Methodologically, we follow Forchtner’s ( 2021) narrative intervention in the DHA. Narratives mark the ontological and epistemological foundation of social identities ( Somers 1994), the coherent wholes which unveil deep-level structures of meaning associated with particularistic or pluralistic social identities (i.e., subjectivities). Thus, to assess the normative content of discursive interventions, i.e., to distinguishes true “critique” from banal reactionary criticism, we draw on a more elaborate approach which highlights the role of narrative. Far-right discursive interventions, for instance, push for illiberal democratic or anti-democratic polities ( Mudde 2019) they restrict the set of legitimate interlocutors in discourse with reference to ancestry-based signifiers ( Özvatan 2020). The latter promote particularistic closure. However, not every discursive intervention fulfils and/or fosters liberal-democratic principles, that is, some intervene for the (egalitarian) inclusion of “new” or dissimilar perspectives, while others intervene for egalitarianism within strictly defined boundaries. With that narrow focus, the DHA draws on pre-existing knowledge structures (topoi), intertextuality, interdiscursivity, argumentation and pluri-perspectivity in the analysis to reveal the content, strategies and empirical realization of discourse, i.e., of discursive intention. What renders the DHA particular is its focus on all semiotics that relate to societal knowledge structures. It is against this background that Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), in particular, the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA), emerged as an approach to analyze the context and forms of expressions in which “critiques” of social inequalities emerge ( Reisigl and Wodak 2009). When and how does critique succeed in revealing social inequalities and transform them, given social relations of domination and/or exclusion? Second generation critical theorists, such as Jürgen Habermas ( 1998) and Seyla Benhabib ( 1996), problematized the relationship between the construction of the nation-state, deliberative procedures and the exclusion of ‘the Other’. These two text-level strategies reveal their meaning in two antagonistic narrative genres: Jamal al-Khatib’s “self-reflexive savior” creates an inclusionary discursive space represented in a self-ironic narrative genre, while Generation Islam’s ”crusading savior” manufactures an exclusionary discursive space represented in a romance featuring a nostalgic return to the particularistic Islamic umma.ĭiscursive inclusion and exclusion is one of Critical Theory’s key questions. While Jamal al-Khatib disseminates persuasive stories, Generation Islam is much less invested in narrative persuasion it seems to address an already convinced audience. Our two-layered, DHA-inspired narrative analysis illustrates that, at the level of text, narrative persuasion varies between both contrasting actors. We draw on novel narrative approaches to the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), via which we compare text-level and context-level narratives disseminated about three Muslim-related crises: the racist terrorist attacks/genocide to represent the national, European and global level. In a bid to understand how inclusionary and exclusionary discursive spaces are created, we ask: How do some Muslim actors create discursive spaces open to self-reflection, pluralism and liberal-democratic principles, while others construct illiberal, particularistic and non/anti-democratic spaces? To respond to this question, we compare two contrasting storytellers, one who agitates for exclusionary Islamist radicalism/extremism ( Generation Islam) and one who offers inclusionary prevention and deradicalization work against that ( Jamal al-Khatib). As a reaction, counter-movements to online Islamist radicalism/extremism emerged in Western societies (and beyond), while uncertainty about effective outcomes remains widespread. Radical/extremist Islamist actors use social media to disseminate uncompromising stories of monist religious political orders and identities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |