Discursive Construction of National Identity

Discursive Construction of National Identity Theorising Migration II.

Jana Slavíková 26.2.2010

Instructor: Tanja Petrović

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

Contents 1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3

2.

Basic concepts ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.

4.

5.

2.1.

Identity .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.

The Nation ..................................................................................................................... 4

Critical Discourse Analysis ..................................................................................................... 6 3.1.

The CDA Programme and Preferred Topics .................................................................. 6

3.2.

The CDA Methodology .................................................................................................. 7

3.3.

Critique of CDA .............................................................................................................. 8

The Discursive Construction of National Identities ............................................................... 8 4.1.

Dimensions of the Discursive Construction of Identity............................................... 10

4.2.

The Discursive Construction of American Identity ...................................................... 11

The Discursive Construction of Czech National Identity ..................................................... 12 5.1.

Background.................................................................................................................. 12

5.2.

Sources ........................................................................................................................ 13

5.3.

Contents – Topics ........................................................................................................ 14

5.4.

Discursive Strategies ................................................................................................... 16

5.5.

Linguistic Strategies..................................................................................................... 17

6.

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 18

7.

Sources for analysis ............................................................................................................. 19

8.

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 19

2

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

1. Introduction Nation-state, nation, “ethnos”, culture, mother tongue... All these concepts set apart “us” from “the other”. Our identity is constructed by comparing and contrasting, which takes place in discourse, that is in oral as well as written communication. However, discourse is subject to power struggles. Perceptions are influenced in various ways: especially through the educational system and media, which are tools in the hands of elites, used to spread their ideology (examination of the term can be found in Woolard, 1998).

In my paper, I would like to focus on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which is “a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.” (Van Dijk, 2003: 252) I will shortly introduce this interdisciplinary approach, present its main representatives, its programme and paradigm.

Subsequently, I will concentrate on a particular aspect: the discursive construction of national identity and how the issues of minorities and migrants are negotiated within this framework. To this end I will use examples presented in the works of scholars, who focused on the cases of Austria and the United States of America.

Finally, I would like to attempt to make a small analysis myself. The year 2009 was very important for the Czech Republic, similarly to the importance of 2005 for Austria (Wodak, de Cillia, 2007). Not only took the Czech Republic over the presidency of the European Union (EU) for the first time, but it also celebrated a number of significant anniversaries. In May, 5 years had passed since the EU accession, and on 17 November, 10 years since the Velvet Revolution (the fall of communism) and 70 years since the bloodily repressed demonstration of Czech students against the Nazi occupation.

With the aim of observing the discursive construction of Czech national identity, I am going to analyse the speeches of the Czech president Václav Klaus on these occasions, the speech of the former president of the Czech Republic Václav Havel and also a speech of the Czech prime minister Jan Fischer and a news report on the celebrations of 17 November 2009.

3

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

2. Basic concepts 2.1.Identity Bucholtz and Hall (2005) approach “identity as a relational and socio-cultural phenomenon that emerges and circulates in local discourse contexts of interaction rather than as a stable structure located primarily in the individual psyche or in fixed social categories.” They continue to state that “[i]dentity is the social positioning of self and other.” To study identity, they propose five fundamental principles that may be summed up as follows: 1. “Identity is a discursive construct that emerges in interaction.”

2. “Identities encompass (a) macro-level demographic categories, (b) local ethnographically specific cultural categories, and (c) temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles.”

3. “Identity relations emerge in interaction through several related indexical processes, including: (a) overt mention of identity categories and labels; (b) implicatures and presuppositions regarding one’s own or others’ identity position; (c) displayed evaluative and epistemic orientations to ongoing talk, as well as interactional footings and participant roles; and (d) the use of linguistic structures and systems that are ideologically associated with specific personas and groups.”

4.

“Identities are intersubjectively constructed through several, often overlapping, complementary relations, including similarity/difference, genuineness/artifice, and authority/delegitimacy.”

5. “Any given construction of identity may be in part deliberate and intentional, in part habitual and hence often less than fully conscious, in part an outcome of interactional negotiation and contestation, in part an outcome of others’ perceptions and representations, and in part an effect of larger ideological processes and material structures that may become relevant to interaction. It is therefore constantly shifting both as interaction unfolds and across discourse contexts.”

2.2.The Nation Despite the widespread perception of the nation as a natural, objective, and almost biological unit, the nation is an “imagined community”. (Hobsbawm cited in Blommaert, Verschueren, 1998: 189) The main features of the nations are descent, 4

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

history (or common myths), culture, religion, and language, which form a cluster.

Members of the nation “are bound together by a sense of solidarity, [...] a national consciousness” (Seton-Watson, 1977: 1 in Castles, Miller, 2003: 41). Another definition describes nation as “an ethnic group that attains sovereignty over a bounded territory [...] and establishes a nation-state” (Castles, Miller, 2003: 41).

The creation of a nation is a result of homogeneism, according to which “the ideal model of society is monolingual, monoethnic, monoreligious, monoideological”. The ideology striving to achieve this goal is nationalism. In fact, there are different types of nationalism: German nationalism is ethnic, while French version is territorially based.

(Blommaert, Verschueren, 1998: 195-7) “Ironically, [...] a perfect homology among nation, state, and language never existed in Europe or anywhere else.” (Gal, 2009) The ethnically or linguistically different groups living in the territory of a newly established nation-state became minorities and faced few options: departure or assimilation. Only recently has the trend begun to turn, these minorities achieved recognition and even support from the state. In Europe, this development has taken place mostly thanks to the European Union. (Trenz, 2007, Kuter, 1992) However, national identity, like social identity in general, is not a static concept: “national identification and what it is believed to imply, can change and shift in time, even in the course of quite short periods.” (Hobsbawm cited in Blommaert, Verschueren, 1998: 190) National identities “are discursively, by means of language and other semiotic systems, produced, reproduced, transformed and destructed.” Identity is internalized through “national” socialization, as a complex of common ideas, concepts or perception schemes, of related emotional attitudes and similar behavioural dispositions, as well as stereotypical notions of other nations. “[T]here is no such thing as the one and only national identity.” National identities are “discursively constructed according to context”, they are “dynamic, fragile, ‘vulnerable’ and often incoherent.”

(De Cillia et al., 1999: 153-4) To explore the issue of national ideology / identification and the role of language, Blommaert and Verschueren (1998) explored the corpus of news, emphasising three important points for such investigation: 5

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

1. Selected newspapers should be mainstream publications that together have a maximal readership but each of which has a different target audience.

2. Equal attention should be paid to regular news reports and editorials (which are more openly subject to personal interpretation and bias).

3. The supposedly common world of beliefs, i.e. he implicit frame of reference, is more important than explicit statements made by reporters or commentators.

Also Ricento (2003) concludes that for analysis of the construction of national identity, “[t]he obvious candidates are texts of major social institutions, such as the media, education, government, business, and so on.” Basically, analysis should concentrate on the texts of “power elites” (more about “social power” later).

3. Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis is a “school of discourse analysis that concerns itself with relations of power and inequality in language”. It emerged in the late 1980s and the main representatives of a “core CDA” are Norman Fairclough (whose book Language and Power is considered to be the landmark publication for the “start” of CDA in 1989), Ruth Wodak, and Teun van Dijk. Other related approaches in CDA include discursive social psychology, social semiotics and work on multimodality in discourse, systemicfunctional linguistics, and political discourse analysis. Its major forum of publication is the journal Discourse and Society, started in 1990 and edited by van Dijk. (Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 453-5)

3.1.The CDA Programme and Preferred Topics CDA focuses on the analysis of “structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language” (quotation of Wodak 1995: 204 in Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 448). It “states that discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned.” De Cillia et al. (1999: 157) specify that “[t]hrough discourse social actors constitute knowledge, situations, social roles as well as identities and interpersonal relations between various interacting social groups.” They “distinguish between constructive, perpetuating, transformational and destructive macro-strategies of discourse.”(More on the topic later.)

6

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

Three dimensions of discourse may be conceived and analyzed (Fairclough 1992a cited in Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 448-9): 1. Discourse-as-text (e.g. choices and patterns of vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, text structure) – reliance on certain branches of linguistics 2. Discourse-as-discursive-practice (circulation of concrete linguistic objects – Blommaert and Bulcaen point out that more attention should be given to “macro” conditions of the production of discourse, to speech acts, coherence, and intertextuality) 3. Discourse-as-social-practice (the articulation and rearticulation of orders of discourse, which reflect hegemonic changes and struggles over normativity, attempts at control, and resistance against regimes of power) CDA advocates social commitment and interventionism and it is strongly practiceoriented. Therefore, “CDA practitioners tend to work on applied and applicable topics and social domains such as the following” (Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 450-1):: 1. Political discourse

6. Media language

2. Ideology

7. Gender

3. Racism

8. Institutional discourse

4. Economic discourse

9. Education

5. Advertisement and promotional

10. Literacy

culture “In all these domains, issues of power asymmetries, exploitation, manipulation, and structural inequalities are highlighted.”

3.2.The CDA Methodology A crucial function in the social production of inequality, power, ideology, authority, and manipulation is attributed to linguistic-discursive structures. (van Dijk 1995 in Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 450) Prominent is the use of systemic-functional linguistics, “but categories and concepts have also been borrowed from more mainstream discourse analysis and text linguistics, stylistics, social semiotics, social cognition, rhetoric, and […] conversation analysis.” (Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 450)

7

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

“Wodak and her associates have developed a discourse-historical method intent on tracing the (intertextual) history of phrases and arguments.” It combines examination of original documents, ethnographic research and analysis of contemporary news reporting, political discourse, lay beliefs, and discourse. (Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 450) Wodak herself (Wodak, Reisigl, 1999) describes the approach as “an extension of van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model” that attempts “to integrate systematically all available background information in the analysis and interpretation of many layers of a text”, i.e. “historical-political and affective levels” (which is actually one of the criticized weaknesses of CDA, as indicated below).

3.3.Critique of CDA “Critical reactions to CDA center on issues of interpretation and context. […] CDA interprets discourse under the guise of critical analysis, […] [but a]nalysts project their own political biases and prejudices onto their data and analyze them accordingly.”

Questions are raised about representation, selectivity, partiality, and prejudice, and blurring and vagueness of many concepts and models criticized. (Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 455) Another weakness of CDA is lack of reference to other disciplines dealing with the same issues under a critical paradigm, such as linguistic anthropology, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, applied linguistics, and other fields. Blommaert and Bulcaen point out that CDA would benefit from paying “more attention to ethnography as a resource for contextualizing data and as a theory for the interpretation of data”, and also to “genuinely historical theoretical insights”. In their opinion, “CDA is still burdened by a very “linguistic” outlook, which prevents productive ways of incorporating linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions of semiosis”. (Blommaert, Bulcaen, 2000: 456-61)

4. The Discursive Construction of National Identities It has been noted above that two of the features of the nation are common language and history. “National past” is not an objective self-existent reality. It is constructed in discourse and may be changed in case of a shift in power. De Cillia et al. (1999: 150) quote Rudolf Burge (1996: 40) and speak about a nationalizing strategy of the “nationalist dilatation of time”, which is “usurping and taking possession of past 8

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

contingencies by means of transhistorical and, at the same time, de-historizing mythical expansion ex post facto.”

The foundation of common history is “‘collective memory’, the selective recollection of past events which are thought to be important for members of a specific community.”

(Halbwachs, 1985, quoted in de Cillia et al., 1999: 154) It is “an evoking of a past to frame a present but also to conform that past to the present.” (Gronbeck, 1998: 58 quoted in Wodak, de Cillia, 2007: 340) Collective memories together with individual memories1 inform the national narrative, which is a subject of competition among various groups. “The one and only” narrative that becomes hegemonic has a strong impact on the discursive construction of national identities, but it is not static. “[H]istorical narratives are constantly discursively and visually (re)constructed, changing and shifting, due to contexts and diverse, often contradicting and conflicting, political interests.” (Wodak, de Cillia, 2007: 338-9) Important commemorative speeches and “founding” documents become part of national narratives. (Ricento, 2003: 612) CDA “tries to uncover discursive strategies of dissimilation (aiming at the construction of national differences) and discursive strategies of assimilation (aiming at the construction of intranational sameness)” and “describes a number of context-determined “national-identity narratives””. CDA explores the ways in which the discursive construction of national identities is informed by politicians, intellectuals and media people, and through the systems of education, schooling, mass communication, etc. (De Cillia et al., 1999: 151-2) These tools of persuasion are easier accessed and used by individuals or groups with “social power”, which “is based on privileged access to socially valued resources, such as wealth, income, position, status, force, group membership, education or knowledge.” (Van Dijk, 1993: 254 quoted in Ricento, 2003: 615)

1

Halbwachs (1967: 31) claims that “every individual memory is a viewpoint on the collective memory”. (in Wodak, de Cillia, 2007: 343)

9

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

4.1.Dimensions of the Discursive Construction of Identity In their analysis of the discursive construction of Austrian identity, de Cillia et al.

(1999:157-66) examine three interrelated dimensions: 1. Contents/topics2 – five macro-areas related to the discursive construction of Austrian identity and nation: a. the idea of a ‘homo austriacus’ and a ‘homo externus’ b. the narrative of a collective political history c. the discursive construction of a common culture d. the discursive construction of a collective present and future e. the discursive construction of a ‘national body’ 2. Strategies discursively forming nations and national identities: a. macro-strategies3: i. constructive strategies – to ‘build’ or establish a particular national “we-group” ii. perpetuation and justification strategies – to maintain, support and reproduce, or defend and preserve, national identities iii. transformation strategies – to transform the meaning of a wellestablished aspect of national identity iv. dismantling or destructive strategies – to de-mythologize or demolish existing national identities or elements of them b. local strategies – presuppose or emphasize sameness and/or difference as well as uniqueness, autonomy/independence or heteronomy, inclusion or exclusion, unity or fragmentation, continuity or discontinuity, e.g.: i. emphasizing national singularity ii. presupposition of intra-national sameness or similarity and differences between nations iii. positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation

2

An important role in discourse belongs to collective symbols, so called topoi. (Wodak, de Cillia, 2007, Ricento, 2003) 3 Ricento (2003) calls these strategies “rhetorical strategies”. He names strategies of justification, strategies of unification and cohesivation and strategy of avoidance as sub-groups of constructive strategies, and strategy of avoidance also as a sub-strategy of strategies of perpetuation.

10

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

3. Linguistic means and forms of realization (or linguistic strategies – Ricento, 2003) – “lexical units, argumentation schemes and analytical means which express unity, sameness, difference, singularity, continuity, change, autonomy, heteronomy, etc. – e.g.4: a. the use of metaphors b. the role of social actors (sociological and linguistic agency may differ, problematic positioning of the speaker may be indicated by suppressed, absent or excluded agency, degrees of identification are further signalled by personal or general, concrete or abstract agencies) i. the use of the personal pronoun ‘we’ (more or less inclusive) ii. the use of passive voice c. verb tense and aspect, and other types of temporal reference5 d. vagueness in referential or other expressions (euphemisms, allusions, rhetorical questions, passive constructions) e. tropes of metonymy, synecdoche, and personification (Ricento, 2003: 618, refers to the detailed description in Wodak et al., 1999)

4.2.The Discursive Construction of American Identity Ricento (2003) investigates the formation of American identity at the beginning of 20th century. A significant part of the collective American narrative was the ideology of American exceptionalism. However, equally important was “the ideology of the unique genius and role of Anglo-Saxon culture and the English language in the expression and development of the institutions of American democracy.” (Ricento paraphrases Horsman, 1981) He notes that “developing the necessary language – themes, metaphors, and other rhetorical tropes – to express American identity” played a crucial role.

