to the country to stay: (40) Too many asylum seekers enter the country initially as family visitors. students and business people. However.
role. Thus. On the ot her hand. C). also in this debate. thus. so they will speak rather of "destitution" than of "poverty".. new or emotional meanings may thus be made more familiar a nd more concrete. Note also. Thus. LEXICALIZATION (STYLE). such as "poor people in the UK scraping along on their basic income". unfamiliar. Sim ilar meanings may thus be variably expressed in different words. or "benefit scroungers". precisely to emphasize or mark expressions. Ms. thus implementing at the level of lexicalization the overall ideological strategy of negative other-presentation. goals. Virtually a standard metaphor (if not a topos) is the use of f lood-metaphors to refer to refugees and their arrival. such as "oppression". Gorman warns for . debates on asylum seeker s need to express underlying concepts and beliefs in specific lexical items. in which we would all "drown". complex. that context (parliamentary session) requires MPs to be relatively formal. as is also the case for the military metaphor of the "invasion" used to refer to dangerous "aliens". that is. On the other hand. symbolizing the unstoppab le threat of immigration. point of view or opinion of the speaker. "abuse" or "injustice". C). or to use "rubbish" to defy an inval id argument or statement of fact. this will typically result in more or less blatantly negative exp ressions denoting refugees and their actions. At the local level of analysis. for instan ce to use "not to have a penny to live on". Even more than numbers. METAPHOR (RHETORIC). "modest income ". flood metaphors symbolize dangerous if not lethal quantities.77 receive the social security and housing benefit that they had previously enjoyed (Gorman. as a function of context features. also in debates on immigration. depending on th e position. Depending on the political or ideological perspective. Abstract. "crush". Few semantic-rhetorical f igures are as persuasive as metaphors. In conservative discourse opposing liberal immigra tion policies. we may typically find such as expressions as "economi c immigrants". (43) In order to try to subvert the legislation. both ingroup and outgrou p members may be empathetically (see EMPATHY) described in emotional terms. popular expressions. "torture". lexicalization in supp ort of refugees may focus on the negative presentation of totalitarian regimes a nd their acts. the stylistic coherence of formality may be broken by the use of informal. "bogus asylum seekers". a case was recent ly brought before our courts and to the High Court which sought to overturn the provisions that the Government intended (Gorman. as we also know them from the tabloid press in the UK.
Most of these metaphors are negative. the following standard example -. This is especially the case when metaphors bec ome explicit forms of derogation. and has given sanctuary to people w ith a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they are fleein g and whose first safe country landing is in the United Kingdom (Wardle. for instance in lexical and semantic t erms. associated with dangerous or otherwis e threatening or dirty animals. the categorization of people in ingroups and outgroups. is not value-free. they may be accused of fraud. Especially in parliamentary speec hes on immigration. that is. Racist ideologies may thus be combined with nationalist ideologies. such self-glorification is less explicit. It is unabashed in the USA. namely as "benefit s eekers" and "bogus". e.probably even a topos: (44) Britai n has always honoured the Geneva convention. In the Netherlands and the UK. its principles. they are defined as the r eal Outgroup. when asylum seekers are called "parasite s" (Gorman) of the social system. And once the refugees are here. Whereas 'real' political refu gees are described in neutral terms in conservative discourse. and not uncommon in Germ any. NATIONAL SELF-GLORIFICATION (MEANING).. as was also the case in Nazi-propaganda about th e Jews. and thus fall under the overall strate gy of negative other-description.g. "economic" refugees are extensively ch aracterized by the Conservatives in starkly negative terms. This kind of nationalist rhetoric is not the same in all countries. C). At many levels of analysis. Se e.. as we have seen above. of "milk ing the taxpayers". history and traditions. however. which has been found in much earlier work on th e discourse about minorities and immigrants. and in positive o r empathic terms in Labour interventions. positive self-presentation may routinely be implemented by v arious forms of national self-glorification: Positive references to or praise fo r the own country. Gorman. NEG ATIVE OTHER-PRESENTATION (SEMANTIC MACROSTRATEGY). and of being "addicted" to the social services (Ms. their representation is influenced by the overall strategy of derogation o r "negative other-presentation". quite common in France (especially on the right). Since the latter group is defined as a financial burden (se e BURDEN) or even as a threat to the country or to Us. . and even the div ision between 'good' and 'bad' outgroups. C). but imbued with ide ologically based applications of norms and values.78 changes in the present law by saying that such changes would "open the floodgate s again". As the previous examples have shown.
in the UK. Especially in discourse about immigration. Anti-racist discourse is of course strongly normative. the frequent use of numbers is well-known. The very first attribute applied to immigrants coming to the country is in terms of their numbe rs. L). Much argument is oriented to enhancing credibility by moves that emphasize objectivity. L). L). we may expect a lot of figures about the costs of benefits. with many numbers (see also financial BURDEN).1 percent of the population. (48) It is wrong to force them into destitution or to t hrow them out of the country. NUMBER GAME (RHETORIC. L). (46) We should think a bit more seriously about how we treat those people (Corbyn. A RGUMENTATION). prejudice and anti-immigration policies in sometimes explicit norm-statements about what 'we' (in parliament. discrimination. and decr ies racism. (49) Europe must stop its xenophobic attitude towards those who seek a place of safety here and adopt a more humane approach. These are usually given in absolute terms. Ms Gorman's main point in this deba te is to show. Similarly. as in this debate. OPENESS. etc. also in the m ass media. when arguing again st immigration and the reception of refugees. HONESTY (ARGUMENTATION). C).. and when speaking of X thousand a sylum seekers who are arriving.) should or should not do: (45) We should have a different attitude towards asylum seekers (Corbyn. that local council s can't pay for so many refugees: (50) It would open the floodgates again. a speaker makes a stronger impact than when talk ing about less than 0. (47) Attitudes towards asylum seekers need to be changed (Corbyn. therefore. often with no access to lawyers or anyone else (Co rbyn. and p resumably the £200 million a year cost that was estimated when the legislation was introduced (Gorman. in Europe. Numbers and statistics are the primary means in our cultu re to persuasively display objectivity.79 NORM EXPRESSION. Nearly a topos becaus e of its increasingly conventional nature in current immigration debates is the argumentative claim (or norm) that "we should talk openly (honestly) . They represent the "facts" against mere opinion and impression.
E xamples in our debate abound. and enemies on the other. they have made careful provision for themselves in their old age. Such people . that is. Thus. Thi s suggests that especially also talk and text about immigrants or refugees is st rongly monitored by underlying social representations (attitudes. have a small additional pension as w ell as their old-age pension and pay all their rent and their bills and ask for nothing from the state. Few semantic strategies in debates about Others are as prevalent as the expression of polarized cognitions. namely to avoid making a n egative impression on the recipients. Note that polarization ma y be rhetorically enhanced when expressed as a clear contrast. while at the same time indulging in negative o ther-presentation or even blatant derogation. is characteristic of contemporary co nservative positions and discourses about minorities. C). or rather evasion or mitigation may be seen as the normatively base rate. ideologies) of groups. C).. Here is a typical example: (51) It is equally important that abuse of the asylum rules by the large number of people who make asylum applications knowing that their position as illegal immigrants has no bearing on the Geneva conventio n should be debated openly. (Wardle. as is the case for friends and allies on the one hand. Polarization may also a pply to 'good' and 'bad' sub-categories of outgroups. rather than by models of unique events and individual people (unless th ese are used as illustrations to argue a general point).80 about these things". speakers suggest that their argument satisfies the positiv e values of honesty and openness. Breaking these norms has increasingly been advocated during the last years as a "refreshing" view on the "cramped" debate on immigration. (53) It is true that. but we shall only give two typical examples: (52) Now they are going to be asked to pay £35 to able-bodied males who have come over here on a prolonged holiday and now claim that the British taxpayer should suppo rt them (Gorman. US-THEM CATEGORIZATION (MEANING). by attri buting properties of US and THEM that are semantically each other's opposites. POLARIZATION. This reversal of the anti-racist n orm in increasingly more intolerant values. in many cases. so that it is fully understood and tackled. race relations and immigra tion. They are proud and happy to do so. and the categorical division of people in ingroup (US) and outgroup (THEM). This move presupposes that dishonesty.
One of the dominant overall strategies of conservative talk on immigrat ion is that of populism.. group-talk is often characterized by another o verall strategy... the populism-strategy is combined with the topos of financial burden: Ordinar y people (taxpayers) have to pay for refugees. L). More specifically in this debat e. suppor t of human rights. or a more collective form in which the speaker emphasizes the positive characteristi cs of the own group. . C). In the context o f debates on immigration. POPULISM (POLITICAL ST RATEGY). C). hospitality. This may take a more individual form of face-keeping or impression managemen t. Some examples: (54) I entirely support the policy of the Government to help genuine asylum seekers. There are several variants and component moves of that strategy. or the own country.(Gorman. lack of bias. Posit ive self-presentation is essentially ideological. but. EMPATHY."). such as the own party. Of the many instances of this str ategy. or compliance with the law or international agreements.... such positive self-presentation will often manifest it self as an emphasis of own tolerance. but. b ut.. C). namely that of ingroup favoritism or "positive self-presentatio n". w hich is also a well-known argumentation fallacy. we only cite the following: (57) It is wrong that ratepayers in the Londo n area should bear an undue proportion of the burden of expenditure that those p eople are causing (Gorman. C) (56) A lot of brave people in this country have stood u p for the rights and needs of asylum seekers (Corbyn. The basic strategy is to claim (for instance against the Labour opposi tion) that "the people" (or "everybody") does not support further immigration. as we know them from familiar disclaimers ("I am not a racist. Whether or not in combination with the derogation of outgroups. (55) I understand that many people want to come to Britain to work. (Gorman. because they are based on the positive self-schema that defines the ideology of a group. POS ITIVE SELF-PRESENTATION (SEMANTIC MACROSTRATEGY).81 should not be exploited by people who are exploiting the system (Gorman.
(Wardle. so that it is fully understood and t ackled.which is also a form of impression management. in the first example. but in this kind of debates more often than not it is strategically used to convey controve rsial beliefs about immigrants. which is a great deal of money to be found from the coun cil tax budget (Gorman. In this indirect way. (59) Why should someone who is elderly and who is sc raping along on their basic income have to support people in those circumstances ? (Gorman. C). speakers may feign not to have specific knowledge.82 (58) £140 million a year. propositions may be conveyed whos e truth value is taken for granted and unchallenged... C). such as "I don't know. Gentleman will tell the House what mandate he has from the British people to sha re their citizenship with foreigners? (Gill. in the following cas e expressed in the form of a rhetorical question following an ironical accusatio n: . Such forms of apparent knowledge typically appear in disclaimers." which despite th e professed ignorance claims the butclause to be true -. the speaker presuppo ses that the recipient (Mr. but implicitly suggest nevertheless that they do know. which by definition is true whether or not the current propo sition is true or false. but. (61) It is equally important th at abuse of the asylum rules by the large number of people who make asylum appli cations knowing that their position as illegal immigrants has no bearing on the Geneva convention should be debated openly. these forms of pseudo-ignorance are typi cally used to derogate asylum seekers without any evidence. PSEUDO-IGNORANCE (MEANING. A specific type of semantic implication is presupposition. C). whether the characteristic second example presuppose s that the asylum rules are being abused of and that the position as illegal imm igrants has no bearing on the Geneva convention: (60) I wonder whether the hon. PRESUPPOSITION (MEANING). Corbyn) is able to have British people share their c itizenship with foreigners. C). As is the case f or vagueness and hedging.a well-known fallacy. In our debates.. Thus. This will be generally the case for all forms of shared (common ground) knowledge and opinions. ARGUMENTATION). thus making claims that need not be substantiated -.
specifically f or this debate. REASONABLENESS (ARGUMENTATION MOVE). REPETITION (RHETORIC). Also the actions. t hat of the system and of the people: "Such people should not be exploited by peo ple who are exploiting the system. reasons. that poor English taxpayers should pay for this. but also that the speaker is 'sound'. In this and similar debates on immigration.) those people. C). repetition is of course hardly specific to debates on immigration. presumably in case they decide to g o shopping in the middle of the day or to do a bit of work on the black economy-who knows? (Gorman. many of whom could reasonably be called economic migrants (Gorman. for instance short narrative vignettes. consequences a nd evaluations. for instance when Ms.. it may of cours e play a specific role in the overall strategy of emphasizing Our good things an d Their bad ones. This may be so within individual speeches. Of course. not genuine. Such a move is especially relevant when the argument itself may seem to imply that the speaker is unreasonable. throughout this debate we find numerous literal or seman tic repetitions of the accusation that (most) refugees are bogus. because the way t hey are described may suggest implications about causes. we encounter many fo rms of situation descriptions. Here are two characteristic exa mples: (64) Let us return to the issues facing people fleeing areas of oppressio n. in the sense of rational or reasonable. rules or the law. they have to be given a packed lunch. experiences and whole situations need to be described. C). Indee d. Thus.83 (62) In addition to the breakfast that comes with the bed-and-breakfast accommod ation. or across speeches when respective MPs support the o pinions of previous speakers. or genera lizations of what refugees "have to go through". they have lost . Therefore the move also has a function in t he overall strategies of positive selfpresentation and impression management: (6 3) (. or biased. In some cases repetitions take a more 'artistic' f orm. Or conversely. seek asylum and are refused. As a general rhetorical device.. Currently if they arrive here. Gorman presents two parallel forms of exploitation. i llegal or otherwise break norms." SITUATION DESCRIPTION (MEANING).. debates on refugees are not limited to the description of Them in relation to Us . 'definitions of the situation' are crucial to make a point. A familiar move of argumentative strategies is not only to show that the arguments are sound. However.
and especia lly when they are associated with threats. They are now living a life of virtual destitution. what on earth are they supposed to do unless they are declared destitute and consequently supported by a local authority? (Corbyn. and they appealed. Given the normative constraints on biased speech. Vague quantifiers ('few'. as we also hav e observed in conversations about "foreigners" in which ordinary speakers apply the move of inversion order to emphasize that not the Others are discriminated a gainst. Virtually in all contexts speakers may use 'vague ' expressions. This means that when the Others tend to be represented in negative terms. When used in an argument. C). VAGUENESS (MEANING). that is. then the ingroup needs to be represen ted as a victim of such a threat. VICTIMIZATION (MEANING). as is the case for "Goodness knows how much". 'a lot'). be cause they have to pay for them. among other expressions may be t ypical in such discourse. (65) Those people came to this country and applied for a sylum. L). During the appeal process. In this debate. L). while the Home Office ponders on what to do for th em. Their applications were refused. we may in particular exp ect various forms of Vagueness. an d "widespread" in the following examples: (66) Goodness knows how much it costs for the legal aid that those people invoke to keep challenging the decision that they are not bona fide asylum seekers (Gorman. discourse on immigration and ethnic relations is largely organized by the binary US-THEM pair of ingroups and outgroups. adverbs ('very') nouns ('thing') and adjectives ('low'. and the relevance of quantification in immigration debates. the ordinary and especially the poor and elderly taxpayer s are systematically represented as the real victims of immigration policies. C). 'high'). this would typically be a type of topos.84 all access to benefits. Together wit h DRAMATIZATION and POLARIZATION. expressions that do not have well-defined referents. They then have to undergo an appeal process. This is precisely what happens.. which can t ake a very long time. Here is a detailed example of this move: . (67) Is she aware that there is widespread resentment? (Nicholson. Those people stood up for their communities against an oppressive regime (Co rbyn. but WE are. or which refer to fuzzy sets.
or that there are explanations of some observed deviance. Now they are going to be asked to pay £35 to able -bodied males who have come over here on a prolonged holiday and now claim that the British taxpayer should support them. More generally. it will argue that one can NOT generalize. thus. we witness how refugees may be marginalized and criminalized. for instance group pol arization and negative other-description. Yet. ho wever. T hey are on modest incomes. but by reversing the strategies.. the categories studied are not themselves ideological: We may find populism. On the conservative side. managing on their state pen sion and perhaps also a little pension from their work. They pay their full rent and for all their own expenses. . Detail ed and systematic analysis of discursive strategies in parliamentary debates may thus uncover at the same time some of the subtleties of politics. metaphors or euphemism both on the left and on the right. They show how powerfully the ideologicall y based beliefs of Europeans about immigrants may impact on discourse. Antiracist discourse precisely tries to undo some of this h arm not only by avoiding such discourse. The definition of the categories and the examples also have shown how ideologies impinge on (in this case political) discourse. for insta nce through the polarization of Us vs. and further immigration restrictions recommended by playing the populist trick of wanting to protect the "own people". T hrough our brief analyses of the various categories and the examples we have obt ained some insight in the ideologically base of political (parliamentary) discou rse and its specific structures and moves. Generally speakin g. and not apparent) empathy.85 (68) Many of those people live in old-style housing association Peabody flats. Final comments on the examples The categories analyzed above show something about the reality of discourse and racism -. it is mostly the "content" of the various structures described above that is ideologically controlled. Many of them are elderly. and how such discourse plays a role i n the broader social-political issues of immigration. Them and the strategy of positive self-pr esentation and negative other presentation which largely control all properties of racist discourse. policy-making and populism. for in stance instead of generalizations of negative properties.in Europe. This move is especially ironic when we realize how li ttle the Conservatives would normally be concerned about poor old people. some discourse st ructures seem more typical of right-wing and racist talk.and anti-racism-. whereas humanitarian discourse typical ly has recourse to forms of (real.
In other words. instantiate or con- . Many dimensions of the theory of ideology remain unexplored or obsc ure. we started with a multidisc iplinary definition of ideology. the very fact that a collectivity of people has an ideology and other shared so cial representations may precisely define the identity that makes them a social group. according to which ideologies are the fundament al beliefs that form the basis of the social representations of a group. and new developments in psychology and soci ology may change our theoretical framework considerably. but how exactly this happens. that this is merely a very g eneral picture of the nature and the role of ideology in the mind. It is also within this. but what social conditions a group must sa tisfy in order to be able to develop an ideology. we only have vague ideas about the internal organization of i deologies. on the one hand. including the production and comprehe nsion of discourse. confirm. group relations. as is often the case for complex theories. or how they monitor the development of other socially shared represen tations of a group. still speculative. organizations. They ar e represented in social memory as some kind of 'groupschema' that defines the id entity of a group. One basic assump tion is that ideologies are defined for social groups. at the microlevel of social situations and interactions. For instance. and not for individuals o r arbitrary collectivities of people. we don't know exactly. We do not even know how to represent the "content" of ideolo gies. on the other hand. movements. with social practices and discours e. power and dominance. The fundamental propositions that fill this schema monitor th e acquisition of group knowledge and attitudes. These mental models are the repr esentations that control social practices. as hence indirectly the personal models group members form about social events. Indeed. multidisciplinary theory of ideology that we examined the wa ys discourses express. It is in this theoretically complex way that we are able to link ideologies as forms of social cognition. institutions.86 Chapter 7 Conclusion In this introductory book on discourse and ideology. even when we provisionally adopted the classical representation in terms o f propositions.. and with groups. We assume that basic norms and values are involved in the format ion of ideologies. we may have ge nerated more questions than answers. we don't know. Please note however. in discourse and society.
color. important and explicit. We have seen that both in production and comprehension of di scourse. Information that portrays us in a negative light (or the Others in a too positive light) will tend to remain im plicit. as may do visual st ructures such as page lay-out. in what people say: The topics they select or avoid. stories. Syntactic structures by definition are about the order and hierarchy of wor ds. namely through processes of e mphasizing or de-emphasizing ideological meanings. photographs or f ilm. that is. Finally. .87 stitute ideologies. vague and little detailed. group-based principle we found operative here is that informati on that is favorable for or about the own group or unfavorable for the outgroup will tend to be topical. and so on for a large number of other semantic properties of discourse. levels of discourse may be involved in expressing or rather in 'signaling' ideologies.where they allow optional variation -. what meanings are foregrounded and backgrounded. the local coherence of their text or tal k..th ey are able to emphasize or de-emphasize meanings. the standard topoi of their argumentation. not topicalized. These personal representations of events finally interact with (possibly also i deologically biased) context models participants dynamically construct of a comm unicative situation. The same general pri nciple explains how also the other. clauses and sentences and hence -. we examined how such underlying. via their ideologically biased mental models of social events and social situations. which details are specified or left unspecified. and both kind of models then give rise to the ongoing produ ction of ideological text and talk. size and type of letters. whose conventional categories may be deployed in such a way (ord er or hierarchy) that they emphasize of de-emphasize the ideological meanings th ey organize. namely at first via attitudes an d group knowledge for special social domains (such as politics. Intonation and stress of word s and sentences may thus make meanings more or less salient. Most clearly this happens at the level of content or meaning of discourse. such as the overall formats of conversations. ideologies usually operate indirectly. formal. and at the level of individual discourses of group members. news reports or scho larly articles. so cially shared representations as well as personal models may influence the struc tures of discourse. hidden. The over all ideological. what information is left implicit or expressed explicitly. education or the labor market). such as the agency and respon sibility for specific actions. Similar remarks hold for global schematic structu res.
