1

Chapter Six

NON-VIOLENCE IN MEDIA LANGUAGE AS A

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FOR SOCIAL CHANGE AND

SUSTAINABILITY

(Sirma Wilamov)

6.1 Introduction

I wish I had some way to make a bridge from man to man Cross Daman in Richard Wrights Outsider

Interpersonal communication through the medium of language is humanitys greatest accomplishment. Yet it is ironic that no matter how much means of communication

have been developed and are still developing, we do not communicate well.

This study is based on an analysis of a corpus of data consisting of

contemporary Czech and British radio discussions, which was extended to include

North American data gathered during a research visit (2008-2009), providing a point

of triangulation by adding data from a major culture belonging to a different continent.

Having subjected the data to a contrastive analysis, it is clear that no matter

what the cultural or social context is, no matter what topic is being discussed

(education, health, life, culture, politics), no matter who the participants are in terms of

their institutional role, status, age or sex, the nature and pattern of disagreement and

conflict is universal. And no matter what linguistic strategies are used to express the

message on the micro-level, i.e. the level of language, the determining role is played

by the basic frame of human thinking which is manifested into reality through the

words we choose to use.

Analysis of the radio discussions showed that in the prevalent number of

instances of disagreement and conflict observed in the data, the standard modus operandi is reacting to the opponents opinion; this represents the the main communication strategy. This means to disagree, to protest, to try to overpower the

other, to interrupt him/her; all of this behaviour is based on conscious or subconscious

unwillingness to listen. Often the cause of a disagreement or conflict is just hearing

the words, while lacking a willingness to understand the meaning behind the words

being communicated by the speaker. Viewing the data from this perspective, it became

clear that the underlying problem in communication goes far beyond language to the fields of sociology, psychology and neurology because language is a social construct and the main means of human communication.

The aim of the study presented in this chapter is to look into the nature of

linguistic violence in media communication and, in the context of linguistic, social,

psychological and communication theories, to show how important is the role played

by the media in shaping the opinions of the public and therefore how crucial is the

2

role of language in the way the message is communicated. The second main aim is to

show why it is important to change the prevalent win-lose pattern of communication to a holistic and democratic win-win alternative as a means of successful communication, and how this can be done.

The approach to this study has been significantly influenced by a Fulbright

research stay spent in Hawaii, USA. Hawaii, as a melting pot of diverse cultures, languages and religions, represents an example of how people from numerous and

quite distinct cultures co-exist and communicate in a spirit of tolerance whilst

preserving their unique traditions, their own culture and identity. Hawaii, with its high level of ethics, morality and cultural values (reflecting its close connection to

spirituality as the highest guiding principle in the society), promotes sustainability,

tolerance and supportive community (ohana) as core social and cultural values. The

ancient Hawaiian tradition of peacemaking (Hooponopono) emphasizes cooperation and problem-solving realized in the spirit of love, peace and harmony.

The research presented in this chapter is intended as a pilot study into a

relatively new field of research, which is not widely known or widely applied in the

Czech Republic and Central Europe unlike in the United States and East Asia. This study aims to reveal the great complexity and potential of the topic of non-violence in

media language, opening up new directions and possibilities for further research which

interconnects and addresses important areas of our lives.

6.2 Data and methodology

An important outcome of the research carried out for this study is the Ostrava Corpus

of Czech and British Radio Debates from the years 2005-2007, which represents

authentic source material for the research. This corpus is available at the Department

of English and American Studies, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic.

The corpus data consists of 18 radio debates (lasting 15 45 minutes each) making up approximately eight hours of spoken language (230 minutes and 238

minutes for each language), recorded and transcribed. The total is 80 457 words taken

from British and Czech radio programmes with comparable content broadcast by

public service stations (BBC, esk rozhlas). For practical reasons the corpus uses a transcription convention that is compatible with both the DIALOG corpus of Czech

media talk and with common conventions used in conversation and discourse analysis

based on Jeffersons (2004) transcription system for the analysis of spoken language. During a research stay in the United States (20082009) the corpus data was extended to include a comparable corpus consisting of 208 minutes of North American radio

debates broadcast by National Public Radio (NPR). Creating a parallel and

comparable corpus of radio discussions in three different cultures enabled the

observation of differences and similarities as they occur in the three cultures.

