• Digital Humanities and Cultural Heritage
• Publications close
• AT close
• Journal of Language and Politics close

Abstract Sustainability has been well used (and abused) as “buzz-word”, label or language token for certain behavior and action in political, organizational and increasingly in individual communication. Based on critical approaches in language, discourse and communication studies, the paper explores potential processes of normalization of sustainability as a new norm, discusses new theories and methodological variations that can be applied to better understand sustainable development, and offers a theoretical concept for cultivation of sustainability as a dialectic process of questioning and stabilization in transformation and change processes. Complemented by a communication for development and social change perspective, the paper lays the theoretical foundation for an understanding of sustainability as organizing principle in socio-ecological change processes, which is further elaborated in the contributions of this Special Issue, which are introduced at the end.

AbstractThis position paper argues for an interdisciplinary agenda relating crises to on-going processes of normalization of anti- and post-democratic action. We call for exploring theoretically and empirically the ‘new normal’ logic introduced into public imagination on the back of various crises, including the recent ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Europe, COVID-19 pandemic, or the still ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. Gathering researchers of populism, extremism, discrimination, and other formats of anti- and post-democratic action, we propose investigating how, why, and under which conditions, discourses and practices underlying normalization processes re-emerge to challenge the liberal democratic order. We argue exploring the multiple variants of ‘the new normal’ related to crises, historically and more recently. We are interested in how and why these open pathways for politics of exclusion, inequality, xenophobia and other patterns of anti- and post-democratic action while deepening polarization and radicalization of society as well as propelling far-right politics and ideologies.

Einst ein Konzept der radikalen Umweltbewegung, wurde der Begriff Nachhaltigkeit zunehmend in den hegemonialen Diskurs inkorporiert. Frühere Arbeiten gehen davon aus, dass dies durch einen Prozess geschah, in dem sich die ursprüngliche Kontroverse zwischen ökologischen und ökonomischen Fragen von einer antagonistischen Opposition zu einer breiten Übereinstimmung entwickelte. Während diese Tendenz hauptsächlich qualitativ analysiert wurde, wenden wir eine quantitative Analyse der Massenmedien in Österreich zwischen 1990 und 2020 an, um die veränderte Verwendung des Begriffs nachzuzeichnen. Unter Anwendung von Methoden der Korpuslinguistik und des natural language processing (NLP) zeigen wir, dass der Diskurs im Laufe der Zeit weniger polarisiert ist, eine zunehmend positive Sprache verwendet und sich immer mehr an die konservativen Teile der Bevölkerung wendet. Die Präsenz politischer Akteure nimmt nach dem Jahr 2000 deutlich ab, und gleichzeitig werden verstärkt kommerzielle und individuelle Lösungen diskutiert - jeder ist verantwortlich, und niemand trägt die Schuld.

Abstract A growing literature on the impact of “fake news“ accusations on legacy news outlets suggests that the use of this term is part of a much larger trend of increased and delegitimizing media criticism by political actors. However, so far, there is very little empirical evidence on how prevailing politicians’ delegitimizing media criticism really is and under which conditions it occurs. To fill these gaps, we present results of a content analysis of media-related Facebook postings by Austrian and German politicians in 2017 (N = 2,921). The results suggest that media criticism, in general, is actually rare and that about half of it can be described as delegitimizing (i.e., characterized by incivility or absence of argumentation). Most often, media criticism is used by populist politicians, who accuse “the media” in general of bias and falsehoods.

This article reviews Une formule dans la guerre des mots : « La delegitimation d’Israel » 978-2-406-07815-9

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

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

Abstract This article analyses antisemitic elements in the Austrian print media discourse about the 2008–2010 economic crisis. The relevant discursive statements are examined in the light of a theoretical understanding of antisemitic discursive threads as found in the prevalent modes of presentation of the economic and financial crisis in the media. The first main finding is the broad avoidance of openly antisemitic stereotypes, with the exception of the Neue Kronen Zeitung. The second main finding is that structurally antisemitic discursive elements appear above all where (a) specific groups (“high finance”, “financial sharks”, “speculators”) are singled out as the main culprits, (b) these are opposed to a homogeneously constructed “us” (the “Volk”), and (c) where the formers’ greed is stressed and where they are accused of harming the people. Here we find nationalistic and latent antisemitic discourses, the stereotypical contrasting of finance and production, conspiracy theories and anti-Americanism closely interwoven.