Friend or foe

Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517 www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Friend or foe: the defamation or legitimate and necessary criticism? Reflections on recent political discourse in Austria Ruth Wodak* Forschungsschwerpunkt, Diskurs, Politik, Identita¨t, O¨sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Austria

Abstract This paper illustrates the necessity of very differentiated approaches to context when analyzing political discourses. Specifically, the case of antisemitic rhetoric will be regarded because antisemitic beliefs were tabooed in official domains, in postwar Austria. Nevertheless, politicians continued to use such prejudices for political purposes. Certain linguistic devices, like presuppositions and insinuations can only be understood and interpreted when enough co-text and context knowledge is assumed. The paper argues for an interdisciplinary approach in the Social Sciences, because such complex problems, like populism, racism or antisemitism cannot be grasped by one traditional discipline. It also argues for an intertextual approach which regards historical developments and socio-political factors while analyzing discourses. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Critical discourse analysis; Allusion; Antisemitic discourse; Rightwing populist rhetoric; Theories of context; Postwar Austria

1. Introduction This paper considers the expression of anti-Semitic prejudices in post-war Austria (see Wodak et al., 1990; Mitten, 1992, 1997, 2000; Reisigl and Wodak, 2001a,b). Because of Nazi atrocities and the involvement of many Austrians in the Shoah, explicit anti-Semitic utterances were tabooed in official contexts after 1945. Nevertheless, many empirical quantitative and qualitative studies have illustrated that anti-Semitism continued to exist, with the same stereotypes and prejudices * Fax: +43-1-710-2510-6208. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Wodak). 0271-5309/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0271-5309(02)00022-8

496

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

as during the Nazi period as well as before 1938. Moreover, several new stereotypes were created in relation to compensation issues, which primarily accused Jews of ‘‘being rich anyway’’ and ‘‘exploiting a population which was itself a victim’’ (see Marin, 2000; Wodak, 2001a). It is impossible to recapitulate the history of anti-Semitic prejudice in Austria in this paper (but see Mitten, 1997). Nevertheless, it is important to state that anti-Semitism has been and still is functionalized for political reasons in the Second Austrian Republic, too. We are dealing with ‘‘syncretic anti-Semitism’’: whenever necessary, old and new stereotypes are used in political debates which formerly were attributed to specific types or forms of antiSemitism, such as ‘‘racist anti-Semitism; Christian anti-Semitism; political antiSemitism, and so on. Secondly, it is also relevant to know that a whole range of expressions and linguistic realizations of anti-Semitic prejudices exist, from allusions and insinuations down to very blatant slurs (see Reisigl and Wodak, 2001a,b). The ‘‘Waldheim affair’’ of 1986 brought this whole range of possible anti-Semitic expressions to the fore. In a study of this affair, we were able to systematize and analyze these discourses which are embedded in a ‘‘discourse of justification’’ (see below; Wodak et al., 1990). Whenever sensitive topics relating to the Shoah and the Austrian Nazi past are mentioned, justifications take over which easily degenerate into accusatory invectives and discursive and argumentative strategies (‘‘blaming the victim’’; ‘‘victim-perpetrator reversal’’). However, because of the taboo on explicit anti-Semitic utterances in public domains, specifically in official political discourses, a different mode of expressing anti-Semitic prejudices and stereotypes was created after 1945, which we have labeled elsewhere (Wodak, in press; Mitten, 1997) ‘‘discourses of silence’’ or ‘‘discourses of allusions’’. This means that anti-Semitic contents can only be inferred to by listeners/viewers/readers who know the background and also the genesis of such allusions/insinuations or presuppositions. In any case, if accused, the speaker can always justify him- or herself by stating that s/he did not ‘‘mean’’ what others implied had been said. This fact makes the analysis of such prejudiced discourse a real challenge for discourse analysts, because the context of the utterance has to be integrated into the analysis. Below, I will therefore elaborate on the concept of ‘‘context’’ in our specific discourse-historical approach (see Reisigl and Wodak, 2001a,b; Wodak, 2001). Only by taking the larger context and the cotext of utterances into account, it is possible to grasp the intertextuality and interdiscursivity of whole discourses on ethnic groups or on specific persons. Moreover, certain topoi are recontextualized from one public domain to the next, but realized through different linguistic devices (Iedema, 1999; Wodak, 2000b,c). A comprehensive analysis should thus relate different approaches and theories from neighbouring disciplines as well. To understand anti-Semitic discourses, it is important to turn to historical, socio-psychological, sociological, psychoanalytic and political claims because the phenomenon is so complex (see Wodak and Reisigl, 1999). In this paper, I cannot summarize all these different, but relevant theoretical and methodological theories. I will highlight only those, which help understand and explain the specific case-study in this paper, which

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

497

deals with the most recent manifestation of anti-Semitic prejudice in political discourse: the utterances by Jo¨rg Haider against the president of the Jewish community in Vienna, Ariel Muzikant, during the Vienna election campaign 2001 (see also Wodak and Pelinka, 2002). To be able to analyze these discourses adequately, it is important to focus first on the theoretical concepts of ‘‘context’’, ‘‘criticism’’, ‘‘stereotype’’ etc. in more general terms. Then, I will elaborate the two most recent discursive strategies of the Freedom Party (and also of the second coalition party, the People’s Party; see Rosenberger, 2001). The range of argumentative strategies and insinuations will illustrate new dimensions of the discursive construction of the ‘‘other’’ in discourse.1 More importantly, the precise discourse analysis will illustrate how important it might be to integrate several levels of context and a multi-theoretical approach when analyzing political communication.

2. What are we talking about? 2.1. Defamation, criticism, stereotype, prejudice Since ancient times political discourse has employed particular rhetorical strategies of argumentation, which turn up in many different cultures and epochs (see Kienpointner, 1992). Among them are the most important rhetorical tropes, such as metaphor, synecdoche and metonymy, and also rules of argumentation and guidelines for particular types of political text. The contents are, of course, always different and new, but the instruments themselves are old and familiar (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001a,b). Before we turn to the concrete examples from the Vienna election campaign of 2001, and in particular the attempts to legitimize anti-Semitic prejudices with recourse to ‘‘legitimate criticism’’, it may be useful, by way of introduction, to consider a number of definitions of terms and categories. On the one hand a number of important concepts from prejudice research and rhetoric may be briefly reviewed, and on the other hand some important linguistic concepts and terms. Both of these are essential to an understanding of the following discourse analysis. I am fully aware that some of these definitions are derived from a different genre— from encyclopedias and manuals, that is, from an archive of knowledge. And yet I am deliberately using the acknowledged codified authorities, since a number of different theoretical approaches will always remain eclectic and contestable.2 I

1

The new government in Austria, which brought about the so-called ‘‘Wende’’ was installed on 4 February 2000. Immediately after its installation, the other member states of the EU decided on ‘‘measures against the government’’ because—for the first time in the history of the EU—an extremist rightwing populist party was part of a government (for this debate and development, see Kopeinig and Kotanko, 2000; Wodak, 2000a,d; Wodak and Pelinka, 2002). 2 cf. the many debates on the term ‘prejudice’ in: Allport (1993), Adorno et al. (1950), Van Dijk (1984, 1993), Potter and Wetherell (1994), Wodak and Reisigl (1999) and Reisigl and Wodak (2001a,b).

498

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

therefore request readers to view the following definitions with a little patience, in order to be able to set them against the quoted texts:3 ‘‘Beschimpfen’’ (to abuse) therefore means ‘‘to insult’’, to withdraw from factual argument. Emotionality certainly plays a role in discourses of this kind. Frequently metaphors and analogies are indeed used as abuse.4 For example, the Federal German Chancellor Gerhard Schro¨der was described as a ‘‘bomb in Berlin’’ by the Carinthian provincial governor in his Ash Wednesday speech of 28 February 2001, which made headlines throughout the world because of his insults of the President of the Israelite Community in Vienna, Dr. Ariel Muzicant. In this same speech the German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, was described as a ‘‘terrorist’’. And in the context of this speech Jo¨rg Haider even thought up a poem ‘‘in Honor of Joschka Fischer’’ that we ought to reproduce here (www.fpo¨-ltklub-oo¨.at): Who is kicking the watchman Who is hitting him so hard in the face? It’s Joschka, this lefty devil. He’s punishing him with his feet And making the poor man suffer for nothing. But wait, what do I see? There are three of them, right! Alone he wouldn’t have been brave enough, The green softy! (own translation) People can therefore be abused in many ways, and the Ash Wednesday speech of 2001, in the Jahn gymnasium in Ried, presented us with a broad palette of possibilities. The frequently cited justification to excuse Haider, that it was a ‘‘carnival speech’’, is astonishing in the context of Catholic Austria, since Ash Wednesday is not part of the carnival period, with its jolly carnival behavior, but is subject to quite different norms and traditions. Ash Wednesday, in terms of the liturgical year, marks the beginning of a 40-day period of repentance and reflection as a preparation for the Christian festival of Easter. To play it down in this way, therefore, is vacuous. Kritik (criticism). . . {fr.critique < gr. Kritike=art of judgment. . .1. [specialist] assessment and its utterance in appropriate words: an objective, justified, open, helpful friendly, factual, positive, negative, hard K. ‘I don’t object to constructive criticism, and sometimes I deserve to be criticized’ [Spiegel 1985(37), p. 125] (2) . . .find fault with: ‘his criticism (of the circumstances) disturbed none of them; she cannot stand criticism’. . .5 ‘‘Criticism’’ is to do with judgment or assessment. An utterance, a piece of work, an idea or a piece of behaviour may be judged. ‘‘Criticism’’, however, should be 3 The full discourse of the Vienna electoral campaign, as well as the speech in Ried on 28 February 2001, have been analyzed in detail in Wodak and Reisigl (2001), Linguistisches Sachversta¨ndigenGutachten, Wien. 4 1 2000 Dudenverlag: DUDEN (2000). Das große Wo¨rterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 10 vols. on CDRom. 5 1 2000 Dudenverlag: DUDEN (2000) Das große Wo¨rterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 10 vols. on CDRom Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut F.A. Brockhaus AG, 2000.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

499

factual and make the assessment criteria explicit. ‘‘Criticism’’ makes disagreement, discussion and debate possible. ‘‘Criticism’’ may also be rejected, with appropriate argument or evidence. Or else a ‘‘counter-criticism’’ may be expressed. In contrast to this we may consider another important concept: ‘‘prejudice’’. Prejudices are often disguised as factual criticism, as judgment than can be substantiated. In other words, prejudices are presented as ‘‘criticism’’: what are the differences here? ‘‘Vorurteil’’: ‘‘prejudice’’: opinion hastily formed or adopted without examination of objective facts, mostly characterized by hostile feelings towards someone or something. . .6 According to this ‘‘prejudices’’ are neither proved nor provable. They rely on beliefs and opinions that are generalized, on judgments that are transferred from individuals to an entire group. Prejudices cannot be discussed, since they depend on affective opinions and serve to confirm world-views. Prejudices depend on group-formation, on the constitution of ‘‘we’’ and ‘‘others’’. The ‘‘others’’ are devalued, evaluated, without factual evidence and debate. They are often accused, insulted and defamed. Prejudices are essentially hostile. Among them we may also include ‘‘stereotypes’’:7 Simplifying, generalizing. . .judgment, [unjustified] prejudgment of oneself, or another or a thing, fixed cliche´-ridden image. . .8 2.2. Theorizing context One methodical way for critical discourse analysts to minimize the risk of critical baseness and to avoid simply politicizing, instead of accurately analyzing, is to follow the principle of triangulation. One of the most salient features of the discourse-historical approach is its endeavour to work interdisciplinarily, multimethodically and on the basis of a variety of different empirical data as well as background information (see Wodak, 2000b,c, 2001b; Wodak and Meyer, 2001). Depending on the respective object of investigation, it attempts to transcend the pure linguistic dimension and to include more or less systematically the historical, political, sociological and/or psychological dimension in the analysis and interpretation of a specific discursive occasion. In investigating historical and political topics and texts, the discourse-historical approach attempts to integrate much available knowledge about the historical sources and the background of the social and political fields in which discursive ‘‘events’’ are embedded. Further, it analyzes the historical dimension of discursive actions by exploring the ways in which particular genres of discourse are subject to diachronic change, i.e. the intertextuality and interdiscursivity. 6 1

2000 Dudenverlag: DUDEN (2000) Das große Wo¨rterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 10 vols. on CDRom, Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut F.A. Brockhaus AG, 2000. 7 Wodak and Reisigl (1999) give an overview of the most important scientific literature on the formation of prejudice, on the motivation behind prejudice and on the analysis of every kind of prejudice, be it sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic or racist. I refer readers to the voluminous literature on this topic. 8 1 2000 Dudenverlag: DUDEN (2000) Das große Wo¨rterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 10 vols. on CDRom, Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut F.A. Brockhaus AG, 2000.

500

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

Fig. 1. Levels of theories and linguistic analysis.

In accordance to other approaches devoted to Critical Discourse Analysis the discourse-historical approach perceives both written and spoken language as a form of social practice (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). A discourse is a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1995, p. 14). As critical discourse analysts we assume a dialectical relationship between particular discursive practices and the specific fields of action (including situations, institutional frames and social structures) in which they are embedded. On the one hand, the situational, institutional and social settings shape and affect discourses, and on the other, discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and political processes and actions. In other words, discourses as linguistic social practices can be seen as constituting non-discursive and discursive social practices and, at the same time, as being constituted by them. Our triangulatory approach is based on a concept of ‘‘context’’ which takes into account four levels; the first one is descriptive, while the other three levels are part of our theories on context: 1. the immediate, language or text internal co-text; 2. the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses; 3. the extralinguistic social/sociological variables and institutional frames of a specific ‘‘context of situation’’ (Middle Range Theories); 4. the broader sociopolitical and historical contexts, which the discursive practices are embedded in and related to (Fig. 1: Grand Theories). In our example, I will illustrate each level of context and make the sequential analysis transparent, following the categories of analysis, which will be defined

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

501

below. Specifically, we will be concerned with the four levels of context and the linguistic means, which relate the contexts with each other. This implies that we have to demonstrate how certain utterances realized through linguistic devices point to extra-linguistic contexts, diachronically and synchronically. In our case, we are dealing with anti-Semitic remarks, which can only be understood by analyzing certain implications and presuppositions as well as insinuations. The impact of such a discourse, however, can be grasped when relating such meanings to the Austrian history and political developments, and most importantly, to the instrumentalization of anti-Semitism. Thus, we start out by the context of the history of anti-Semitism in Austria, then try to integrate theories on the development of the Freedom Party and its populist rhetoric, as well as the event of negotiating compensation in the years 2000 and 2001 for the survivors of the Shoah. The immediate context is the Vienna election campaign, and Haider’s role in the campaign as well as his speech in Ried, on 1 March 2001. When analyzing the chain of utterances from January 2001 up to the election itself, we can study certain interdiscursive and intertextual phenomena. The linguistic devices, like insinuations and presuppositions, then have to be linked to all the context layers just mentioned. 2.3. Some linguistic terms Let us now turn to a number of linguistic terms that are of particular importance for the description of post-war anti-Semitism in Austria: Since in the case we are concerned with ‘‘allusions’’ are of central importance, they ought to given more detailed consideration: through allusions (cf. also Wodak et al., 1990) one can suggest negative associations without being held responsible for them. Ultimately the associations are only suggested. The listeners must make them in the act of reception (Wodak and de Cillia, 1988, p. 10). Allusions depend on shared knowledge. The person who alludes to something counts on a preparedness for resonance, i.e. on the preparedness of the recipients consciously to call to mind the facts that are alluded to. In the area of politics, allusions may have the intention, and achieve the result, of devaluing political opponents, without accepting responsibility for what is implicitly said, because this was not, of course, said explicitly: at best an invitation was given to make particular connections. What is not pronounced creates, in the case of allusions, a kind of secrecy, and familiarity suggests something like ‘‘we all know what is meant’’. The world of experience or allusion exists, however, in a kind of ‘‘repertoire of collective knowledge’’. Allusions frequently rely on topoi and linguistic patterns already in play which show a clear meaning content (cf. ‘‘East Coast’’; v. Mitten, 1992), or which point to well-established and perhaps even anti-Semitic stereotypes (such as ‘‘Jewish speculators and crooks’’; cf. Wodak and de Cillia, 1988, p. 15). Franz Januschek defines ‘‘allusions’’ in the following way: [. . .] In contrast to slogans, allusions require active, thinking and discriminating recipients. Not everyone can understand allusions, and those who do understand

502

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

them have to do something about it: they have to give meaning to the allusion. The creator of the allusion can thereby renounce responsibility for the meaning that arises: he may distance himself. In other words: allusions can be very short — but they can never be one-sided communicative acts. And, allusions may be understand in a highly explosive way — but always so subtly that they provoke contradiction and cannot be casually filed away in particular drawers. Whereas electoral slogans tend to cause fragmented discourse to break down completely, allusions drive it forward. Under the conditions of fragmentized political communications they are the linguistic means that relies on the fact that citizens, under these same conditions, generally act intelligently and not merely as puppets for the cleverest manipulators (Januschek, 1994). Allusions are conscious references to common experiences; but the level and degree of this consciousness can differ. If someone uses the word ‘‘special treatment’’ (Sonderbehandlung) today, in most cases they can hardly be aware of the fact that this could be understood as an allusion to the gassing of a selected proportion of the newly arrived transports of detainees at the Auschwitz annihilation camp. While the act of allusion is fundamentally symbolic, what is alluded to may be both symbolic and non-symbolic behavior. To put this in more concrete terms: one can allude to utterances, but also to events, processes, and practical actions. A general characterization of the function of allusions must bring out their groupincluding or excluding effect: the group becomes more aware of its existence as such and thereby of their difference from all others. Both belong together, although there may be clear differences of emphasis. In understanding allusions we must distinguish two stages:  Understanding that there is an allusion  Understanding what is meant by the allusion

In accusing Dr. Ariel Muzicant, Dr. Jo¨rg Haider frequently used allusions. By this kind of discourse strategy, he (and others) implied certain presuppositions, which many people saw as ‘‘common sense beliefs’’ or ‘‘shared truth’’. This is, of course, not a new linguistic strategy in prejudiced discourse. The allusions, as was mentioned above, enable politicians and other speakers to deny the possible meaning attributed to the allusion and refer to the beliefs of the readers or listeners projected into the utterance. The concept of presuppositions is central to linguistic pragmatics. The analysis of presuppositions within speech act theory, which began with John Austin and John Searle, makes it possible to make explicit the implicit assumptions and intertextual relations that underlie text-production (see Schiffrin, 1994). In the case of anti-Semitic allusions, at least since 1945, no enclosed ideological edifice of anti-Semitism is directly and completely addressed and spelled out. It is rather that an amalgam of ideological tenets is invoked by linguistic ‘‘clues and traces’’,

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

503

Table 1 Types of presupposition Type

Example

Presupposition

Existential Factive Non-factive Lexical Structural Counter-factual

The X I regret having done that He claimed to be a teacher She managed to escape Who is coming? If I were not ill. . .

>> >> >> >> >> >>

X exists I did it He was not a teacher She attempted to escape Someone is coming I am ill

in order to relate to a particular set of beliefs and a ‘‘discourse space’’—irrespective of where the ‘‘roots’’ of this ‘‘discourse space’’ may lead. There are many linguistic phenomena that have been related to presuppositions. Here I shall follow the survey given in Yule (1996, chapter 4), which concentrates on four types (see Table 1). Finally, I would like to consider the term ‘‘word play’’. In his most famous remark during the election campaign, Haider made a word play on ‘‘Ariel’’, Muzicant’s first name. This was then relativized as a ‘‘joke’’, as ‘‘irony’’ and so on, in the sense of ‘‘why not have a bit of fun during the carnival [see above]’’? Word-play (‘‘Play on words’’) means playful use of words, the humorous effect of which depends particularly on the ambiguity of the words used or on the identical or similar pronunciation of two related words with different meanings: a funny or silly word. According to a survey carried out by the New York Times, only one in five Americans believes that ‘‘Whitewatergate’’ — as the inevitable word has it — is a matter of national importance [Spiegel, 1994(12), p. 148]. Now that we have presented a number of central terms (for further concepts from rhetoric the reader is referred to the very substantial literature on the subject9), I will apply them to examples from the political discourse in Austria since January 2001, before and during the Vienna election campaign. Thus, the very complex relationships between meanings, discourses and contexts should become transparent.

3. The Vienna Election 2001 In 2001, during the election campaign for the city of Vienna, the capital city of Austria with a social democratic majority, the Freedom Party (a right extremist party, similar to Le Pen’s party in France), with its former leader, Dr. Jo¨rg Haider, began a campaign, which again stimulated anti-Semitic beliefs and prejudices (see Mo¨hring, 2001; Rosenberger, 2001). Old stereotypes were used as political weapons. Specifically, this campaign was characterized by vehement attacks on the president of the Jewish Community, Dr. Ariel Muzicant. The campaign came as no surprise. Restitution debates and negotiations had just come to an end, and the new 9

cf. footnote 1.

504

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

government had decided to pay back some of the aryanized monies and goods to Jewish victims, after long years of negotiations and after a commission of historians had started its work some time before this new government had been installed. This time, the ‘‘play’’ with insinuations or allusions did not work as well as before. The Freedom Party lost at this election, mostly because the city mayor of Vienna, Dr. Michael Ha¨upl, very explicitly opposed the anti-Semitic ideologies expressed. The political debate was very revealing: it centred on the questions of ‘‘freedom of opinion’’ and ‘‘possible criticism of Jews’’ (as if anyone had ever opposed a rational criticism of individuals). These new strategies can be seen as part of the justification discourse in post-war Austria. In the ‘‘speech in Ried’’ that we have already mentioned, on Ash Wednesday, 28 February 2001, Dr. Jo¨rg Haider made a speech in Ried im Innkreis, Upper Austria, in which he insulted Dr. Ariel Muzicant, along with a number of other opposition politicians (see above). The remarks that were broadcast many times on television, ultimately world-wide, set off a new debate on anti-Semitism in Austria. But it also led to many explanations, such as ‘‘surely one ought to be able to criticize Jews as well’’ (see below). Were all of these utterances, then, ‘‘legitimate criticism’’ or ‘‘defamations, insults and prejudices’’? The idea which characterized the debate from then on, that it was a matter of ‘‘freedom of opinion’’, was quite remarkable: who can claim ‘‘freedom of opinion’’ and when? Who decides whether something is subject to decree and when it falls under the basic human right of ‘‘freedom of opinion’’? Who can accuse whom, and when and why? The functionalization of ‘‘freedom of opinion’’ in the above-mentioned case seems especially surprising and curious if one considers the so-called ‘‘flood of complaints’’ of recent years in Austria (Wodak and Pelinka, 2002). In what follows, I would like to provide a survey of a number of characteristic quotations from the Vienna election campaign, which illustrate, on the one hand, the anti-Semitic discourse, and on the other hand, the debate about ‘‘freedom of opinion’’ and ‘‘criticism’’ that grew out of it. I will not repeat the detailed analysis of all of these quotations in the present article.10 What is of particular interest here, are those sequences which are explicitly or implicitly related to the concepts of ‘‘criticism and freedom of opinion’’ and which define and functionalize them in ways that we must determine. What I am claiming is, that we are dealing here with ‘‘old and new’’ forms of an anti-Semitic justification discourse which we have been able to observe in Austria since 1945 (Mitten, 1992) and which we have defined as follows: Anti-Semitism in post-war Austria is to be seen in relation to the way in which supposed or actual guilt, supposed or actual accusations are dealt with. Here, as for as content is concerned, particular use is made of the broad traditional reservoir, of a discourse of collective experience and attitudes; certain new topoi, however, are also associated with this. The forms of utterances are very varied, manifest or latent, explicit or very indirect. In general, however, they may be seen as legitimization discourses (or as variants of justification and defence) (Wodak et al., 1990)

10

See footnote 3.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

505

4. ‘‘Dreck am Steck’n’’ [‘‘Dirty Linen’’] Jo¨rg Haider verbatim (chronologically from 21 January to 22 March 2001), report in ‘‘Der Standard, 22 January 2001, on the FPO¨ New Year’s Meeting of 21 January 2001. ‘‘We have other problems than constantly negotiating how we ought to carry out the reparations’’, said Haider. ‘‘Some time there has to be an end.’’ (,,Wir haben andere Probleme, als sta¨ndig zu verhandeln, wie wir Wiedergutmachung zu leisten haben‘‘, sprach Haider, ,,einmal muss Schluss sein‘‘). ‘‘Mr. Muzicant will only be satisfied when he has also been paid the 600 Million Schillings of debts that he has built up in Vienna.’’ (,,Der Herr Muzicant ist erst zufrieden, bis man ihm auch jene 600 Millionen Schilling Schulden bezahlt, die von ihm in Wien angeha¨uft worden sind‘‘). Haider on 21 February 2001 at the opening of the electoral campaign in Oberlaa: ‘‘Mr. Ha¨upl has an election strategist: he’s called Greenberg (loud laughter in the hall). He had him flown in from the East Coast. My friends, you have a choice : you can vote for Spin Doctor Greenberg from the East Coast, or for the Heart of Vienna!’’ (,,Der Ha¨upl hat einen Wahlkampfstrategen, der heisst Greenberg (lautes Lachen im Saal). Den hat er sich von der Ostku¨ste einfliegen lassen! Liebe Freunde, ihr habt die Wahl, zwischen Spindoctor Greenberg von der Ostku¨ste, oder dem Wienerherz zu entscheiden!‘‘) ‘‘We don’t need any proclamations from the East Coast. Now we’ve had enough. Now we’re concerned with another part of our history, reparations to those driven from their homes.’’ (,,Wir brauchen keine Zurufe von der Ostku¨ste. Jetzt ist es einmal genug. Jetzt geht es um einen anderen Teil der Geschichte, die Wiedergutmachung fu¨r die Heimatvertriebenen‘‘.) Haider on 28 February, in his Ash Wednesday Speech: ‘‘Mr. Muzicant: What I don’t understand is how someone called Ariel can have so much dirty linen. . .’’ (,,Der Herr Muzicant: I versteh u¨berhaupt net, wie ana, der Ariel haßt, so viel Dreck am Steckn haben kann. . .des versteh i u¨berhaupt net, aber i man. . .das wird

506

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

er schon morgen kommentieren, nicht. . . aber ich bin da nicht sehr schreckhaft, in diesen Fragen. . ..‘‘) Haider, in a campaign speech on 8 March 2001 in the Go¨sser brewery: ‘‘Someone [Muzicant] who, together with the Vienna City Council, and because of his good contacts there as an estate agent and speculator, carries out rebuilding projects in protected areas, where no-one else gets permission—that is something that’s not right. . .’’ (,,Jemand [Muzicant], der im Verbund mit der Wiener Stadtregierung und aufgrund seiner guten Kontakte dorthin als Immobilienmakler und-spekulant hier in Schutzgebieten Sanierungen durchfu¨hrt, wo kein anderer eine Bewilligung bekommt, dann ist das etwas, was nicht in Ordnung ist. . .‘‘)11 Haider—interview in News 14 March 2001: ‘‘In my Ash Wednesday speech I referred to his [=Muzicant’s] role concerning Austria during the EU sanctions. I have kept back a few more things.’’ (,,Ich habe bei meiner Aschermittwochsrede auf seine [Muzicants] Rolle gegenu¨ber O¨sterreich wa¨hrend der EU-Sanktionen Bezug genommen. Da behalte ich mir noch ein paar Dinge vor.‘‘) ‘‘In addition he has made explicit use of his political connections to cover his business affairs.’’ (,,Dazu kommt, dass er seine politischen Beziehungen durchaus ausnu¨tzt, um gescha¨ftlich seine Dinge unter Dach und Fach zu bringen.‘‘) ‘‘And then he and the religious community have debts of around 600 million Schillings and in Washington he stabbed Austria in the back.’’ (,,Und dann noch, dass er mit der Kultusgemeinde rund 600 Millionen Schilling Schulden hat und O¨sterreich in Washington in den Ru¨cken gefallen ist.‘‘) ‘‘I really do not see why the tax-payer should cough up a single Schilling because of Mr. Muzicant’s sloppy business-dealings.’’ 11 To understand these insinuations better, it is necessary to know that Muzicant is an estate agent by profession. Thus, this whole passage insinuates that Muzikant is doing ‘‘black’’ or non legal deals. And this implies then, generalizing from Muzicant to the whole Jewish community, that the Jews are rich and not honest. Moreover, if the main negotiator for the restitution is not an honest person, as Haider claims, then the restitution itself comes into a bad light. . .. At the same time, the political debate in Austria was and is characterized by blaming people who criticize some aspects of government policies as non-patriotic or as fouling the nest.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

507

(,,Ich sehe wirklich nicht ein, warum der Steuerzahler fu¨r die schlampige Wirtschaft des Herrn Muzicant nur einen Schilling berappen soll.‘‘) ‘‘And in the end his business connections will have to be exposed.’’ (,,Und schließlich wird man seine Gescha¨ftsverbindungen durchleuchten mu¨ssen.‘‘) ‘‘He [Muzicant] is a person who is the personification of irreconcilability and who therefore has relatively little place in the spectrum of the forces of democracy’’. (,,Das [Muzicant] ist ein Mensch, der die personifizierte Unverso¨hnlichkeit ist und daher im Spektrum der demokratischen Kra¨fte relativ wenig Platz hat.‘‘) Haider, 16 March 2001, Zeit im Bild 2. Muzicant ‘‘in a difficult period for this country, when there was a new government, behaved, as a Austrian abroad, in an absolutely negative way towards this country.’’ (Muzicant ,,hat sich in einer schwierigen Phase nicht als guter O¨sterreicher erwiesen.‘‘ Er habe im Ausland so getan, als ob die ju¨dischen Mitbu¨rger wieder gefa¨hrdet seien und habe das Land schlecht gemacht.) Standardization of a number of sequences from the transcribed interview: ‘‘It was a light-hearted word-play. That, I think, is absolutely acceptable in politics. The deeper background, however, should not be hushed up. And that is simply the criticism of Mr. Muzicant who has not behaved like an Austrian during a difficult phase for the Republic.’’ (H: Es war ein scherzhaftes Wortspiel. Das glaube ich, ist in der Politik absolut zula¨ssig. Der tiefere Hintergrund soll aber nicht verheimlicht werden. Und der ist einfach die Kritik am Herrn Muzicant, der in einer schwierigen Phase der Republik sich nicht als guter O¨sterreicher erwiesen hat. . ..) ‘‘So, you know, thank God that we live in a democracy where there are no thought-police of politically correct people to prescribe for us what we are allowed to formulate. The East Coast is a geographical expression, and that’s where the political centre is in America. Everyone knows that, and that’s where Greenberg comes from, and he is supposed to advise Mr. Ha¨upl.’’ (H: Also, Sie wissen, dass wir Gott sei Dank in einer Demokratie leben, in der es keine Gedankenpolizisten der politisch korrekten Gutmenschen gibt, die uns

508

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

vorschreiben, was wir noch formulieren du¨rfen. Die Ostku¨ste ist eine geographische Bezeichnung, und dort liegt das politische Zentrum in Amerika. Das weiß jedermann und von dort kommt der Greenberg, der den Herrn Ha¨upl beraten soll. . ..) ‘‘What I want to ensure in Austria is simply that people can express their opinion freely. And that there is no ban on thinking. When the government was being formed I also signed a preamble in which we recognize that we reject every form of racism and anti-Semitism. And those people will have to look very hard to find anything negative in what I said. Because I have already told you: someone like Mr. Muzicant who, firstly, is always trying to get rid of the FPO¨, and then has given this country a bad name, a really bad name,—he was one of the ‘‘chief denouncers’’ of Austrians and Austria in the course of forming the government. He will have to put up with criticism. That is simply the most essential thing in a democracy, and if he can’t cope with that, he’s worth nothing to a democracy.’’ (H: Was ich in O¨sterreich gewa¨hrleisten will, ist einfach, dass die Menschen eine freie Meinung a¨ußern du¨rfen. Und dass es keine Denkverbote gibt. Ich habe anla¨sslich der Regierungsbildung auch eine Pra¨ambel mitunterschrieben, in der wir uns dazu bekennen, dass wir jede Form von Rassismus und Antisemitismus ablehnen. Und es werden sich jene sehr anstrengen mu¨ssen, in der A¨ußerung von mir jetzt wiederum etwas negatives zu finden. Denn ich habe es Ihnen schon vorhin gesagt: jemand, wie der Herr Muzicant, der sta¨ndig den Versuch macht, erstens amal die FPO¨ herabzusetzen, dann dieses Land schlecht gemacht hat, nachweisbar schlecht gemacht hat, er geho¨rt zu den Obervernaderern12 der O¨sterreicher/ O¨sterreichs im Zuge der Regierungsbildung. Der muss sich eine Kritik gefallen lassen. Das ist ja einfach in einer Demokratie das Notwendigste und wenn er das nicht ausha¨lt, dann taugt er nicht fu¨r eine Demokratie.) Haider comment in Presse, 17 March 2001: ‘‘I will not allow them to prevent me from criticising a representative of a religious community, when he declares war on a democratically elected government.’’ (,,Ich lasse mir nicht verbieten, einen Repra¨sentanten einer Religionsgemeinschaft zu kritisieren, wenn dieser einer demokratisch gewa¨hlten Regierung den Krieg erkla¨rt.‘‘) ‘‘Dr. Ariel Muzicant was one of those most responsible for the intolerable witch-hunt against our country after the formation of the FPO¨/O¨VP coalition. 12

This is again an example of the blaming of critics of the government. ‘‘Obervernaderer’’ basically implies an organized band of people who denounce the government.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

509

(,,Dr. Ariel Muzicant war einer der Hauptverantwortlichen fu¨r die unertra¨gliche Hetze gegen unser Land nach Bildung der FPO¨/O¨VP-Koalition.‘‘) ‘‘He has given interviews to foreign newspapers in which he passes judgement on Austria with incomprehensible rage and anger.’’ (,,Er hat ausla¨ndischen Zeitungen Interviews gegeben, in denen er mit unversta¨ndlicher Wut und Zorn u¨ber O¨sterreich urteilte.‘‘) ‘‘He is cited as a witness in hate-mail against Austria from the World Jewish Congress,. . .’’ (,,Er wird in Hassbriefen des World Jewish Congress gegen O¨sterreich als Zeuge zitiert, . . .‘‘) ‘‘He refuses to give his signature to an agreement which would finally make it possible to reach a just settlement with the victims of the Nazi period.’’ (,,Er verweigerte seine Unterschrift auf einer Vereinbarung, die endlich den Opfern der NS-Zeit eine gerechte Entscha¨digung ermo¨glicht.‘‘) ‘‘. . .[Dr. Muzicant] is not ashamed of writing off as ‘indecent’ and insulting the majority of the people who gave him and his family a home when they were immigrants.’’ (,,. . . [Herr Dr. Muzicant] scha¨mt sich nicht, die Mehrheit eines Volkes, das ihm und seiner Familie als Einwanderer eine Heimat gab, als ‘‘unansta¨ndig‘‘ abzuqualifizieren und zu beleidigen.‘‘) ‘‘For Mr. Muzicant the applause of the enemies of Austria was more important.’’ (,,Herrn Muzicant war der Applaus der O¨sterreich-Feinde wichtiger.‘‘) Haider, 22 March 2001 (reported in Der Standard, 23 March 2001): It is ‘‘unacceptable to denigrate one’s own country’’. It is just this, according to Haider, that Ariel Muzicant, the president of the Jewish religious community, has done, thereby showing an ‘‘attitude hostile to Austria’’. (Es sei ,,unstatthaft, das eigene Land schlecht zu machen‘‘. [. . .] Ebendies, so Haider, habe der Pra¨sident der israelitischen Kultusgemeinde, Ariel Muzicant, getan und so ,,o¨sterreichfeindliche Gesinnung‘‘ demonstriert.)

510

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

In this article it is unnecessary to analyze all the other utterances in detail. In what follows we shall highlight the essential recurrent anti-Semitic topics and stereotypes and the linguistic devices used in which the utterances of the speech in Ried on 1 March 2001 are embedded. This will allow us to establish the complex relationships between text and context. Moreover, it should become clear that the analysis of the context is of absolute necessity when analyzing this type of discourse. Hence, it should become feasible that an anti-Semitic discourse has been conducted by Jo¨rg Haider since the New Year meeting of 2001 and that this has been introduced into the media and the Vienna election campaign in a conscious and planned way. The justifications, which began when criticism and disgust at Jo¨rg Haider’s utterances were being voiced, frequently present the attacks on Ariel Muzicant as ‘‘criticism’’. These quotes are of particular interest to us.

5. Friend and foe images? Abuse, criticism, freedom of opinion? 5.1. The immediate co-text of the incriminated utterance on 28 February 2001 in Ried: the ‘‘chain of abuse’’ These are some of the topics Jo¨rg Haider dealt with in the Ried speech:  The topics of the sacking of Hans Sallmutter as president of the Austrian Social Insurance Organization by the FPO¨ minister Herbert Haupt (in this context he talked of the ‘‘idiots’’ in social insurance).  The topics of the BSE crisis and EU agricultural policy (in this context he was abusive about the ‘‘political oxen’’ responsible for the crisis, and characterized the Austrian EU commissioner Franz Fischler as a political ‘‘Ru¨bezahl’’13 suffering from an outburst of rage in the European agricultural policy.  The topic of the introduction and stability of the Euro.  The topic of child allowances that were introduced in Carinthia and are now demanded by the Bavarian Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber (and he is described as the ‘‘Bavarian Mundl14’’).  The topic of the presumed high salaries of SPO¨ politicians (in this context he refers on one occasion to Alfred Gusenbauer rather as ‘‘Gruselbauer’’,15 who, in the opinion of the leader of the SPO¨ parliamentary, is the best horse in the SPO¨ stable because he still produces the highest quantity of manure).  And then he moved to the matter of the ‘‘EU-14 sanctions against Austria’’ and the national shrug of the shoulders that the Austrian government was trying to give in this context.

13 14 15

‘‘Ru¨bezahl’’ is the name of a destructive turnip-counting giant-figure in German folklore! Mundl was a Viennese working class anti-hero character from an Austrian TV series in the 1970s. This play on words implies ‘‘mess-maker’’.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

511

 Dr. Ariel Muzicant is attacked by Dr. Jo¨rg Haider in the course of discussing the ‘‘sanctions’’, of which the speaker claims that they had their origin in Austria. Haider claimed, that the ‘‘Austrian socialists’’ and ‘‘the left’’ has asked their friends abroad for the sanctions and that Dr. Ariel Muzicant had made a contribution to this.

After his verbal attack, in which Dr. Jo¨rg Haider accuses Dr. Ariel Muzicant of being a Jew hostile to Austria, and with a lot of ‘‘dirty linen’’, the governor of Carinthia, in the remainder of his speech, moved on to abusing other political opponents from Austria, France and Germany, including  The French president Chirac (who had behaved like a courtesan wanted to give a lecture on morality and decency when he thought he could give Austria a lecture on democracy),  The Austria president Thomas Klestil (who Dr. Jo¨rg Haider called ‘‘doubting Thomas’’ who outset had initially refused to believe in the FPO¨-OVP coalition),  The ‘‘three wise men’’ (whom he called the ‘‘three sages from Euroland’’),  The leader of the Green Party Alexander van der Bellen (whom he called the nations sleeping pill, a valium for all Austrians who, in respect of the relationship between ‘‘the left wing and violence’’, is actually clouding the fact ‘‘behind it all there might be some pretty powerful figures’’,  The German Green Party foreign minister Joschka Fischer (whom he describes as a terrorist and a crook), and  Former federal chancellor Viktor Klima and the SPO¨ member and former minister for home affairs Caspar Einem (whom Dr. Jo¨rg Haider calls the biggest bottles to come out of the O¨MV,16 because this is not actually a mineral oil company but a brewery).17

The abuse of Dr. Ariel Muzicant therefore fits into a series of other abusive remarks some of which Dr. Jo¨rg Haider made before and others later. If one looks at this series of insults one is struck by the fact that Dr. Ariel Muzicant—apart from the ‘‘idiots in the Social Insurance Organization’’—is the only non-politician (in the narrower sense of professional politician) among those subjected to verbal attack. So whereas Dr. Jo¨rg Haider attacks practically all those he abuses in their roles as political opponents inside and outside Austria, he insults Dr. Ariel Muzicant as the Jewish president of the Israelite community in Vienna.

O¨MV is the Austrian national oil company. Viktor Klima, moreover, is described by Haider as ‘‘so to speak the most expensive jobless person in the Republic of Austria’’. 16 17

512

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

5.2. Discourse strands The topic of compensation in relation to the criminalization of Muzicant began at the New Year meeting on 22 January 2001. In what was expressed there it was said of Muzicant that he had himself piled up debts and that the compensation would partly serve his own interests (those of paying off debts). These first utterances imply many presuppositions: first, that Muzicant actually makes criminal moves, because he exploits the interests of the survivors for himself and his business. Secondly, a chain of anti-Semitic insinuations and associations are triggered of by other presuppositions: Jews are rich, are businessmen, etc. At the same time the compensation is, in general terms, devalued as a not very important ‘‘problem’’. This topic is pursued at the start of the election campaign, when there is an onslaught on the ‘‘East Coast’’, and the apparent influence of the ‘‘East Coast’’ (and this is related both to the Mayor of Vienna, Dr. Michael Ha¨upl, and to the SPO¨, as well as to the compensation negotiations). The use of the insinuation ‘‘East Coast’’ goes back at least as far as the ‘‘Waldheim Affair’’ in 1986, where already ‘‘the Jewish Lobbies in New York’’ where alluded at through this topos. The latent meaning implies that the Socialist Party is dependent of these ‘‘powerful Jews’’, thus the ‘‘World Conspiracy theme’’ is presupposed. Moreover, in this speech the extermination of the Jews and the matter of compensation is explicitly set against the expelled Sudeten Germans (a well-known topos of both the FPO¨ and Haider). In the Ried statement that has been closely analyzed elsewhere18 the criminalization of Muzicant is pursued in the form of an allusion (‘‘dirty linen’’) which is, however, removed from its vagueness and clarified in the following quotations. On 8 March 2001 there are further suggestions of Muzicant’s criminal activity, and this is continued in the News Interview of 14 March 2001. The whole of this first discourse strand serves to present Dr. Ariel Muzicant as a criminal, in order to focus sharply on his role in the compensation negotiations. Ultimately, however, what is also important is to devalue compensation of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to set it against the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans. The second discourse strand concerns the sub-division of Austrian citizens: into those with a ‘‘true Viennese heart’’ and those who allow themselves to be influenced by the ‘‘East Coast’’ (i.e. the apparently powerful Jewish lobbies in New York; see above). In the profil of 2 April 2001 Peter Sichrovsky himself, general secretary of the FPO¨, provides this interpretation of the allusion used and thereby contradicts Haider’s defence of 16 March 2001 that ‘‘East Coast’’ is a ‘‘purely geographical description’’. This sub-division concerns, on the one hand, the electoral debate in Vienna; Stanley Greenberg, the adviser to the mayor of Vienna, Dr. Michael Ha¨upl, is presented as, among other things, a Jew who is now working for the SPO¨ as a ‘‘spin doctor’’. The characterization of a person in his quality as a ‘‘Jew’’ serves exclusively to arouse anti-Semitic attitudes, because this characteristic was totally unimportant for Greenberg’s work. Jews are therefore contrasted with ‘‘real’’ Austrians. The 18

See footnote 3.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

513

topos of the ‘‘real Austrian’’ again is not new. This adjective was already used in the 1970’s when Bruno Kreisky, later chancellor of Austria, a social democrat and of Jewish origin, campaigned against the Peoples Party. The use of ‘‘real Austrians’’ appeared again in the election campaign 1999 (Haider was and is a ‘‘real’’ Austrian) and alludes to the belief that Jews or other Austrians from other ethnic origin are not ‘‘on the same level’’, even if they have Austrian citizenship. The Austrian-ness (or citizenship) of Austrian Jews is thereby also implicitly denied. This exclusions and opposition is then also extended in respect of Muzicant who is described as having been an ‘‘immigrant’’; and on the basis of his role as a ‘‘guest’’ in a host country he ought to be a ‘‘good boy’’ (ZIB2, 16 March 2001). In this way Haider is introducing a racial term and a racial concept: Citizenship is not enough to be a citizen. . . These utterances, thus, presuppose racist attitudes. At the same time he implies a concealment and a playing-down of the Nazi era, in that emigration, immigration and re-immigration of Jews are apparently viewed as a ‘‘voluntary’’ decision and not conditioned by the Holocaust and the extermination of Jews. Finally—and here the absurdity of this utterance and this discourse strand becomes clear—Jews should actually be grateful to Austria, the country from which they had to flee so as not to be deported and exterminated (and where their entire property was stolen and aryanized). On the basis of the criticism by opposition politicians, the media and politicians and scholars from abroad, there now began a discourse of justification and legitimization.19 The successful attacks on Jews, like Greenberg and Muzicant, now had to be given a ‘‘real’’ foundation in Haider’s perception and discourse or they had to be simultaneously played down: On the one hand the insinuations made are therefore described as ‘‘criticism’’ and thereby converted into a rationally factual level. And the relevant topos is then ‘‘why can’t one criticize Jews?’’ (That abuse and stereotyping have nothing to do with criticism has already been argued above). The reasons for the ‘‘criticism’’ are as follows: Muzicant has degraded Austria, is a ‘‘denouncer’’’’ who has ‘‘declared war on a democratically elected government’’. Muzicant, therefore is ‘‘not a good Austrian’’. And so, on the other hand, the anti-Semitic stereotype of the ‘‘traitor’’ is addressed and alluded to, the ‘‘betrayer of the fatherland’’. The presupposition runs: anyone who is not satisfied with the government and who voices criticism is a ‘‘traitor’’ and ‘‘not a good Austrian’’. This means that the government is equated with the state and that there is no longer room in Austria for freedom and plurality of opinion. Unless, of course, one criticizes such ‘‘traitors’’, for Haider does lay claim to this freedom of opinion for himself and defends himself against the ‘‘leftwing thought-police’’ (ZIB, 16 March 2001; Presse Kommentar, 17 March 2001). The topos of ‘‘traitor’’, which currently embraces all critics of the government in Austria, takes on and presupposes, in the case of Muzicant—and in the context of an anti-Semitic discourse—the additional meaning of the familiar Christian-antiSemitic stereotype of ‘‘traitor’’ (it is ‘‘not acceptable to denigrate one’s own country’’ Muzicant shows an ‘‘anti-Austrian mentality’’, 22 March 2001). 19

See footnote 12.

514

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

The fourth discourse strand used by in the above-mentioned justification discourse is concerned with Muzicant’s ‘‘motives’’. On the one hand to pay off the debts that he has accumulated in an apparently criminal fashion; on the other hand he is ‘‘filled with hatred’’, ‘‘vengeful’’ (‘‘he refuses to give his signature’’) and greedy for recognition (‘‘the applause of the enemies of Austria [was] apparently more important’’). This again proclaims and alludes to a familiar anti-Semitic stereotype: the vengeful Jew (where the Old Testament is often—inaccurately—quoted: ‘‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’’).

6. Final remarks These discourse strands demonstrate the extent to which Jo¨rg Haider has used and spread around the world anti-Jewish stereotypes since the FPO¨ New Year’s meeting in 2001. The linking of the Vienna election campaign with the restitution become equally clear. The devaluation of the compensation by ‘counter-balancing’ on the one hand and by criminalization of the Jewish Community in Vienna on the other hand may be shown in an analysis of the discourse. The defamation and ultimately racist exclusion of Ariel Muzicant and thereby the whole Jewish Community and the Austrian Jews did not, in fact, bring any electoral gain in the Vienna election; but discourses take on a life of their own. A polarization and an anti-Jewish attitude have, whatever the case, been engendered. The justification discourse has also taken on new dimensions: through the redefinition of ‘‘abuse’’ and ‘‘insult’’ as ‘‘legimitate criticism’’, anti-Semitic cliche´s and topoi have become acceptable. Many people reiterate Haider’s explanations and legitimizations (cf. Rosenberger, 2001). This carries an implication that someone has forbidden the factual criticism of Jews in appropriate circumstances and for a given reason. Against this kind of fictitious ban arguments—apparently naive—are now precipitately being raised, to the effect that criticism must be possible, even of Jews. The argumentation, therefore, breaks down in at least two places: firstly through the claim that it is to do with criticism. According to the definition and the entire literature on the subject, however, this is not to do with criticism but with instances of abuse and defamation. Secondly, the fact that anyone, particularly the ‘‘left-wing thought-police’’ would not tolerate the free expression of criticism. On the basis of the ‘‘flood of complaints’’ of the past year and the many related utterances on the part of the government parties, it has become abundantly clear that freedom of opinion is evidently only available for those who belong to the government, but not for those who ‘‘dare’’ to criticize the government. This implies that two different measures are being used: there are apparently first and second class citizens, namely those who are allowed to criticize and those who, because of some criticism, may be called ‘‘denouncers’’ and ‘‘traitors’’. But it should be noted: this second strand of argumentation also presupposes that it actually was a matter of criticism. On the basis of our analysis, however, this can be unambiguously refuted. In the debate concerning restitution anti-Semitic prejudices and stereotypes were mobilized; generalizations were made, and also devaluing attributions that were

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

515

brought into play without proof or evidence. There were no factual discussions, no criticism, but rather an anti-Semitic defamation of disagreeable opponents, with the aim of scoring points in the Vienna election campaign. As in 1986, during the Waldheim affair,20 the familiar ‘‘Iudeus ex machina’’ strategy was again introduced:21 scapegoats are ideal for constructing foe-images and thereby reinforcing the ego of the in-group. Jews have a long tradition as scapegoats (Adorno, 1973 [1950]) and are apparently still suited to this: An anti-Semitism without Jews and without anti-Semites. Bunzl and Marin (1983) were able to identify this tendency 20 years ago. The creativity and the choice of possible new discursive strategies is, however, bewildering. What is still more bewildering is the fact that political calculation can still clearly find a wide measure of support for illogical, irrational and untrue claims and prejudices under the cloak of ‘‘criticism’’. What is relevant for our theoretical debate, moreover, is the evidence that such discourses need a very precise definition of differing layers of context. Moreover, I hope to have made clear, that we can only understand insinuations and presuppositions, thus the ‘‘discourses of silence and justification’’, through constant relation with the extra-linguistic contexts and other non-linguistic theories.

References Adorno, T.W., 1973. [1950]. Studien zum Autorita¨ren Charakter. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Adorno, T.W., Fra¨nkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., Stanford, P.N., 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. The American Jewish Committee, New York. Allport, G.W., 1993. Vorwort. In: Simmel, E. (Ed.), Antisemitismus. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 9–11. Bunzl, J. Marin, B. 1983. Antisemitismus in O¨sterreich, Innsbruck. Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman, London. Fairclough, N., Wodak, R., 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Longman, London, pp. 258–284. Iedema, R., 1999. Formalizing organisational meaning. Discourse and Society 10 (1), 49–66. Januschek, F., 1994. J.Haider und der Rechtspopulistische Diskurs in O¨sterreich. In: Tributsch, G. (Ed.), Schlagwort Haider. Ein Politisches Lexikon seiner Ausspru¨che von 1986 bis Heute. Falter Verlag, Wien, pp. 298–301. Kienpointner, M., 1992. Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommannholzboog, Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt. Kopeinig, M., Kotanko, Ch., 2000. Eine Europa¨ische Affaire. Czernin Verlag, Wien. Marin, B., 2000. Antisemitismus ohne Antisemiten. Campus Verlag, Wien. Mitten, R., 1992. The Politics of Antisemitic Prejudice. The Waldheim Phenomenon in Austria, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Mitten, R., 1997. Das Antisemitische Verma¨chtnis: Zur Geschichte Antisemitischer Vorurteile in O¨sterreich. In: Mitten, R. (Ed.), Zur ‘‘Judenfrage’’ im Nachkriegso¨sterreich. Die Last der Vergangenheit und die Aktualisierung der Erinnerung. Projektbericht: BMWV, pp. 77–165. Mitten, R., 2000. Guilt and Responsibility in Germany and Austria. Paper presented to the conference 20 This was to do with the war-time record of Kurt Waldheim, former secretary-general of the United Nations, and subsequently president of Austria. 21 See footnote 12.

516

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

‘‘Dilemmas of East Central Europe: Nationalism, Totalitarianism, and the Search for Identity. A Symposium Honouring Istva´n De´ak, Columbia University, 24–25 March, 2000. Mo¨hring, R., 2001. O¨sterreich Allein Zuhause’’. Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der Politischen Wende. JKO-Verlag fu¨r interkulturelle Kommunikation, Frankfurt/Main. Potter, J., Wetherell, M., 1994. Analyzing discourse. In: Brymna, A., Burgess, R.G. (Eds.), Analyzing Quantitative Data. Routledge, London. Reisigl, M., Wodak, R., 2001a. ‘‘Austria first’’. A discourse-historical analysis of the Austrian ‘‘AntiForeigner-Petition’’ in 1992 and 1993. In: Reisigl, M., Wodak, R. (Eds.), The Semiotics of Racism. Passagen Verlag, Wien, pp. 269–303. Reisigl, M., Wodak, R., 2001b. Discourse and Discrimination. Routledge, London. Rosenberger, S., 2001. Kritik und Meinungsfreiheit als Regierungsprivilegien. In: Mo¨hring, R. (Ed.), ‘‘O¨sterreich Allein Zuhause’’. Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der politischen Wende. IKO-Verlag fu¨r interkulturelle Kommunikation, Frankfurt/Main. Schiffrin, D., 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell, Oxford. Van Dijk, T.A., 1984. Prejudice in Discourse. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Van Dijk, T.A., 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Wodak, R., 2000a. ‘‘Echt, ansta¨ndig und ordentlich’’—Wie Jo¨rg Haider und die FPO¨, die O¨sterreichische Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft beurteilen. In: Scharsach, H.-H. (Ed.), Haider. O¨sterreich und die Rechte Versuchung. Rororo, Hamburg, pp. 180–187. Wodak, R., 2000b. La sociolingu¨ı´stica necesita una teorı´a social? Nuevas perspectivas en el ana´lisis crı´tico del discurso. Sociolinguistics: Does it need a social theory? New perspectives in critical discourse analysis. Discurso y Sociedad 2 (3), 123–147. Wodak, R., 2000c. Recontextualization and the transformation of meanings: a critical discourse analysis of decision making in EU-meetings about employment policies. In: Sarangi, D., Coulthard, M. (Eds.), Discourse and Social Life. Pearson Education, Harlow, pp. 185–206. Wodak, R., 2000d. The rise of racism — an Austrian or a European phenomenon? Discourse and Society 11 (1), 5–6. Wodak, R., 2001a. Freund- und Feindbilder: Diffamierung Politischer Gegner oder berechtigte und notwendige Kritik? In: Mo¨hring, R. (Ed.), O¨sterreich Allein Zuhause. Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der Politischen Wende. IKO-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 124–144. Wodak, R., 2001b. The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak, R., Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, London, pp. 63–95. Wodak, R. Discourses of Silence: Anti-Semitic Discourse in Post-War Austria. Berjamins, Amsterdam (in press). Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., 1988. Sprache und Antisemitismus. Institut fu¨r Wissenschaft und Kunst Mitteilungen 4, Wien. Wodak, R., Meyer, M. (Eds.), 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, London. Wodak, R., Pelinka, A., 2002. The Haider Phenomenon. Transaction Press, New Brunswick. Wodak, R., Reisigl, M., 1999. Discourse and racism: European perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 175–199. Wodak, R., Reisigl, M., 2001. Linguistisches Sachversta¨ndigen-Gutachten. Wien (unpublished). Wodak, R., Pelikan, J., Nowak, P., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., Mitten, R., 1990. ‘‘Wir sind Alle Unschuldige Ta¨ter!‘‘. Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Yule, G., 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ruth Wodak is Professor and Head of the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Vienna. Beside various other prizes, she was lately awarded with the Wittgenstein-Prize for Elite Researchers (1996). Director of the Wittgenstein Research Centre Discourse, Politics, Identity (at the Austrian Academy of Sciences). Her publications are mainly in the areas of Discourse and Racism, Discourse and Discrimination, Discourse Analysis, Gender Studies and Organizational Research. Her research investigates also studies in public and private discourse in Austria since 1945, with special focus on manifestations of antisemitism and racism towards foreigners. Most recently, she focuses on the deconstruction of a taboo.

R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

517

The Wehrmacht in World War II, narratives of perpetrators. Another main aim is the investigation of Political language, political discourse: the study of media (printed and electronic) in 1988 in Austria and the impact of the ‘‘Waldheim Affair’’; the construction of Austrian Identity and European Identity (EU policy making).