Ideological Polarization as a Deception Strategy in the Discourse of American Think Tanks: A Critical Discourse Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36586/jcl.2.2022.0.45.0001Keywords:
Critical discourse analysis, deception, ideological polarization, political discourse, think tanksAbstract
Deception is an inseparable facet of political discourse in attaining strategic political gains though compromising public opinion. However, the employment of discursive deception strategies by the policy-making institutions of think tanks has not received due attention in the literature. The current study aims at exploring how the ideologizing deception strategies are utilized by the conservative American think tank of the Washington Institute to reproduce socio-political realities and re-shape public opinion. To fulfill this task, van Dijk’s (2000) notion of ideological polarization which shows positive self-representation and negative other representation is adopted to conduct a critical discourse analysis of four Arabic texts released with the main focus on four different political topics. Results reveal the centrality of employing deception strategies for the sake of realizing political wins for establishing an ideological hegemony while simultaneously polarizing an Us against Them extreme.
(Received on 12/10/2021 - Accepted on 10/11/2021 - Published on 2/1/2022 )
References
Al-Hindawi, F., & Al-Aadli, N. (2017). The Pragmatics of Deception in American Presidential Electoral Speeches. Canadian Center of Science and Education 5, 207-219.
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Press Conferences. Discourse and Society 17(2), 173–203.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge.
Chouliaraki, L., Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Carter, E. 2014. Deception in different contexts. In T. R. Levine (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Deception (pp. 264-268). Sage.
Dunmire, P. L. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language. Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (11), 735–751.
El-Zawawy, Ahmed, M. (2017). Towards a New Linguist Model for Detecting Political Lies. Russian Journal of Linguistics 21(1) 183-202.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. New York: Longman Inc.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. New York: Longman Publishing.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In Gee, J. P. & Handford, M. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 9-20). New York: Routledge.
Fowler, R.G., Kress, G. R., Trew, A.A., Hodge, R.I.V. (1979) Language and Control. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of Deception. London: Sage Publications.
Godson, R. and Wirtz, J. J. (2000). Strategic Denial and Deception. International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence, (13) 4, 424-437.
Gupta, S. (2014). Definitions of Deception. In Levine T R (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Deception (pp. 250-251). London: SAGE Publication
Macdonald, S. (2007). Propaganda and Information warfare in the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
Mahon, J.E. (2014). Characteristics of Deception. In Levine, T. R. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Deception (pp. 246-249). London: SAGE Publication.
McGann, J. (2019). Think Tanks, Foreign Policy, and The Emerging Powers. Philadelphia: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nate, R. (2006) Metaphor. In: Sloane, T. (ed) Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp. 511-514). London: Oxford University Press.
Olajimbiti, E. 2019. The Pragmatics of Political Deception on Facebook. In Chiluwa, I. & Samoilenko, A. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Deception, Fake News, and Misinformation Online (pp. 308-325). IGI Global.
Oswald S, Maillat, D. and Saussure, L. (2016). Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication. In: Rocci, A., Saussure, L. (eds) Verbal Communication (pp. 509- 534). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Paolucci, P. (2009). Public Discourse in an Age of Deception: Forging the Iraq War. Critical Sociology, 35(6) 863-886.
Plehwe, D., (2015). The politics of policy think-tanks: organizing expertise, legitimacy and counter-expertise in policy networks. In Fischer, F., Torgerson, D., Durnova, A., Orsini, M., (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Policy Studies (pp. 358-377). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Strudler, A. (2005). Deception Unraveled. Journal of Philosophy, 102 (9), 458-473.
Teubert W. (2010). Meaning, Discourse and Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk T. A. (2015). Ideology. In Mazzoleni, G. (Ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication (pp. 495-505). John Wiley & Sons.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and Discourse. (accessed September 20, 2020). http://www.discourses.org/download/books/.
Van Eemeren, F., Garseen, B., Meuffels, B. (2006). Fallacies and Judgments on Reasonableness. Springer.
Van ‘t Veer A. E. (2014). Attitudes towards Deception. In Levine T R (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Deception (pp. 244-246). London: Sage Publication.
Weaver R. K. (1989). The Changing World of Think Tanks. Political Science and Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3.
Wiarda, H. J. (2010). Think tanks and foreign policy: The Foreign Policy Research Institute and presidential politics. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis and the study of doctor-patient interaction. In Gunnarsson, B.-L., Linell, P., and Nordberg, B. (Eds.), The Construction of Professional Discourse (pp. 173-200). London: Longman.