Ricento’s findings are an example of the fact that there is no “one and only” static national identity (Hobsbawm and de Cillia cited above). He explores three concepts / perceptions of Americanism (still present in the contemporary American discourse)

4 5

The authors elaborate on the following points in Wodak, de Cillia (2007: 347-8).

Points (c), (d) and (e) are listed in Ricento, 2003: 617-8.

11

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

which differ in the degree of inclusiveness, but also in their influence, which depends on the power of their supporters (the third one is the weakest): 1. Conservative “Americanism as an ideological process” allows “foreign-born individuals with the motivation and desire, proper education, training, and opportunities [to] become like native-born Americans.” Language is an indispensable tool that should ideally lead to “common agreement on an American world view”, itself being spread through compulsory education and guarded by censorship.

2. Liberal approach argues that “Americanism is strengthened by the talents and cultures of the foreign born, and that the native born have a responsibility to welcome, and learn from, the foreign born.” Thought-sharing is encouraged through English language at schools, the mainstream media, and free public libraries.

3. Progressive view declares that “democracy is the essence of Americanism.” It is not tied “to any particular ethnicity, culture, religion, or language.” There is “no typical American”, and social and economic justice should be ensured for everybody.

5. The Discursive Construction of Czech National Identity 5.1.Background In 2009, the Czech Republic celebrated several significant anniversaries: 5 years since the EU accession on 1 May 2004, 20 years since the Velvet Revolution and the end of communism on 17 November 1989 and 70 years since the beginning of Nazi repressions in 1939. The truth is that the previous year, 2008, bore even more significance: 90 years since the “birth” of Czechoslovakia in 1918, 60 years since the communist putsch in February 1948, and 40 years since the “Prague Spring” and the beginning of Soviet occupation in 1968, to name just the main events. But I focused on the more recent past.

Jan Fischer is currently the prime minister of the Czech Republic. His interim government was appointed after the fall of Topolanek’s government in March 2009. He 12

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

is an economist and statistician, and has been the head of the Czech Statistical Office since 2003.

Václav Havel was the first president of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic after the Velvet Revolution and then the president of the independent Czech Republic (19932003). Originally, he is a writer and playwright, and he played an important role in the fall of communism. As a president, he used to have conflicts with politicians because he places emphasis on civil society and humanitarian and moral values, and disgusts political quarrels and the priority of “national interests”.

Václav Klaus is the president of the Czech Republic. He is originally a liberal economist and was the first minister of finance after the fall of communism and later became the prime minister. In 2003, he was elected to be the president, and re-elected in 2008 to stay in the office. He is well-known for his open euroscepticism and controversial opinions about global warming.

5.2.Sources For the analysis of the discursive construction of Czech national identity, I selected several documents – speeches of the top representatives of the Czech Republic6: 1. Speech of the prime minister Jan Fischer on the occasion of the fall of communism in Poland (Krakow, 11. 6. 2009) 2. Speech of the former president Václav Havel on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution (Czech television, 14. 11. 2009) 3. News report on the celebrations of 17 November (iHNed.cz, 17. 11. 2009) 4. Three speeches of the Czech president Václav Klaus a. At the ceremonial assembly at the Prague Castle on 28 October 2009 (the day of the establishment of Czechoslovakia) b. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (California, 6. 11. 2009)

6

I did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of the discursive construction of Czech national identity.

Therefore, I decided to focus on texts of “power elites” (Ricento, 2003 – cited above). I used sources available on the websites of the president and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and a news report and a speech transcription from the online branch of Hospodářské noviny (a mainstream newspaper whose target audience is in the business and academic circles).

13

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

c. At a remembrance meeting hosted by Václav Havel on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the fall of communism in our country (A cultural centre in Prague, 14. 11. 2009)

5.3.Contents – Topics In the analysed speeches, several recurring topics may be identified: 1. The Czech Republic and communism Obviously, communism is the central topic of these speeches. All the speakers praise the freedom gained in 1989. However, freedom has a slightly different meaning for each of them. Fischer highlights the freedom to vote, Klaus speaks about “free selfrealization” (14. 11. 2009) and for Havel, freedom means basic rights and freedoms.