A theory of ideology without a theory of discourse is therefore fu ndamentally incomplete. but also vice versa: We acquire and change ideologies through reading and listening to large amounts of text an d talk. but learnt. in sum. as false star ts and repairs. but what is being d one and how may well depend on group membership and hence on ideology. as storytelling and argumentation. Indeed. as sequences of turn taking and interruptions. And conversely. and the only one that is able to directly express and hence conve y ideologies. . Not only do ide ologies influence what we say and how we say it. as action and interaction. to understand the role of discourse in s ociety.. that is. which finally may be generalized and abstracted to social repres entations and ideologies. and of ideologies in particular. as agreeing and disagreement.88 And finally. Note fina lly that the links between discourse and ideology run both ways. in what is being done. Discourse is the most crucial of these soc ial practices. ideologies also operate at the level of 'mea ning'. in specific discourses (such as catechisms and propaganda) we may learn some fundamental ideological propositions more directl y. Ideologies are not innate. debate and in teraction may be quite general. The social function of ideologies is to control and coordinate the social pra ctices of a group and between groups. The abstract forms of talk. and precisely the content and for m of such discourse may be more or less likely to form intended mental models of social events. we also need to know their fundamental role in the reproduction of socia l representations in general. and independent of ideology. at the level where discourse is defined as structures of local and global speech acts.
Studies in political discourse. London Newbury Park: Sag e Publications. (1993). only a selection of books in English are included. Benjamins Co. Houndmills. T. Disco urse and ideology in modern society. power. S. (1988). M. Newbury Park. B. Hodge. W. Racism at the top.). Lo ndon: Routledge. Ams terdam Philadelphia: J. Ideologi cal dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. G. T. Thompson. R.: Stanford University Press. A multidisciplinary Approach. Aronowitz. . J. T. T. Basingstoke. Klagenfurt: Drava. Larraín. (1990). (1979). R. A. and ideology.). (2000 ). (Eds. (1988). M.. To limit the potentially vast size of these bibligraphies. Ideology. (1989). Eagleton. Stanford. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European countries. Kress. London: Sage. An introduction. Fowler. Elite discourse and Racism. Calif. Language and Control.. A. J. Wodak. (1991). T. The concept of ideology. A. Language. (2004).. & Trew. Van D ijk. R. Further Reading on discourse and ideology Apple. Van Dijk. Ideology and curr iculum. Basic Bibliography Billig. Science as power. Wodak. CA: Sage. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Hampshire: Macmill an Press. (1979). & Van Dijk. London: Hutchinson. London: Verso Ed s. Ideology... Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in t he era of mass communication. B. ( Ed. (1998).89 Bibliographies NB.
Ideology in discourses. J. Co. Conn. Organ izational discourse : a language-ideologypower perspective. R. Fowler. On discourse analysis. European ideologies in the twentieth century. I. Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century.. Hampshire New Yo rk: Palgrave Macmillan. M. Language in the news.). R. Knowledge. (Ed. R. A conceptual approach . Westport. Lazar. S. London: Routledge. power and ideology in discourse. (Eds. Vestergaard. PA: Taylor & Francis. ideology and the state. T. (Ed. Amsterdam Philadelphia: J. Basingstoke. Official discourse. London New York: Routledge.: Pra eger. J. Third way discourse. & Fox.). P. Discourse. & Schulz. Mediating ideology in text and image. London Bristol. ideology & discourse. Houndmills. Benjamins Co. Strun ck. Social linguistics and literacies. cognition an d ideology. Larsen. Feminist critical discourse analysis. Burton. M. (2003). (1999). Amsterdam Philadel phia: J. Oxford: Clarendon Press. . P. (2002). (Eds. (1991)..). P. language. government publications. London Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (2001). Benjam ins Pub. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. mind. London: Routledge. Gee. Political ideology in Britain. Malrieu.. De Saussure. Language.. Ideologies and political theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (1991). (2004).. Dirven.90 Bastow. Ge nder. T... A sociological perspective. (1979). J. F. Language and ideology. Fox. (2005). L. J. New Yor k: Palgrave. Discourse and id eology in the British press. (1996).). & Carlen. (2005). M. Freeden. Evaluative semantics. Leach. Dant. J. (1996). R. & Martin. P.
Berkeley: University of California Press. NJ: Transaction Schäffner. J. Clevedon Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. (1982). J. Theories of Race and Racism. Neff-van Aertsela er. the Enlig htenment. Ideologies. (1992). Norwood. M. Pêcheux. D. 21st centu ry reconfigurations. J. & Freeden. H umphrey. A.. Discourse.. racism and ideology. (1996).). semantics. Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimatio n of exploitation. & Van Dijk. . (Eds. Martin's Press. & Solomos. T. (1998). Pütz. B. Multidisciplinar y Perspectives on Language. ideolo gy. (Eds. La Laguna: RCEI. Language. Blommaert. New York: St. New York: Columbia University Press Wuthnow. (1988).). Frankfurt: Lang.: Ablex Pub. G. interests. and domination. M. and European socialism. H.. New Brunswick. Communicating ideologies.. M. (1984).. Studies in the theory of ideology. and identities. K.. Disco urse and ideologies. Cambridge. (Eds.. New York: Routledge. A. & Kelly-Holmes.. Taking ideology seriously. A. London New York: Routledge.). (2006). and ideology. T. J. (2004). Corp.91 Mumby. Commu nities of discourse: Ideology and social structure in the Reformation. (Eds. Van Dijk.: Harvard University Press. A reader. Discourse and Social Practice. M. Talshir. Wetherell. Thompson.J. Mass. Further reading on racism and discourse Back. N. (1993). C. (2000). Discourse. & Potter. Social movements. J.). (1996). Debating diversity: Analysing the discourse of tolerance. (1989). L. & Versc hueren. M. Ober schall. R. London: Routledge. Communication and power in organizations.
M. Approaches in critical disco urse analysis. & Solomos.: Blackwell Publishers. J. The semiotics of racism. Essed.. Encyclopedia of race and ethnic studies. (Eds. Mass. & Van Dijk. (1987). R. Discourse a nd discrimination. A Companion to racial and ethnic studies.. Benjamins Co. (2002). MI: Wayne State University Press. . Newbury Park.. M.).). Hecht. (1988). G. E. CA: Sage Publications. J. Ter Wal.). Aldershot: Ashgate. Oxford New York: Oxford Univer sity Press. & Goldberg. T. (1999). Wien: Passagen. (Eds.: Blackwell. (Ed. T.. D. M. Malden. Racism. A. (2001).. Ca lif. (Eds. (Eds. threat? Mainstream and Right-Extremist Political Di scourse on Ethnic Issues in the Netherlands and France (1990-1997).. (1987). A. (2000). (1998)..T. Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudic e in thought and talk. London New York: Routledge. Amsterdam Philadelphia : J. J. M. Thousand Oaks. Van Dijk. & Solomos. Lauren. deviance. Detroit. L. Malden. Communicating prejudice. Power and prejudice: The politics and diplomacy of racial discrimination. Van Dijk. Goldberg. & Verkuyten. & Wodak. Reisigl. Discours e and discrimination. Difference. G. Race critical t heories text and context.92 Bulmer.. ).). T. Cashmore. (Ed.). (2003).: Sage Publications. M ass. (1984). Reisigl. Boulder: Westview Press. T. London New York: Rou tledge.). & Wodak. P. (Eds. (2000). Smitherman-Donaldson. Amsterdam: A ksant. I. R. Prejudice in discourse an an alysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation. P. (2002). D. A. Comparative Perspectives on Racism. Van der Valk. Inc. Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. ( 2002). M.
(Eds.93 Van Dijk. Beverly Hills. (Ed.. London: Routledge . (2004). Chilton.). N. . M. Parliamentary disco urses on ethnic issues in six European countries. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. & Potter. Wod ak. London: Routledge. (1995).. T. Language and Power. (2005). J. G. C. Mapping the language of racis m: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Some references on analyzing parliamentary discourse Bayley. ). Klagenfurt: Drava. T. (2000). (1992). M. (Eds. Language and control. Wetherell. A. CA: Sage. Language and Power. (1984). R. T. (2005).). W... (1979).. Fairclough. New York: Columbia University Press. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the Britis h press.. The critical study of language. London: Longman.). Fowler. Some books on Critical Discourse Analysis Blommaert. R. Amsterd am: Benjamins. Racism and discourse in Spain and Latin America. J.. Discourse. (1989). Critical discourse analysis. P. London: Longma n.. & Trew. & Van Dijk. (19 95). Hodge. (2004). Kramarae. Kress. C. Amsterdam: Benjamins. C ross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. B. (Eds. Schulz. P. R. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.. Fairclough. (1991). London: Routledge. & Coulthard. Fowler. A. Caldas-Coulthard. M. Cambr idge: Cambridge University Press. R. N. Analysing political discourse. & O’Barr. Racism at the top. M.
(1993). Gender and Discourse. J. (Ed. Theory and interdisciplinarity. Van Dijk. R. (Ed. Too lan. (2005). M. Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis. (1989). (2002). London: Taylor & Francis. & Wodak. Critical disco urse analysis. Critical discourse analysis. (1997). A.). (Eds.). (1997). Newbury Park. T. London: Sage. (1995) . Weiss. Methods of critical discour se analysis. Van Dijk. R. (Ed. Critical concepts in ling uistics. Gender. Volume 2: Discourse as Social Intera ction. A mu ltidisciplinary introduction.. Van Leeuwen. M.). R. (Ed. G. UK: Palgrave Macmilla n. Houndmills. M.).. London: Sage.. R. Language. . Wodak. Discourse Studies. Elite discourse and racism . London: Routled ge. (2001). Houndsmills. J. (Eds.). (2003).). CA: Sage. T. Power and Ideology in Discourse.94 Lazar. power and ideology. Discourse and social dynamics. T. (Ed. A. Wodak. Amsterdam: Benjamins. New York: Routledge. Lemke. Studies in political discourse. London: Sage. Introduction to social semiotics. (2005). Textual politics. L. Wodak.). & Meyer. UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
I wou ld consider that extremely irresponsible. The matter was a dequately dealt with by the Social Security Committee report on benefit for asyl um seekers. ( 15.. a case was recently brought before our courts and to the High Court which sought to overturn the provisions that the Government intended. declare themselves to be in need of asylum. (42) The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 stated that people whose appli cation to remain in Britain had been turned down could no longer receive the soc ial security and housing benefit that they had previously enjoyed. (3. (50) It would open the floodgates agai n. which was (2) an all-party document that pointed out that it was cos ting about £200 million a year (63) for those people.57) It is wrong that ratepayers in the London a rea should bear an undue proportion of the burden of expenditure that those peop le are causing. to remain in Britain. (9) many of whom could reaso nably be called economic migrants and some of whom are just benefit seekers on h oliday.95 Appendix Commons Hansard: 5 March 1997‡ Mrs. but do not want them to be sucked into the racket of evading our immi gration laws. as students or in some other capacity and. decided to do something about the matter. ‡ The numbers between parentheses in the text refer to the numbers of the examples given above. (43) In order to try to subvert the legislation. asylum seekers and asylum seekers. (8. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): I want to bring to the attention of the House t he particular difficulties faced by the London boroughs because of the problems of asylum seekers. That is estim ated to have cut the number of bogus asylum seekers by about a half. People who come as economic migrants are sidestepping that. but (41) there is a procedure whereby people can legitimately become par t of our community.55) I understand that many people want to come to Britain t o work. (18) The Government are keen to help genuine asylu m seekers. of course. when the time comes for them to leave. (13 )The Government. (7) There are. but to discourage the growing number of people from abroad who come to Br itain on holiday. and presumably the £200 million a year cost that was estimated when the legisla tion was introduced would again become part of the charge on the British taxpaye r.54) I entirely support the policy of the Government to help genuine asylum se ekers. It is a gre at worry to me and many others that the Opposition spokesman for home affairs se ems to want to scrap the legislation and return to the previous situation. . with cross-party backing.