The criteria for the selection of radio discussions were as follows:

1. a relatively high number of participants, i.e. interaction between one or two presenters and two or more guests, which ensures a greater variability of

participant relationships;

3

2. varying content (political, social and cultural topics) in order to give the corpus a wider thematic range. Some topics bring general consensus among

participants, while others bring disagreement and confrontation, resulting in the

use of different communication strategies;

3. varying levels of formality determined by the topic and the selection of guests in the studio.

As for the broadcast content, the corpus data (with the exception of the North

American data) are taken from different radio programmes with usually two or more

discussions within a single type and different hosts, so that both conventional as well

as habitual language behaviour of the different hosts can be observed.

The corpus represents a wide range of topics. It contains not only discussions

about topics such as politics, technology, education or science aimed at a general

audience, but there are also radio programmes targeted at specific groups such as

women or the disabled, discussing their specific problems and issues. These represent

very specific types of programmes which has a significant impact on the conversational structure as well as on the communication strategies used.

Finally, in order to give an opportunity to observe how media communication

works in different contexts, the corpus has been chosen to include programmes where

the atmosphere is cooperative and friendly, as well as argumentative or even

conflictive and confrontational. This is enabled due to the relatively wide range of

topics, the number of participants ranging from three to six as well as their roles and

personal characteristics influencing and co-creating typical patterns and strategies in

communication.

The last point to make concerns an issue that has been widely discussed in past

decades in relation to optimum methods of acquiring spoken data and also in relation

to the suitability of spoken data which is crucial mainly for research into authentic conversation, but can also to a large extent be successfully applied to institutional

discourse (Roger, 1989; Taylor & Cameron, 1987; Cheng, 2003; Warren, 2006).

Although the size of the corpus designed for this study cannot be compared to the size

or range of discourse and text types of some other corpora such as the British National

Corpus, London-Lund, CANCODE, the Czech National Corpus (CNC) or the

DIALOG corpus, I am convinced that its main value lies in the fact that its parameters

are specific and narrow, and that it therefore represents a relatively homogenous

sample of discourse which can be used for further research as well as serving as a

valuable material basis for a cross-cultural analysis of contemporary language in

Czech, British and North American debates as a specific media genre.

The approach taken in this study is based on observations of data as a basis for

qualitative research and discussion of non-violence as a universal principle of both

discourse interaction and social action. The study draws on an interdisciplinary

approach, involving the overlap of language as a social construct with sociology,

psychology and neurology, and employing methods of discursive constructionism,

cognitive frame theory, critical discourse analysis, speech act theory, conversation

analysis, communication theories, and peace and war discourse.

In the initial stages of the research, the great diversity in instances of verbal

tension, disagreement and conflict varying across the radio discussions in Czech,

4

British and North American culture (as well as within each of the cultures) posed a

challenge with regard to the best way to arrive at valid contrastive conclusions.

Weighing up a number of options for approaching the research goal, the best direction

proved to be one that goes deeper into the core of miscommunication, above and

beyond relatively minor conventional and non-conventional linguistic strategies,

behavioural strategies, social and cultural patterns; a direction that leads us through

language directly into the meta-nature of conflict which results in the disharmony and

separation that any pattern of violence always creates.

Concrete extracts from the corpus data although interesting are not included in the study presented in this chapter. The reason is that the angle of view taken in this

study focuses rather on the macro-frame and takes into consideration the

hierarchically highest and hence most influential and determining level the mind frame. It is this level that primarily conditions the choice of all the other hierarchically

lower levels, going far beyond the immediate linguistic and situational context.

Moving in the analysis from the surface to the core, from the more overt to what is

covert, deeper and hence more powerful, reveals that conflicts and disagreements are

rooted in and traceable only against a much broader social, cultural and psychological

background which overlaps and originates in the context outside the radio studio, in

the mindset of the participants, their habitual behavioural patterns, their system of

beliefs, concepts and other factors.

Another reason for not including concrete fragments of corpus data here is the

fact that media discourse is dynamic and largely context-based. Utterances

constructed, positions taken by participants, voices heard and strategies used develop and change dynamically in the course of the whole debate from its beginning to its

end. An understanding of the whole picture of the conflict, tracing the origins of the

tension that often builds up and escalates over the course of an entire radio broadcast,

cannot be demonstrated using mere fragments of discourse. It is necessary to follow all

of the threads leading to the situation as manifested in the reality in the studio and as

we hear it; due to space constraints, this would not be possible within this volume.