Also, Klaus speaks of freedom (or rather lack of it) in association with the European Union. Especially in his speech in the USA, he openly states: “In November 1989, I thought that the world in 2009 would be freer than it is. To my great regrets, I experience more state interventions into my life and less individual freedom than I [...] expected then.” On the contrary, Fischer speaks of the EU as a “free family”.

Communism is something the Czech Republic fought against, something that had its victims, but something the CR has overcome to become a democratic country. Since 1989, it has been in a process of transition, undergoing many changes. The prevailing impression is that catching up has not been finished yet. The former prime minister Mirek Topolánek present at the celebrations of 17 November 2009 confirmed the notion that the CR still lags behind: “More than ever before during the 20 years, we feel that our country is still immature, that democracy is still not as anchored as we would wish.”

Klaus points to the fact that the young Czech generation does not even remember communism anymore and freedom is a commonplace for them, not “a precious gift that we constantly have to nurture and fight for. That is what we, eyewitnesses, must never stop reminding them.” (14. 11. 2009) Obviously, communism is less and less a part of the national identity of the young generations.

14

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

2. The Czech Republic and other post-communist countries The Czech Republic is compared with Poland, on the one hand, and Germany, on the other hand. While Fischer contrasts Poland (mentioning its strong ally during the communist era, Pope John Paul II.) with the “religiously much colder” Czech Republic, Klaus repeatedly refers to Germany. In the USA, he differentiates East Germany from the other communist countries, because “East Germans had their older brothers in West Germany”. At the more informal meeting in a Prague cultural centre, Klaus recollects his presence at the celebrations of the fall of the Berlin wall: “There, I became strongly aware that we are different and that also our 17 November 1989 was different than 9 November of that year in Germany. Therefore, it is good that we choose ways less pompous and choose events that to a greater extent and more directly concern that what happened 20 years ago, and those who were there. We do not have the need to invite contemporary politicians of great powers who have nothing to do with what happened back then.” Klaus seems to despise the ostentation of the German celebrations and praises the quiet “Czech way” of doing things: be it a revolution or its celebration.

Germans (and Austrians) have historically played an important “other” in the construction of Czech national identity.

3. The Czech Republic and Europe On the one hand, Fischer speaks of becoming “members of one free family of European nations”. On the other hand, I have mentioned that in 2009, the CR celebrated an anniversary of its EU accession: but in fact, there were no significant events on that occasion. The Czech Republic is rather sceptic and the EU is a distant and not entirely comprehensible concept.

Still, most Czechs are not as eurosceptic as their president Klaus, who insists: “Dangerous erosion of the state is taking place as a result of the accelerating European integration process. Also for that reason, some people cease to consider their state and its institutions to be the unit they can rely on, with which they can and should identify themselves, and whose development and strengthening they should strive.” (28. 10.

2009) European Union is conceived as “the other”, although opinions whether it provides or restricts freedom may differ.

15

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

4. The heritage of the “First Republic” (1918-1938) Havel identifies two possible perceptions of Czech national identity: One is the tradition of democracy and humanity, and the other is narrow-mindedness and expediency (a legacy of communism, in his view). He says: “Two basic traditions can be observed in the Czech public and political life. A tradition of Masaryk’s followers, for which the Czech question is a human question and which affirms our shared responsibility for the world, and a tradition of selfishly narrow-minded Czechs who look at all foreigners with mistrust and constantly suspect them of the intention to hurt us. When it is allowed, the representatives of this tradition noisily shout something about our closer unspecified national interests, and when it is not allowed, then on the contrary, they cower and start to mind their own business and wait how everything will work out. ... I believe that in twenty years we will not be a subject of the international attention and thanks to a would-be strong struggle with big states for our importance, but thanks to the way of our existence in the world, our share of responsibility for the whole, thanks to our good ideas that we offer to all for common possession.”