The cost of that to Westminster council is estimated to be £2 million a year. although not directly. half of whom come from eastern Europe and are able-bodie d males. but over London as a whole. Westminster had five applications from asylum seekers for help. There is a great deal of further expenditure. (23) According to th e magistrates court yesterday. He is a great authority on the matter. for stealing. (4) The problem of supporting them has landed largely on the inner London boroughs. (5) There are also about 2. (26) The Daily Mail today reports the case of a woman fro m Russia who has managed to stay in Britain for five years. A number of London boroughs--Hammersmit h and Fulham.37) I am sure that many of them are working illegally. with young children wh o must be supported. she has cost the British taxpayer £40. I know that he has an importa nt contribution to make. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster. which is a great deal of money to be found from the council ta x budget.. Friend. and of course work is readily available in big ci ties. as he represents Westminster city council. where most of those peopl e migrate as there is more to do in central London.000 families. (66) Goodness knows how much it costs for the legal aid that those people invoke to keep challenging the decision that they are not bon a fide asylum seekers. as it has placed an enormous financial burden on the taxpayers in central London. Lambeth and Westminster--are to challenge the judges decision. She should point out that the figure t hat she has just quoted represents the net expenditure which will fall on the ci ty council. I do not know how people who are not bona fid e asylum seekers and whose applications have been rejected time and again manage to remain in this country for so long at the expense of the British public. Friend to mislead the House.96 The judges effectively. Gorman: I thank my right hon. but since the judges decision in October. . (29. the number has increased to 300 .000. Before that decision. They cannot by any means be said to be from countr ies where they would find themselves in grave political difficulties if they had stayed at home. overturned the decision that the Act produced and said that those who declare themselves destitute must be given assistance under the National Assistance Act 1948. the cost is running at about (58) £14 0 million a year. The London councils have a particular problem. of course. She was arrested. but the system clearly needs tightening up. Mrs. At present Westminster city council is accommodating 66 families with children and 338 single adults. many of whom are from east European countries recently liber ated from oppressive regimes. They are now providing for 3. South): I would not want my hon.000 single males. which is paid for by g rant. Mr.
assert for the umpteenth time that all the residents in Westm inster are terribly well off. the council has to provide those people with a hygiene pack. shoe leather and who knows what else. being the centre of the capital cit y. soap. which we all know are two of the most expensive neighbourhoods in Britain. so they can easily afford those extra charges. Not hing is further from the truth. T he truth is that. the cost for the council is £215 a week for a single adult--and that is based on s hared bed and breakfast accommodation. In addition. There is a limit to the number of cheap bed-and-breakfast pla ces in the centre of a city like London. they will have to be provided with clothing. Pan cras (Mr. not on very expensive flats. we h ear the Opposition spokesman on housing. out of 100.68) Many of those people live in . It has done detailed homework and it can prove that. in addition to what the Government are proposing. he does i t every time he gets the chance--is to cite people living in Mayfair and Belgrav ia. The council estimat es that. wherever they are placed. which Westminster has to deal with. Member for Holborn and St. All that cost falls on the British taxpayer and particularly on Westminster residents. on average. Therefore we have this unique situation. The Governme nt have announced--this is most welcome--that they are to contribute £165 a week f or each asylum seeker while their requests for asylum are being endlessly consid ered.97 Westminster is in a unique position because. and certainly more than the sum that might be adequate in outer London boroughs or in other parts of the country. they have to be given a packed lunch. Dobson). (6) Presumably. about £35 a year will f all on each council tax payer in Westminster. (62) In addition to the breakfast that comes wit h the bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Part of his act--because it is an act.500 are in Ma yfair and only 3.. Of course. it must also accommodate many other homeless people who find their way to Lon don and take up temporary accommodation places. pre sumably in case they decide to go shopping in the middle of the day or to do a b it of work on the black economy--who knows? They also have to be provided with a n evening meal and snacks to keep them through the day because the assumption is that they have no money--they have declared themselves destitute. that may be adequate. six sets of those commodities must be provided. only 1. which must include a toothbrush. which means that Westminster city council has to use its meals on wheel s service to take food to them. For a family of half a dozen. The National Assistance Act says that the assistance given to these people must be provided in kind. whether in the centre of London or in outer boroughs. a flannel and deodorants.000 are in Belgravia. (21. Much of the accommodation is in hotels. but in Westmins ter it is not. if those people are here for long enough under such terms.000 households in Westminster. which can charge a great deal more for a week s bed and breakfast than the sum that the council considers adequate. the hon. That means that the alleged asyl um seekers whom the council is obliged to support often have to be put in expens ive accommodation. Again and again in the House. in some parts of Britain. toothpaste.
Westminster has inherited many Greater London council estates such as Mozart and Lissom Green. He has never done a stroke of work in his life. I had the case of a wom an who has managed to remain here for five years by playing the system. who has fallen into a catch 22 situation between health and socia l service provision. F riend the Under-Secretary of State for Health that Westminster s special circums tances should be given special treatment. Westminster has a particular problem and particular expenses. bu t the caring services. it is a national problem and should not be landed on the doorstep of a relatively small group of residents in the c entre of London. Mrs. who have particular problems. ( 52) Now they are going to be asked to pay £35 to able-bodied males who have come o ver here on a prolonged holiday and now claim that the British taxpayer should s upport them. she telephone s her social service assistant worker and asks for a minicab to take her there b ecause she cannot bring back her shopping. This matter needs to be aired because I am talking largely about Westminster. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningh am) would listen she would hear practical examples--decided that he did not want to go back. which I will and coul d demonstrate if I had to. who have many other problems associated with residence in Londo n and who need to be given special care and help. which are given special estate assistance grants by the Government to help the low-income people living there. more than half are on below average incomes. who came over here on a coach tour for a football match--if the hon. but those people are all part and parcel of the com- . who seem to think it is funny that elderly British people. Gorman: My hon. (59) Why should someone who i s elderly and who is scraping along on their basic income have to support people in those circumstances? Mr. on which so many others depend. when she needs to go shopping in Basildon. managing on their state pension and perhaps also a little pen sion from their work. In my constituency at the weekend. about the assistance that is available to people who do not have the right to reside in Britain. My purp ose in bringing this matter to the attention of the House is to say to my hon. Best of all. David Nicholson (Taunton): My hon.. Frie nd is entirely right.000 households in Wes tminster. although this matter has to be dealt with. Of the 100.98 old-style housing association Peabody flats. we would acknowledge that . who are managing to live on their modest inco mes. a man from Romania. Friend is exploi ting a rich seam and she is doing so assiduously. As I have said. should fork out for alleged asylum seekers. (1) In one case. She has given birth to two children while she has been here and she is so addicted to th e social services that. including those of Opposition Members. They pay their full rent and for all their own expenses. They are on modest incomes. (67) Is she aware that there i s widespread resentment? (24) This morning. who are simply parasites. I was reading a letter from a consti tuent of mine. (31) Such things go on and they get up the noses of a ll constituents. yet are milking not only the taxpayers. declared himself an asylum seeker and is still here four years late r. That is a fact. Many of them are elderly.
Britain has among the smallest numbers of asylum seekers of any Europea n country. today. Gorman: Would the hon. Gentleman forgive me because I want to sit down soon and let others into the debate? The cost wil l again be landed on the doorsteps of British taxpayers. They are proud and happy to do so. like everyone else. India and on other countries . religious or social reasons. or perhaps more are elderly people o n modest incomes. Jordan. That principle should be adh ered to. have a small additional pension as well as their old-age pension and pay all their rent and their bills and ask for nothing from the sta te. It is an extremely impo rtant matter. H owever. Europe has one of the smallest num bers of asylum seekers. but the people a re distributed throughout Britain and other council areas will be grateful for t he assistance that the Government have already announced. Compared to most other continents. 11. We know what th ey would do because we have heard it from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman: they would sweep away the measures that the Government have tried to introduce a nd reinstate the previous position.19 am Mr. about 16. I have many fri ends among the residents in those places--people who used to be my constituents. Godman (Greenock and Port Glas gow): Will the hon. Lady give way? Mrs. I have outlined some of the costs in Westminster. As I was a member of Westminster city council. a ppears to be batting for Westminster council--should pause for a moment to think about why people seek asylum. (53) It is true that.000 alleged asylum seek ers are going through umpteen appeals against deportation. Britain is a signatory of the 1951 Geneva convent ion. they should be guaranteed a place of safety in the country to which they flee. it ill-behove s Opposition Members to laugh at this and to treat it as a joke. I think that the hon. the people who live there pay their rates and 50 per cent.. they have made careful provision for thems elves in their old age. Dr. but. Member for Billericay (Mrs. However.99 munity charge scheme. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington. and particularly on the doorsteps of Westminster city ratepayers. In Britain.000 households live in either Guinne ss Trust or Peabody estates. in many cases. In addition. which requires that if someone is genuinely and legitimately in fear of per secution for political. North ): This debate is welcome in the sense that it provides an opportunity to talk a bout the problem of asylum seekers and the situation facing local authorities. They provide good quality homes. Gorman)--who. Norman A. All of them can explo it the loophole provided by the National Assistance Act. about 70. The real burden of the world s refugee crisis falls not on western Europe but on Mexico. which again cater specially for people on modest in comes. They do not deserve to have to pay th ose costs out of their own pockets. Such people should not be exploited by pe ople who are exploiting the system.