Using fragmentary data would not help to achieve the goals of this study; rather than

trying to systemize and contrast the huge diversity and variability of strategies in

programmes, topics and participants across the three cultures, the approach in this

study focuses on what goes beyond individual cultures and hence can be viewed as

universal.

The analyses carried out in the course of the second year of the research sought

contrastive observations from the three different cultures Czech, British and North American and showed a huge degree of variation. This can be conceptualized into three hierarchically arranged levels, which combine to create a pyramid-like structure.

The lowest level is the individual level, representing individual/habitual choices,

preferences and strategies used to approach a situation of (potential) conflict. This

level covers a range of strategies which speakers choose from the variety of linguistic

and non-linguistic means at their disposal. The next level, one step up in the hierarchy,

can be termed the cultural level. It includes social conventions, societal norms, rituals

and stereotypes that determine the choice of verbal and behavioural patterns that

speakers use and that can be the same or different depending on the culture. The third

level represents the hierarchically highest and most decisive macro-level a universal

5

frame of human thinking which overarches and conditions the selection of individual

choices and cultural patterns at the lower levels, influencing and shaping the words

and behaviour we choose to use.

In order to arrive at more objective valid and generalizing conclusions as to

contrastive aspects in the three cultures, the research would need to rely on a

considerably larger corpus and a larger spectrum of discussion topics and participants.

Together with the other reasons mentioned above, this precludes any attempt to draw

clear-cut boundaries and make simplified claims by saying that, for example, conflicts

in North American discussions are more abrupt, factual and conflict-based compared

to Czech debates. This appears to be true for the corpus data analyzed in this research;

however similar instances can be found within each of the cultures, differing in

relation to the type of programme, the topic(s) discussed and the individual

participants present in the studio. Such categorical claims would not stand on solid

research foundations. I am convinced that language as a social construct is similarly to life too complex, too context-sensitive, too dynamic and too variable to be strictly categorized on its higher planes.

Though this is not the primary focus of the study presented here, several

observations can be made on the basis of the analyses carried out. The widest

divergence can be seen on the level of the individual (habitual) choice of linguistic and

non-linguistic realizations of strategies to prevent a potential conflict or to approach an

already existing conflict. The speakers often use politeness as a key strategy for the

avoidance or mitigation of conflict avoidance, using diverse linguistic and behavioural

politeness strategies as discussed e.g. in Wilamov (2005). Typically and frequently, speakers use various grammatical and lexical means

such as discourse markers to mitigate face-threatening acts such as refusal to give a

direct answer, criticism of the opponent, or expressing a higher or lower degree of

indirectness relating to the weight of imposition of a face-threatening act.

Also non-linguistic strategies are present and used intentionally in media

discourse, such as expressing deference, pessimism, regret, complimenting in order to

soften the utterance and/or to help to achieve the communicative goal where a bold-on

record formulation might sound offensive and could give grounds for a potential

conflict. Numerous strategies used in handling conflict also build upon Grices Cooperative Principle and its maxims used by speakers for the effective resolution of

conflicts, such as clarifying opinions, summarizing the point the opponent has just

made, presenting a counter-argument where it is felt the previous speaker does not

present truthful statements, and so on. Some strategies, by contrast, breach one or more maxims by creating intentional vagueness, avoidance, lies etc.; these are used as

indirect and arguably effective strategies to approach conflict or tension in

communication.

The results of the contrastive analysis of these communication strategies

revealed a high degree of diversity and variation in the usage of strategies, differing

from speaker to speaker, from culture to culture, from topic to topic depending on the

unique constellation in the studio. It is not possible on the basis of these observations

to arrive at viable generalizations. The enormous amount of variation that manifests

itself on hierarchically lower levels cannot be strictly identified as belonging

exclusively to a particular culture. In order to find a viable solution, to generate a

6

concept that would unify all three cultures investigated, it was necessary to search for

a different and perhaps less conventional approach that would stand above and

embrace all of the observed variations, differences and subtleties that are manifested

on the lower levels in all three cultures, and that would represent the top of the

pyramid, unifying all various micro-strategies into one simple and universal concept.