Klaus refers to a similar division of Czech society: “[...] our country was deeply divided during the long 40 years [of communism]. During this day [28 October], many of us used to recollect the ideas and ideals that our country had been founded and built on for 2 decades after WW1 ... We suffered from the fact that we had not managed to keep suverenity and independence ... Others ... were assuring themselves that exactly thanks to the February turnover [1948] we were living in the best of possible worlds." (28. 10.

2009)

5.4.Discursive Strategies “We-group” of Czechs is constructed (constructive strategy) against the “other-groups” of Germans, Poles, Russia (Havel refers to it as “the big brother”) and the European Union. It is presented as a group of those who defeated communism – in a way different from Germans or Poles. Despite pointing to divisions in Czech society (young, not remembering – old eyewitnesses, pro-communist – anti-communist, moral – immoral), communism is presented as something impersonal and inflicted from the outside. The speakers do not overly blame the collaborators, which would create an undesirable 16

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

divide. On the contrary, “we-group” is in some respects extended to all Central European post-communist countries, or even the European Union (Fischer).

It is especially Klaus who uses positive self-presentation and negative otherpresentation: of Germans (see above) and the EU. He has actually paralleled the EU with the communist regime in the past. On 6 November 2009, he warns against “other collectivist and dirigist “-isms””. It may refer to the EU, which he openly accuses of limiting the state sovereignty.

5.5.Linguistic Strategies The use of “we” has been indicated above. It has also been noted that communism was presented by the speakers as something impersonal and inflicted. It is the case especially in Klaus’s speech. He states that “[a]t the end of the 1980s, communism was already so weak, soft, old”, and further on that “communism was not ready to voluntarily declare itself dead” (6. 11. 2009). By this personification, communism is constructed as an (outside) enemy of the Czech nation.

On the other hand, communism is also identified with the Soviet Union. Klaus fluently switches from communism to the USSR when he mentions “a successful strategy how to defeat communism and win the cold war” (6. 11. 2009). Fischer differentiates more precisely: he speaks of “communists”, “the communist empire” and then uses a metonymy “Moskva was afraid”. Havel, in comparison, is more subtle and ambivalent when using the metaphor “big brother” – big Slavic brother Russia or Orwell’s concept of monitoring (by secret police).

Regarding the current unity of the Czech nation, verb tense is also used by Klaus to point out that the division of Czech society during communism is not present anymore: he uses past tense when speaking about the “huge discrepancy” between the two groups of pro- and anti-communists. He confirms the thought by continuing: “I am convinced that nowadays, there is no reason for a formation of a new deep trench dividing our society in the same way as in the past.”

17

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

6. Conclusion In my paper, I have attempted to analyse the language and phrases in several speeches of the top representatives of the Czech Republic, with the intention to find examples of the discursive construction of Czech national identity.

The most important “others” in the discursive construction of Czech national identity can be identified as: Germany, Russia (or former Soviet Union), and the European Union. Regarding the EU, two tendencies compete: one viewing the EU as a new enemy (e.g. Klaus) and one including the CR into the “European family” (e.g. Fischer).

Communism and gained freedom still play an important role in the national identification. On the one hand, the term “fall” is used when speaking about the end of communism in the Czech Republic. On the other hand, politicians speak of gradual changes and envision that the process will continue.

Havel indicated two perceptions of Czech national identity: a tradition (or rather an ideal) of high morals and humanism, and a self-perception of a “small” Czech person, who is narrow-minded, shrewd, not very brave, but boastful. Also Klaus referred to the tradition of high morals originating in the First Republic. Furthermore, he presented Czechs as quiet people, in contrast to ostentatious Germans. Another feature of Czech national identity was mentioned by Fischer: atheism.

I am aware that a deeper analysis and more detailed references and background studies should be applied, but I hope I have managed to pinpoint at least some aspects.

Especially, deeper understanding of linguistics and CDA would improve the results of the analysis.