guides and other measures--one will trust a person wearing a uniform w hom one encounters when first arriving at the airport. Where would he go? Presumably he would not want help from anyone else. seek asylum and are refused. possibly using false documentation. and particularly into Westminster city council accommodation. Presumably the hon. what on earth are they supposed to do unless they are d eclared destitute and consequently supported by a local . It is not an experience that most British p eople have had.100 that are near to places where there has been great civil strife or which have Go vernments who are deeply oppressive towards their own people. they flee abroad and try to seek asylum. and. Many people sought asylum from Nazi Germany. their chances of being granted asylum are se verely diminished. When asylum seekers arrive in the United Kin gdom. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): (60) I wonder whether th e hon. they have lost all access to benefits. and that people flee ing from oppression in any regime should not be admitted. particularly th e Daily Mail. and we should think very carefully about what a major step it wo uld be to undertake such a journey. Suppose he had to flee this country because an oppressive regime had taken ov er. which can take a very long time. Corbyn: I am unsure how one ans wers such a totally ludicrous question. Mr. if they do not appl y immediately at the port of entry. aliases. is slightly ove r-egging the pudding. it is fairly unlikely that-after managing to steal oneself out of Iraq. There has also been a vind ictiveness against asylum seekers--it has been parroted in this debate by some C onservative Members--which has been promoted by some newspapers. (64) Let us ret urn to the issues facing people fleeing areas of oppression. (32) In the United Kingdom there has been a systemic erosion of peoples ability to see k asylum and to have their cases properly determined.. (14) I suggest that he start to think more seriously about human rights issue s. taken into custody with no rights of access to a judicial system. They then have to undergo an appeal process. no hon. It is more likely that on e would first get out of the airport and then think about the next step. Gentleman will tell the House what mandate he has from the British people to share their citizenship with foreigners? Mr. Member has been woken up by the police at 4 am. forced to f lee into exile for their own safety. It is a major step for someo ne with a legitimate fear to seek refuge in exile. For very many years. believes that they should not have been admitted to the UK. Under the new legislation. So the idea that t here is a huge flood of people trying to get into western Europe and into Britai n. that newspaper has had a long and dishonourab le record on this issue. (33) If someone has a legitimate fear of persecution. they must apply for asylum. It is also missing the point. becau se he does not believe that help should be given to anyone else. (28) If one has grown up in Iraq and has always been complete ly terrified of anyone wearing any type of uniform. Du ring the appeal process. (22) So far as I am aware. on the basis of his comment. Currently if they a rrive here. He talks utter nonsens e. with his or her family. Gentleman.
(34) I heard about many other similar cases. many regimes call themselves democratic and have a multi-party democr acy. Perhaps the hon. of how their families had been beaten up and abused wh ile in prison. Moreo ver. of how they had been t reated by the regime in Iran— (27) of how they had been summarily imprisoned. L ady has not had a chance to consider what is happening in Romania. Gorman: (19) I did not say that every eastern European s application for asylum in this country wa s bogus. it costs f ar more to look after the children involved by placing them in foster care than by allowing their families to look after them in the normal and proper way. with no access to the courts. Not to do so is a gross abuse of individual human rights. However. Around the world. many countries that were in the former Soviet sphere of influe nce have now established democracies. They are now living a life of virtual destitution. or in Bulgaria and other places. because they now prefer to support Iran rather than Ir aq. I remind the House that merely because a regime calls itself democratic does not mean that human rights are guaranteed. I spent several hours talking to a group of asylum seekers from Iran. That is a sweeping statement. while the Home Office ponders on what to do for them.101 authority? We need to restore benefit rights for all people pending the outcome of their appeal. Those people stood up for their communiti es against an oppressive regime. in many cases. a bout 50 come from countries in which there is no longer oppression. Gentleman give way? Mr. Of those claiming benefit from Westminster city council. . Corbyn: I will in a moment. All is not well merel y because there is multi-party democracy and a market economy. T hat regime--despite the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and numerous other human ri ghts abuses--is beginning to be cosied up to by the British Government and by th e rest of western Europe. Gorman: Will the hon. We s hould consider the experiences of people who have fled countries. chapter and verse. The hon. where homosex uality is a criminal act. (65) Those people cam e to this country and applied for asylum. Member for Billericay said that no one in eastern Euro pe has any justification for seeking asylum. and t hey appealed. but that does not mean that human rights are universally respected or that people are safe. A couple of we eks ago. Perhaps events in Albania are not a credit to the market economic system? Mrs.. removing benefit is not saving any money because. and some people from those countries come here to claim asylum. I pre sume that she has not had an opportunity to read the papers from Amnesty Interna tional or from Helsinki Watch on what is happening in Albania. and of how the regime murdered one man s fiancee in front of him because he would not talk about the secret activities that he was supposed to be involved in. (25) The people who I met told me. Their applications were refused. Mrs.
for example. Genuine applicants. Many of them have died trying to get out of Turkey because they have a point of view that is different from that of the Tur kish Government. stated: "Any responsible Government would want to examine wa ys of controlling expenditure of £200 million a year. The UK. the right hon. Dr. yet many Kurdish people have fled Turkey and appealed for a place of safety here. However. Godman: I hesitate to intervene in the debate. Is that how a democratic Government should behave? No. However. That is at least one conce ssion in this picture of unrelieved gloom. sending troops into various univers ities and closing them down. of people who claim asylum turn out not to be genuine. I am a me mber of the Social Security Select Committee and took part in that inquiry. although I produced a minority opinion. I wonder whether t hose who make decisions on refus- . Gentleman.102 Is the hon. Mr. she does not deal with the point. I recall a discussion with the Home Office about the safety of people from the Ivory Coast. prides itself on i ts close relationship with Turkey. w hich I am sure that she would disagree with profoundly. because I come a cross few asylum seekers--an experience that I suspect that I share with the hon . The Minister told me that he was assured that everything was okay in the Ivory Coast. Since last year. One concession was offered a few months ago by the Minister of Stat e. people from the Ivory Coast hav e sought asylum in the UK. I di d not sign that section of the report. are frustrated and su ffer delayed applications because of those who are not genuine. Lady seems to have moved on a bit from the cant and prejudice that she prod uced in her earlier speech. which con sidered the matter. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). Corbyn) aware that--in a report sig ned by Labour Members--the all-party Social Security Select Committee. that is up to h er. North (Mr. I merely want the hon. Mr. I have come across a few at Gree nock prison. Corbyn: At least the Minister was forced into that concession during a debate in this Chamber.. Home Office. I think that there is a foreign policy implication and potentia l initiative in that situation. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)--a promise that those women seeking to avoid the infliction of genital mutilation would be given sympathetic consideration when seeking asylum. Corbyn: The hon. We must recognise that those people from the Ivory Coast are justifiably see king asylum. such as those described by the hon. when it is known that well o ver 90 per cent. Member for Islington. Lady and the House to understand that democracy does not always follow multi-party elections. The students whom I met who had sou ght asylum in this country from the Ivory Coast told me that their Government we re so keen on carrying out the economic wishes of the International Monetary Fun d and others that they were crushing anyone who opposed them--they crushed trade unions and they crushed student opposition.
the British Governm ent would say that it was a terrible indictment on the human rights record of th at regime that prisoners were forced to undertake a hunger strike to draw attent ion to their situation. this country routinely puts in prison people who seek asylum. For the past few we eks. In this country. (15) If that happene d in another country under a regime of which we disapproved. there has been a hunger strike at Her Majesty s prison in Rochester. S he appeared to have no understanding of the moral force of people undertaking a hunger strike to draw attention to their problems. Access to benefits should be re stored for those applying for asylum. They say: "Another problem. (47) Attitudes towards asylum seekers need to be changed. (45) We should have a diff erent attitude towards asylum seekers. (12) Many soldiers who were tortured during the sec ond world war found it difficult to talk about their experiences for years. I have been given a letter from several people who are b eing held in the Home Office holding centre at Haslar.103 ing people asylum. That is no different from the position of people who have been tortured in Iran. thinking that they have been badly treated and fearful of what will happen. undertake a hunger strike and. Those under notice for many mont hs are often collected from Haslar for deportation at a week-end when it is quit e impossible to have recourse to their solicitors or other help. It is also often difficult for people to talk about the torture experiences that they have been through. the Home Office Minister was dismissive. That is often difficult to do. go to prison with no direct access to the courts and then. Members should stop and think for a moment about the circumstances of those who come to this country see king asylum. Hon. people who say that get routine abuse f rom Home Office Ministers and Conservative Members. Almost uniquely among European countries. a sense of humiliation and a sense of defeat. It costs £20 million a year to keep them in prison. Routine imprisonment should end. When I raised th e issue on a private notice question." (46) We should think a bit more seriously about how we treat those people. in some cases. a refusal to take fluids. west Africa or anywhere else. for reasons that I have already outlin ed. literally fatal for certain detainees. is deportatio n without prior notice of the date being given. The process depends on refugees applying at the point of entry. I unde rstand that that hunger strike is not continuing at the moment. The issue is not simple. There are nearly 900 people in British prisons who have sought asylum. refusing them benefits and forcing them into destitution have ever taken the trouble to sit down and listen to the stories of people who have been tortured and abused. Stop and think for a moment about the moral courage of those who have undertaken a hunger strike to ensure t hat their case is at least looked at. They complain about their treatment and the way in which the immigration service carries out its duties. Ira q. If they are refused asylum but are underta king their legitimate right of . They feel a sense of f ailure..
Those who have applied for asylum. I do not want them to have to do that. ( 48 ) It is wrong to force them into destitution or to throw them out of the country. Frankfurt. North (Mr. South): I shall be briefer than my hon. Iraq. 11. but that co-ordination was not . The Government s re gime on asylum seekers is creating a serious situation.36 am M r. Friend on securing the debate. A rep ort of the conference has been published. the Churches Commission for Racial Justice held a conference called.. the Ivory Coast and many other countries? I fin d it very muted on many occasions. with a class of destitut e people that is paralleled across Europe. There was evidence through the autumn of that year of a lack of interaction bet ween Government Departments. they should continue receiving benefits until the appeal has been determ ined. Member for Islington. I hope that we shall recognise that we should have a slightly more humane approach towards asylum seekers in this country. drugs and prostitu tion. There is also a foreign po licy agenda. Local authorities are being told that they should pay a large share of the bill. ha ve been refused and are fearful of deportation end up going into hiding in the p oorest areas of Paris. Brussels often praises Whitehall for having better co-ordination between Departments than any other Government in the European Unio n. I congratulate my hon. (56) A lot of b rave people in this country have stood up for the rights and needs of asylum see kers. Gorman) and the hon. e ventually it will come back and our human rights will be abused. Above all. They seem more interested in trade and sellin g arms to those regimes than in defending human rights. They are subject to the worst kind of exploitation by rogue employers. (36) History shows that unless we stand up for human rights wherever they are abused around the world. There was universal condemnation of th e principle of imprisoning asylum seekers and a plea for a more understanding ap proach. often with no access to lawyers or anyone else. London or Amsterdam. Last year. (49) Europe must stop its xenophobic attitude towards those who seek a p lace of safety here and adopt a more humane approach. Corbyn). because this is a short debate and I want others to get in. "Why Detention?". Berlin. The problem tha t we are discussing arises from the autumn of 1995. They cannot reveal their identity because they would be deported. when various announcements w ere made at the Conservative party conference about the Government s intentions. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster. Only the churches around Europe have drawn attention to the issue and tried to do someth ing about it. Central Government should give mor e support to local authorities to ensure that asylum seekers do not live in dest itution. I want a change in attitude and a more humane approach to th is serious problem of the victims of injustice from around the world. Madrid.104 appeal. Where is the outright condemnation from the Government of the denia l of human rights in Iran.
The Social Security Advisory Committee wrote a hostile report on the Government s intentions. which would fall on other Departments. basis. Friends on the Front Bench who were introducing the measures. rather than a c o-ordinated. I suspect that once the Home Office had legislative cover and clearance for its Bill. That serie s of legal defeats reflects rather badly on the degree of coordination involved in the preparation of the legislation before its introduction. Westminster pays £175 for accommodat ion alone. Central Government would render major assistance if they took over th at co-ordination in conjunction with the voluntary sector. My hon. First. That decisio n was challenged in the Court of Appeal. For two reasons the £95 for cold weather shelter is an unrealistic figure for provision in central London. co-ordinated by central Government in conjunction with the vol untary sector. The rough sle epers initiative. At the heart of the problem is the fact that it is being dealt with on a piecemeal.000 to below 400 in the past six or se ven years. That would instantly reduce the average u nit cost. I alluded to some of the problems that I c ould foresee. has been a great success. but I shall allude to other areas of central London later. and the appeal was defeated. A leg al case went against the Government in the summer. On Second Reading of the Asylum an d Immigration Bill. asylum seekers are spec ifically excluded from cold weather shelters. it washed its hands of the consequ ences. Perhaps as a consequence of that debate. on 8 October the decision was taken that obliged loca l authorities to provide assistance to single adult asylum seekers. As the Bishop of London reminded us during the centenary service for the King s Fund only yes terday. upon which a great de al of the burden of the problem falls. quaintly named the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Misce llaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. That scatter of figures derives from outer and inner London areas. The . the rough sleepers initiative has absorbed so much of the accommodation that might be used for that purpose that the centra l London boroughs no longer have access to it. as a result of which they had to amend the Bill in the House of Lords with primary rather than secondary legi slation.. there was a delay in bringing forward the amendments to the ben efit regulations. before the addition of extra sums that it must provide.105 in evidence in this case. Some Conservative Members felt that that was inadequate time to dis cuss the regulations. I said that the drama that I foresaw would be play ed out on the streets of my constituency rather than those of some of my right h on. As has been said. The Opposition were satisfied with a 90-mi nute debate. Secondly. I am briefed primarily by Westminster city council . Friend referred to the £165 per week grant provided by central Government. Like my hon. I was the last to speak before the replies to the debate a nd was allowed three minutes. and hon. That is an average figure drawn from estimates that the Gov ernment received. Frie nd the Member for Billericay. which ranged from £95 for cold weather shelter provision to £290. costs outside central London are quite different from those in inner Lon don. I mentioned in particular the problems of unaccompanied children c oming to Westminster and other central London boroughs. in December 1995. The number of those sleeping rough in c entral London has fallen from more than 1.
I said th at I sympathise with my hon. in that respect. This year. It is now 5 March and the fiscal year ends within a month.106 piecemeal approach adopted at present increases the likelihood of fraud. I promised that I would be brief.2 months in the second period. and I now sit do wn within 10 minutes. I hope that the Home Office--in this respect I make common cause with the hon. The time taken by the immigration appellate authority to det ermine appeals lengthened from eight to 10 months in the same period. that all unavoidable costs resulting from the programme should be reimbursed to local authorities that are acting on behalf of the nation as a whole. it would be immensely desirable if the Government would announce their grant levels for 1997-98. H owever. However. communit y care budgets are being diverted to this problem and away from council tax paye rs. It is r ecognised widely that the burden of the problem falls on local authorities in Lo ndon. Westm inster will spend £1. Friend the Minister. Betwe en October and December 1996. I alluded to the problem of unaccompanied children during the Seco nd Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill in December 1995. Friend s comments.2 million on unaccompanied children. . who will come to the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Department of Health as much of the expenditure flows throu gh that Department. It originates in the Ho me Office. So the burden on local authorities is being extended because the proc ess of handling applications is slowing down rather than accelerating. and primarily on those in inner London. North--can improve the speed with which it proce sses these cases. I am not sure that the Department of Health should necessarily take the lead in co-ordinating this process. The burden con stitutes a risk to the quality of community and race relations in those areas an d. Mr. There is no logical reas on why Westminster and one or two other boroughs should uniquely absorb that pro blem.7 months in the earlier period and 12. and I believe that it would be desirable if that Department took the lead--not least because a lack of co-ordination at the end of 1995 led to this s ituation. Outstandin g appeals increased from 14. the waiting time increased to more than 48 months. Friend the Minister--for whom I have some sympathy--firs t. At the margin. applicants under the legis lation prior to 1993 waited an average of 43 months for initial decisions. Secondl y. The comparable statistics for those who were treated under the legislation that was introduced in 1993 are 10. and the council tax payers in those are as must foot the bill.000 in February 1996 to nearly 22. I endorse my hon. There is a hazard to community and race relations in cent ral London if such costs continue to fall heavily on council tax. Unaccompanied children--who come to this country extremely well prepared-simply go to a handful of authorities in central London about which they have he ard or to which they have been directed. Deputy Speaker. I put it to my hon.000 at the end of last year.. Between December 1995 and May 1996. Member for Islington. I freely acknowledge that Westmins ter is not the only authority involved: the borough of Islington is affected in the same way. local authorities do not yet know what level of grant the Government wil l provide.
and pointed to the likely consequences of that a ction.46 am Mr. not because I do not take the subject seriously.. The right hon. Mem ber for Billericay seemed to endorse the Government s option of appealing the co urt decisions and returning to their favoured position of removing benefits comp letely and leaving asylum seekers with absolutely nothing. and what standard of living people have had in their own countries. Members hope to ca tch my eye in the 25 minutes before the winding-up speeches begin.107 Mr. Yet we tell those p eople that they have come here to live on a few pounds a week in . In the first four months of last year. Anyone who deals with asy lum seekers knows the reality. Gorman) at the begin ning of the debate. T hey all live in a bedsit. The Government were warned about the repercussions from the beginning. It is rubbish to say that people come this countr y because the benefits here are more than the average wages in the countries fro m which they have come. and not to those who apply at the port of entry. which has a mosque in the back garden that her father built. A n Algerian asylum seeker told me that he had been a general practitioner in Alge ria and that his wife had been a vet. I remind the House th at the measure applies to asylum seekers who apply in country. She is struggling to look after six children younger than herself. the circumstances in which they find themselves. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hope that they will all be successful. (10) The Government s reasoning was the same then as it is now: they stil l talk about economic migrants and benefit scroungers. but what are the alternatives? The right hon. and what happens to them. 11. Member for Billericay (Mrs. I must admit that I was one of those who laughed at some of the things that she said. His speech contrasted con siderably with that of the hon. Brooke) has discussed this subject on sev eral occasions and raised the issue of responsibility. South (Mr. 775 people were awarded refugee status. but we should consider what that means in r eal terms. 610 of whom were in-country applicants--precisely the people who have been denied benef its. I have known an 18-year-old Somali girl for a coupl e of years. and she showed me photographs of her house in Somali. The Social Security Advisory Committee warned the Government not to change the socia l security regulations in 1995. I agree that London boroughs should not carry the responsibility for as ylum seekers. but b ecause it was obvious that she does not have the slightest clue about who asylum seekers are. but people were telling him that he had co me here to live on benefits. Gentleman suggested that the Government should shift the responsibility somewhere else. That is despite the fact that the success rate f or asylum applications of people who apply in country is at least as great as--a nd sometimes greater than--that of people who apply at the port of entry. Member for City of London and Westminster. Nei l Gerrard (Walthamstow): I shall try to be brief. Five hon. With the co-o peration of the House. They may be. The hon.
108 benefits. Even if only a small number of cases are genuine. We said that local authorities would be stuck with the probl em of having to deal with children under the Children Act 1989 and with homeless people on the streets. Sou th said. Members should read th e Refugee Council s report. Hon. (16)Even if we accep ted the Government s view--which I do not--that only a tiny proportion of people who claim asylum are genuine refugees. If we want to encourage people to make bogu s applications. The hon. As the right hon. The poorest people are in refugee camps in neighbouring countries: that is where the majority of refugees end up. How many of the 20 mil lion refugees worldwide are trying to get to Europe. On the outskirts of large towns such as Naples one sees shanty towns full of asylu m seekers. Why are people having to wait four or five years for a decision on their case? Why are the queues getting longer? In 1993. we were told that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 would make things better.000 t o 21. those of us who served on the Committee considering that Bill and who participated in the debates asked what would happen and who would have ultim ate responsibility. Member for Billericay defended the Government s position. That is what we should be debating. Only one other country in Europe has such a policy. We pointed out the problems and s aid that council tax payers would have to pick up the bill.000? Many of those people . they included these provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. so the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor s Department should do so mething about it. and that is Italy. how can anyone de fend such callousness? Genuine asylum seekers will be left without a penny to li ve on. Long queues encourage the bogus applicant. we cannot defend a policy that leaves ge nuine refugees destitute. but that penal ises the genuine asylum seeker. and we were told last year that the 1996 Act would makes them better. which shows the impact that having to live on nothin g has on the lives of asylum seekers. b ut waiting times are getting longer. who want to leave them in that mess. Ti me and again. Member for City of London and Westminster. I believe that the majority of applicants are ge nuine: I do not believe the 90 per cent. not the financi al position of a few local authorities that have been dropped into this mess by the Government. never mind the United Kingd om? The Government lost the court case on the benefit regulations. We did not know then that the courts would decide that t he National Assistance Act 1948 could be used. figure. At the last m inute. delays should be eliminated. It is a d isgrace to any civilised society even to consider leaving genuine asylum seekers without a penny to live on. The people who manage to get to this country are usually not the poore st or most downtrodden. People have to walk miles to soup kitchens to get a meal. That is the logical consequence of the Government s policy.. the way to do so is to let the queues get longer. Why has the number of cases awaiting appeal gone from 13.