18

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

7. Sources for analysis „20 let po pádu Berlínské zdi.“ Simi Valley, California, USA. 6. 11. 2009 http://www.hrad.cz/cs/prezident-cr/soucasny-prezident-cr-vaclav-klaus/vybraneprojevy-a-rozhovory/106.shtml. [accessed 25. 2. 2010 11:10] „Oslavy 17. listopadu: Klause na Národní vítal pískot i oslavné skandování.“ Domaci.iHNed.cz. 17. 11. 2009. http://domaci.ihned.cz/c1-39100280-oslavy-17listopadu-klause-na-narodni-vital-piskot-i-oslavne-skandovani. [accessed 25. 2. 2009 11:35] „Pozdrav prezidenta republiky na vzpomínkovém setkání k 20. výročí pádu komunismu v naší zemi.“ Kulturní centrum Pražská křižovatka. 14. 11. 2009. http://www.hrad.cz/cs/prezident-cr/soucasny-prezident-cr-vaclav-klaus/vybraneprojevy-a-rozhovory/111.shtml. [accessed 25. 2. 2010 11:08] „Projev premiéra ČR Jana Fischera k výročí pádu komunismu.“ Krakow. 11. 6. 2009 9:32. http://www.mzv.cz/warsaw/cz/zpravy_a_udalosti/aktualne/projev_premiera_cr_j ana_fischera_k.html. [accessed 25. 2. 2010 11:19] „Projev prezidenta republiky na slavnostním shromáždění dne 28. října - Pražský hrad.“ 28. 10. 2009 http://www.hrad.cz/cs/prezident-cr/soucasny-prezident-cr-vaclavklaus/vybrane-projevy-a-rozhovory/101.shtml. [accessed 25. 2. 2010 11:11] „Projev Václava Havla u příležitosti 20. výročí sametové revoluce.“ Domaci.iHNed.cz.

15. 11. 2009. http://domaci.ihned.cz/c1-39080130-projev-vaclava-havla-uprilezitosti-20-vyroci-sametove-revoluce. [accessed 25. 2. 2010 11:05].

8. Bibliography Blommaert, Jan, and Chris Bulcaen. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 29 (2000): 447-466.

Blommaert, Jan, and Verschueren, Jef. “The Role of Language in European Nationalist Ideologies” in Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Illustrated edition.

Oxford University Press, USA, 1998: 189-210.

Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. “Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach.” Discourse Studies 7, no. 4-5 (October 1, 2005): 585-614.

Castles, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. 3rd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

De Cillia, Rudolf, Martin Reisigl, and Ruth Wodak. “The Discursive Construction of National Identities.” Discourse and Society 10, no. 2 (April 1, 1999): 149-173.

Gal, Susan. “Migration, Minorities and Multilingualism: Language Ideologies in Europe.” in Mar-Molinero, Clare, Professor. Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009: 13-27.

Kuter, Lois. “Breton vs. French: Language and the opposition of political, economic, social, and cultural values.” in Dorian, Nancy C. Investigating Obsolescence : Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge University Press, 1992: 75-89.

Ricento, Thomas. “The Discursive Construction of Americanism.” Discourse and Society 14, no. 5 (September 1, 2003): 611-637.

19

26. 2. 2010

Jana Slavíková

Discursive Construction of National Identity

Trenz, Hans-Jorg. “Reconciling diversity and unity: Language minorities and European integration.” Ethnicities 7, no. 2 (June 1, 2007): 157-185.

Van Dijk, Teun A. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. in Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. WileyBlackwell, 2003: 352-371.

Wodak, R., and M. Reisigl. “Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives.” Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1999): 175-199.

Wodak, Ruth, and Rudolf de Cillia. “Commemorating the past: the discursive construction of official narratives about the `Rebirth of the Second Austrian Republic'.” Discourse and Communication 1, no. 3 (August 1, 2007): 337-363.

Woolard, Kathryn A. “Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry.” in Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Illustrated edition. Oxford University Press, USA, 1998: 3-47.

20