51. and. Gentleman and I have often discussed this matter. 11. Bearing in mind the fact that year in. Wardle: I shall not give way. but I am aware of the time. the European Union and broader immigration policy. as it always has.000. Member for Walt hamstow (Mr. it matters crucially that this country honou rs. (35) First. its obligations under the Geneva convention.61) It is equally important that abuse of the asylum rules by the large number of peop le who make asylum applications knowing that their position as illegal immigrant s has no bearing on the Geneva convention should be debated openly. the asylum queue and the wider issue of asylum. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs.0 00 to 3. They may have been in gaol and may ha ve been tortured. Reference to the primacy o f British business interests in Saudi Arabia brought the integrity of our asylum criteria into question. The people who are refused benefit tend to be those claiming a particular benefit t o which they are not entitled. so that it i s fully understood and tackled. Gorman) o n securing this debate. The hon. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle): I congratulate my hon. and has given sanctuary to people with a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they are fleeing and whose first safe country landing is in the United Kingdom. We should not treat in such a way people who come here to escape from appalling conditions. and I would like to make progress. Much of what is said about detention is confused or misleading. Corbyn: Will the hon. (20) Protesters may g enu- . to which the hon.. a thoroughly undesirable person was allowed to remain in this country and continue his politi cal activity. Few people who are refused social security benefits are left destitute without a penny. and do not receive the treatment and care that sh ould come their way.55 am Mr. To put them on the streets without a penny is a disgrace to an y society that calls itself civilised. when the Government lost the appeal. Gentleman give way? Mr. The only occasion tha t I know of when our proud record under successive Governments of honouring the convention was sullied was the recent Al Masari case. The topic of asylum seekers is fundamentally important f or two obvious reasons. I want to make three points on detention. (38. who are held up in the queue. (44) Britain has always honoured the Geneva convention.109 will have to await their appeal--which they may well win--without a penny. Do not tell me that that is what happens to people who are refused benefits through the social security system. Gerrard) alluded. becau se their benefits have been cut off. it stands to reason that the other tens of thousands of applicants include people who knowingly abuse the system. Those people do a disservice to g enuine refugees. year out the number of people found to be genuine Geneva convention cases ranges from 1. Mr.
M arlow: My hon. but perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me. school places. they are frequently advised by immigration lawyers or advisers to apply for asylum because. I recommended that he should think again about his promise to spend £3 7 million on the appeals section of the asylum division and on the Lord Chancell or s Department and that he should spend about £150 million a year for two years t o process the queue. found work and assimilated themselves into the local population. It is a welcome development if some bogus applicants are no longer applying. Brooke) said. Friend said that everyone is concerned about people going into de tention and many people do not go into detention.000 people were in the asylum queue at the end of 1995. quite unlawfully. As I have already said and as is widely known. Recently. of cases. but in almost all of them--a detainee is someone whose appeal ha s been refused. once they are in the queue they can stay h ere and qualify for social security. the health service and so on were adde d to that figure. The Home Office is unable to g ive me an answer to my question. once the queue is gone. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that some 75. South (Mr. My next point concerns the asylum queue. on S econd Reading of the 1996 Act. Fri end give way? Mr. Mr. Does he know how many people who do not go into detention but who are bogus asy lum seekers disappear and do not turn up . there are people in the queue who have arrived in this country and been welcomed as visitors but who have then overstayed that welcome. Mr. housing. Member for Walthamstow said. Wardle: If my hon. When ap prehended and questioned. it wo uld help the genuine applicants because they could be dealt with promptly. North): Will my hon. As my right hon. which was not simply to pass more legislation--Bills do not resol ve what is fundamentally an administrative problem--but to process the queue swi ftly. At the same time. I must make some prog ress. Tony Marlow (Northampton.. the attraction of making a bogus claim disappears. or whose application has been refused and is awaiting appeal but is considered likely to abscond. but i t does not deal with the underlying problem of the queue. Friend will have some idea. who is waiting to be removed from the country and is only tempor arily in detention. I said that I had every reason to bel ieve that he was grossly underestimating the costs and that when the figures for social security.110 inely be concerned about refugees in detention. it is a tiny proportion of the nu mber of people concerned. However. On Second Reading my right hon. I explained what I felt was the only way to tackl e the problem. As the hon. In December 1995. but the fact is that only a tiny proportion of applicants are detained. In virtually every case--not in 100 per cent. the cost was likely to be closer to £500 million or even £750 mill ion a year. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster. Ministers have pointed to the fall in the number of a sylum applications and to the success of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. it may take four years to r esolve the case. He estimat ed the cost to be about £200 million a year.
Under the third pillar of co-operation in the EU.111 ever again? Mr. The corn erstone of that resistance is not to allow Britain s border controls to be disma ntled. That is fundamentally wrong. including those who have absconded. until I made a fuss about this two y ears ago there were no Government speeches or great policy statements on the sub ject of our border controls. There was recently a welcome announcement by th e Dutch Government that they now recognise--the operative word is "now"--that no future British Government will willingly relinquish border controls. That is being missed in all the headline chasing about new Bills every other year. Undoubtedly. The moment those border c ontrols are gone. Unfortunately. I should like to raise the link betw een asylum and the European Union and the wider but directly related issue of im migration and border controls. the temptation to join it as a bogus applicant is there. disappear into the undergrowth. but the battle is not yet over. We must process the queue and ensure that those who do not qualify for leave to remain in this country are rem oved from here. Friend an exact answer. The Government. The best thing that the Government can do is to be open and frank about the legal threat to our position as it now stan ds. There has been some progress with the recognition by the Dutch. The European Commission wants to go much furth er--it is perfectly open about its ambitions. Undoubtedl y many people who are not detained but are in the queue and see their appeal com ing closer to resolution. The Government have said that they will resist that and I am sure that they are right to do so. There was only the occasional furtive and uneasy an swer to parliamentary questions. would be brought to bear to persuade the Commission that this country will not wish to change its stance. sooner or later. That is not what is neede d. Britain would cede its border controls when required to do so by the European Court. It wants to take the third pillar into treaty competence and that includes asylum policy. effectively. time and again Minis ters have given Parliament the strong impression that the Government consider th at they have a sound defence against the requirement in article 7A to dismantle border controls. That position has changed. Wardle: I cannot give my hon.. That is unlawful and w rong and should not happen. but while the queue exists. there has for several years been harmonisation of asylum policies--the Dublin c onvention is one example of that. It is all very well to talk about new legislation an d new measures. I should l ike to believe that it is significant that. . seem to face both ways because the y have said that they will never give away the border controls. the full force of British public opinion. but the prob lem is still there. Ministers in other EU member state s and their officials all assumed that. By rehearsing the nature of the problem openly rather than g lossing over it. the ability to determine where a person has landed as the firs t safe country becomes confused. but then say tha t we have an adequate defence. We need competent administrative action. including people of a ll ethnic origins. as is required by the existing European treaty.
at the s ame time.. if not all. fraudulent documents or other methods. The only way to do that is to be open with Parliament and the British public and to ensure that. but there are not as many as asylum seekers would have us believe. that th e Government will not break European law." They should also remember the Scott report. decisions and actions of the Government and not to mislead Parliament and the public. Almost the whole population of Iraq is perse- . which said: "If the account given by a Minister to Pa rliament withholds information on the matter under review. it is not a full acco unt. ( 30) We must also face the fact that. the people involved were not genuine asylum seekers bu t illegal immigrants who were being detained with a view to being deported. as my right and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has done. I accept that there are tro uble spots. They enforce our border contr ols with great difficulty. as well as five social security benefit fraud investigators to deal with m any of those who try to get into this country to take advantage of our system. these matters can be dealt with to British satisfaction at the forthcoming int ergovernmental conference. Many people want to take advantage of this country. and many of them who come here are doing tha t. with the force of British public opinion behind them . even in the case of brutal dictatorships su ch as Iraq. The world is full of economic mi grants. When the recent hunger strike at Rochester was investigated.7 pm Mr. While the Government gloss over our vulnerability but assert. and which has many immigrat ion officers who have to carry out difficult work. This is a subject to which I fully intend to ret urn in the next Parliament.112 It might be as well for Ministers to remind themselves of "Questions of Procedur e for Ministers" which states: "Ministers have a duty to give Parliament and the public as full account as possible about the policies. There are police officers and special branch people at the port. 12. (39) because there are many attempts at illegal immig ration using asylum techniques. They face a difficult battle. which is a port of entry. David Shaw (Dover): I speak as the Membe r of Parliament for Dover. e ither to claim benefits or to gain residency here. we do not want people t o take advantage of our compassion. we are not getting to the bottom of th e problem. we cannot take in all those who suffer. it was found tha t nearly all. I would like to help all tho se people who suffer from Saddam Hussein s actions. would put our asylum and immigration poli cies into the proper framework. but we cannot do so. who can travel more easily than ever before. To do that." Time and again we have not been given a full account on this subject in Pa rliament. Although many of us may suppo rt the Geneva convention and want to see people with a legitimate fear of persec ution being able to come to this country for protection.
who seek asylum or become illegal immigrants. There is an industry supporti ng people who try to remain in this country when they cannot justify their prese nce. Mr. because they cannot tell councils that they will take over 100 per cent. I understand that a Labour parliament ary candidate has also been involved. Labour councillor s in Camden have apparently been involved in a £1 million fraud with taxpayers mo ney. It is unfair for local authorities to have to bear the costs . I have much sympathy for Westminster council. It is also unfair that Camden council. but we had no difficult y in saying that the Government s actions were right. which at one stage was £200 million a ye ar. ar e abusing the system and engaging in fraud. Shaw: I cannot gi ve way again. That is not a good enough reason to cost the British taxpayer £40. Marlow: My hon. My hon. I accept that the report was not unanimous. We cannot go on meeting the bill. reach th is country. and we could not take them all in.000 people to seek asylum. students and business peop le. of t he bill. Mr. but allow Labour councils to . Frie nd has cited the example of Iraq. Shaw: My hon. tourists. That is why the Social Security Select Committee produced a report on the Government s proposals. and then suddenly discover that they want to remain as asylum seekers. There is a serious possibility that Labour councillors in Camden will have to be surcharged as a result of that fraud. Many of those people are not g enuine. Gentleman give way? Mr. The problem is that far to o many people have jumped on the asylum bandwagon. I also have sympathy for Kent. instead of going to the country next door? Mr. but it b ears many costs that should properly be borne by the whole country. Friend raises the question of how so many migrants. Th e situation cannot continue. Dover district council has also had to bear the c osts of some cases. I have recently come across the Migrant Training Company. If people are desperate to get out of Iraq. wh y do they not go to Jordan or somewhere else in the middle east? Why do such peo ple come all the way here? Is it because they are seeking the economic benefits of this country? Why do people have to traverse a continent to get away.000. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. because of the shortage of time. which also bears some of the cost of asylum seekers. Outrageous accusations have been made that the resources that Westminster receives from the Government are unfair. and European grants have gone astray. Gerrard: Will the hon. when the Geneva convention is a national policy. who is an arts graduate and claims that she had problems at her uni versity.. (40) Too many asylum seekers ente r the country initially as family visitors. which has had to bear considerable costs. for attempts by 40. The Government have a serious proble m. Gorman) mentioned a lady from Russia. We have to face the fact that real problems are caused by asylum policies and immig ration. and other Labour councils involved in the Migrant Training Company. It is the ce ntral authority in London.113 cuted and oppressed.
but the fault of the judges. because asylum seekers were disqualifie d from assistance under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.. and t hat they have rushed to the rescue with a special grant to help out the local au thorities. because the Gove rnment refused to reimburse them for payments they made under section 21 of the 1948 Act. Clearly. Gorman) on obtaining her Adjournment deb ate. which has a European Court of Auditors report showing that the company has been involved in serious fraud. The Government claim that the judges have put local authorities in an invidious position. I remind her that it is ea sy to raise and exploit fears about immigration. the legal advice received by Ministe rs was not entirely sound. As the 1948 Act had not been repealed by Parliament. Corbyn: Where is the evidence? Mr. Member for Billericay (Mrs. The local authorities had to appeal. Asylum seekers would be admitted to hospital if they became physically ill through lack of funds. That is the principle that has been behind the poor law for 350 years. It was clear that the local authorities would not be reimbursed withou t a legal ruling that would enable Ministers to blame the judges for the Governm ent having to pay for an alternative benefits system for asylum seekers. but I am not sure that some of her general comments were helpful. 12. The judges in the Court of Appeal said that. The Government s defence is that the current shambles over payments under section 21 of the National Assi stance Act 1948 is not their fault. but I have much sympathy for the councils t hat incur unreasonable expense. Mr. suffered hypothermia from sleeping on the streets or contracted a dis- . I am not sure that that is a correct assessment of the judgment. in th e stark way that the Government claim. the judges interpre ted the general will of Parliament as a desire to continue to provide for those in need. The Government have the right approach. I might add that the Asylum and I mmigration Act 1996 did not remove asylum seekers entitlement to national healt h service treatment. but the challenge in a multirac ial society is the maintenance of good race relations. and the Labour councillors and members involved should be exposed. but arises from the confusion caused by t wo conflicting Acts of Parliament. That is a disgrace. The present situation of local authorities is not the fault of the judges. Shaw: The evidence is sitting in the Department for Education and Employment.15 pm Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport): I congratula te the hon. they automatically qualified under the National Assistance Act 1948 for assistance from local autho rities. for the benefit of Labour councillors and a Labour parliamentary candid ate. The issues she has raised concern a number of London boroughs. adminis tered at a high cost by the local authorities. such as the Migrant Training Company.114 take advantage by setting up fraudulent companies.
of an e xtended role for social services departments in dealing with destitution. and will undermine local authorities ability to perform their other statutory functions. when we d iscussed the special grant of £165 for each asylum seeker that the Government are giving local authorities.. Lady give way? Ms Coffey: I cannot. as yet unannounced. after nearly five years in this cou ntry. Ma rlow: Will the hon. in social services departments. Whatever the eventual judgment on their status. but I would not have thought that the role of poor law administration was something that even the pr esent Government had in mind for them. The recent Refugee Council report. they would be entitled to treatment under the mental health Acts. because they have to be bought for them. bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Of course. I asked about cash payments. I understand that there is co nflicting legal advice. Member for Billericay gave the example of the use of t he meals on wheels service to provide food. That is the reality that must be taken into account. and would not be eligible to be reimbursed. and would endure any conditions in this country rather than face that alternative. and I have a constituent who. One silly example is that people cannot be given money for toothbrushes. I could be wrong. Local authorities could meet their responsibilities in a more costeffective way if they could make direct cash payments. when the service is already under mu ch pressure. although the expenditur e is lawful under general local government powers. . Yesterday. has not yet had his appeal against refusal of refugee status heard. Social workers tim e is being used to deliver groceries and take people shopping. Perhaps Mini sters foresee the prospect. T he administration will be costly. hostels. Members have already talked abo ut the delays. The hon. local authorities face the prospect of havin g to administer an alternative benefit system for asylum seekers. That i s totally unacceptable. The importance to those people of resolving their status as quickly as possible is also clear. if a Conservative Government are re-elected. The Department of Social Security has ruled that such payments are not lawful under the National Assistan ce Act 1948. Several hon. No one reading that report could fail to be struck by the desperation of those people s lives and circumstances. but the present situation is absurd. If asylum seekers become mentally ill as a result of stress and depression . Mr. and to support them in hotels. "Just Existence". The delays in the legal process need tackling. If the fu ndamental problem is not addressed. It would be interesting to see the after-care programme for such cases. That idea should be pursu ed. I know that the Government propose c hanges. each personally saw overwhelming reasons for not bein g able to return to their country of origin.115 ease. because of the shortage of time. flats and shelters. tracked 15 asylum seeke rs who had lost entitlement to benefit and were being offered various kinds of h elp by local authorities.
and clearly. Friends. I shall also write to other hon. in 1995. Mr. has caused great concern. it ha d fallen to 28. There has been an abuse of the asylum system. whatever legislation that process falls under.240 in 1996--the proportion of successful applicants granted refugee status as a result of genuine applications fell from 23 per cent. . 12. and must not carry high administrative costs. as a result of the changes that we made to benefits. so that he can be given answer s. In 1988 the re were 4. Marlow: Will my hon. I understand that a further appeal will be made to the House of Lords.000 asylum applications. Clearly there will not be time for me to deal wi th all the points that have been raised. Friend the Member for Bexhill a nd Battle (Mr. (11) Bu t the escalating number of economic and bogus asylum seekers who have come here. as well as by Opposition Members. Simon Burns): I sta rt by congratulating my hon. The assistance mu st be fair and consistent. and hon. Our objection to the Asylu m and Immigration Act 1996 is that it used the withdrawal of benefits to establi sh who was and who was not a genuine asylum seeker. even for the present Government. Members to deal with any other points that I am unable to raise during the short time available. I must first make it plain that this Government and this country have a justifiable reputation for welcomin g to our shores genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution and torture. to 6 per cent. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs.. the number had risen to a staggering 44.000. but I hope that my hon. Burns: I am sorry. I assure the House that I have listened extreme ly carefully to the variety of points made by my right hon. My hon. That was always bound to cau se undue hardship.000. if the Lords uphold the judgment of the Court of Appeal. we should offer refuge to genuine asylum seekers. Friend will understand that I ha ve only seven minutes left. the practice will cease to be an option.21 p m The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. and I shall ensure that his comments a re drawn to the appropriate Ministers attention.116 As a civilised society. Friends have said. as several of my hon. Yet by 1996. Wardle) raised several issues concerning the Home Office in conne ction with immigration and asylum policy. Friend give way? Mr. not because of persecution but because of the economic situation in this countr y and the benefits it affords them. We mus t therefore consider the best way of giving assistance and benefits to people en titled to them. Although there was an increase in the number of asylum seeke rs recognised as refugees--from 628 in 1988 to 2. Gorman) on i nitiating this important debate. we mus t also be aware of our humanitarian responsibilities.
Members will know. It is precisely because the Government are so concerned about the impact on local a uthorities of having to house asylum seekers that we are now making a new specia l grant available to help them to carry the burden. and Lambeth-appealed against that ruling. After social services provision was refused. 3.. the High Court ruled that local authorities had a duty under section 21(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 t o provide services as a safety net of last resort to those who. with the local authorities concerned--Westminster. which we approved in Standing Committee yesterday afternoon. the numbers remain high. It is those people who now pose such an onerous problem for local authorities. thus suggesting that the intended disincentive to economic migrants is working. the appeal wa s dismissed on 17 February. Friend the S ecretary of State for Health. It has imposed a new duty on them to support people for whom they have never before had to provide s ervices. when a small number of people who had claimed asylum after entering the country. That last grant will all ow claims from local authorities up to the equivalent of £165 per person per week. On 21 February. infirm or disabled. On 8 October 1996. As the House will know. to help meet the costs of those individuals. It is worth looking bri efly at how that happened. and so had been denied benefits. The judgment has had serious consequences for many social services authorities. asylum seekers who claim asylum at the point of arriv al in this country are entitled to social security benefits that cover housing. by reason of the ir circumstances. and at least a further 200 outside London. Rights to benefits have been withdrawn only from tho se who claim asylum after they have entered this country. As some of my hon. approached social servic es departments for aid. and the burden for loc al authorities is substantial. and an interim court order obliged the local authorities to accommodate them whi le proceedings were pending. one f or children accompanied by adults. especially in London. In addition. the situation a rose in early August. four of the asylum seekers sought judicial review against the local authorities concerned.501 adults were being accommoda ted by London authorities. We are currently seeking leave to appeal to the Hous e of Lords. It is not right that such a financial burden should be imposed on council tax payers. because we do not accept that the National Assistance Act should app ly to adult asylum seekers who are not elderly. were unable to fend for themselves. averaged over the relevant period. authorities will be able to claim up to . Hammersmith and Fulham. and who have no need for community care services. My right hon. thre e types of grant are being made available: one for unaccompanied children. Although the number of people claiming asylum in this country has falle n since the removal of benefits. or t hat services for local people should suffer as a result of the court ruling. Friends have said.117 As hon. food and other necessities. and the grant for adult asylum seekers.
Two other London boroughs currently accommodate more asylum seekers than Wes tminster. and Westminster. Kensington and Chelsea. were consulted on the details of the grant. which says that it is spending £205 a week. two authorities are excluded from that ran ge--Newham. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) seems to agree with me that that is illegal. We have listened to what they have said. Deputy Speaker (Mr. to a high.. We must now move on to the next debate. in Ealing. Mr. including Westminster.118 £10 per person per week for documented costs incurred in commissioning new premise s for housing asylum seekers. which is spending about £226 a week. It would be wrong not to take an average figure rather than giving different amounts to different authorities. . The sums range from a low. which allows it to save about £30 a head? The hon. which would clearly not be any more cost-effective or efficient for the taxpayer. Gorman: Is m y hon. and the neighbouring borough. I certainly accept tha t Westminster. but even-Mr. Mrs. about £119 a week. which has featured prominently in the debate. whic h is in many ways a similar local authority. Burns: Our legal advic e is that it is illegal. We have no plans to change the existing policy. of £90 per week. an d have been given guidance on how to claim reimbursement. The House may be interested to know that the figures from the local authorities show that most of the London authorities are spending less than the £165 per week that we allow. It must be borne in mind that Westminster is being cha rged about £226 a week. Michael Morris): Order . and we consider that the special grant is a fair and reasonable response to their concerns about adults without children. and there are about eight authorities with similarly high numbers. However. i n Redbridge. has a very high num ber of asylum seekers--292 at the most recent inquiry--but it is not alone in th at. The local authority associations and individual au thorities. Friend aware that Kensington and Chelsea is giving cash benefits at the m oment. of £164 per week.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.