6.3 Discourse, power and strategy

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.

Jalal ad-Din Rumi

The French sociologist Foucault argued that power and knowledge are concepts that

are closely interconnected; in his concept every human relationship is a struggle and

negotiation of power. Discourse according to Foucault (1969) is related to power as it

operates by rules of exclusion.

There are many approaches to language which view discourse from a variety of

different angles. In this section I want to present two perhaps less widespread approaches that have significantly influenced this studys perspective on language and its approach to linguistic research.

The first approach is Laclau and Mouffes Discourse Theory, which overlaps with language and sociology; the second is Discursive Constructionism, introduced in

the 1990s, which inter-relates the fields of language and psychology.

Both theories are closely related to the study presented in this chapter, mainly

because they view discourse through its relation to society and psychology in a

different way than some other well-known approaches such as conversational analysis

(CA), discourse analysis (DA), critical discourse analysis (CDA), and sociolinguistic

analysis (SA) and hence give a different perspective upon how discourse can be viewed and approached. The following sections provide a more detailed outline of the

two above-mentioned approaches and show the way in which discursive

constructionism approaches language as compared with to the other approaches

mentioned, especially CA.

6.3.1 Laclau and Mouffes Discourse Theory In their principal work Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985), Laclau and Mouffe

outline the basic principles of their theory of discourse. It builds upon the

understanding of the social as a discursive construction, and represents a theoretical

approach to language as well as a theoretical foundation for other social constructionist

approaches to discourse analysis. Laclau and Mouffes theory draws on two major theoretical traditions, namely Marxism and structuralism. The influence of Marxism is

seen in thinking about the social, whilst structuralism provides a theory of meaning.

Laclau and Mouffe combine the two traditions creating a poststructuralist

theory in which they understand the social field as a web of processes in which

meaning is created. Poststructuralists agree with the Saussurian structuralist approach

7

in the respect that by positioning the signs in different relations they may create new

meanings which, however, cannot be seen as definite and unambiguous.

[] language use is a social phenomenon: it is through conventions, negotiations and conflicts in social contexts that structures of meaning are fixed

and challenged. (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2001: 25)

In Laclau and Mouffes approach, the conception of power is similar to that advanced by Foucault. The authors do not understand power in a traditional sense as something that people possess and exercise over others in order to control them, but as

something that produces the social. In their view power as a social phenomenon creates knowledge and identity and forms our relations in the society. At the same time

all three elements knowledge, identity and relations are viewed as contingent, i.e. [] at a given time, they all take a particular form, but they could have been and can become different. (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2001: 37) In Laclau and Mouffes conception, human society is dependent on living in the social order, and power is

viewed as the main constituent of the social order.

Group identity, permanence and contingence

In their critique of Marxism, Laclau and Mouffe claim that there are no objective

conditions that determine into which groups the social space is divided, and that due

to permanent dynamics in society individuals have several identities as well as

having the possibility to identify themselves differently in different situations.

The social space therefore often naturally collapses into a polar opposition

according to which only opposing identities are available, such as handicapped /

healthy, rich / poor, politicians / citizens, those that have power and control over a

particular area and those who do not.

Individual and collective identities present in any society are viewed by Laclau

and Mouffe as a means of exclusion which is not automatically accepted as civilized

and democratic, but rather as barbaric and coloured (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2001: 50).

In the media as is also confirmed by the analysis of the radio debate corpus data the concept of us, although often not overtly claimed, stands in opposition to them. In the analyzed radio discussions this can be found for example in a confrontational debate about a controversial documentary on deaf/blind parents and

their children as the carers of the family, which managed to divide guests, audience

and listeners into two antagonistic groups.

It is also interesting to observe how the analysis of us and them can give some idea of what a given discourse actually says about participants themselves

taking a particular position, how it creates exclusion, and what social consequences

this exclusion has.

Another claim and the starting point of Laclau and Mouffes theory is that everything is contingent, everything is in motion and hence all the possibilities for

potential change are open. This idea has been challenged and has stimulated

considerable criticism from other researchers (e.g. Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999;

Chouliaraki, 2002) claiming that Laclau and Mouffe overestimate the possibility of

8

change and that they do not pay attention to the structural constraints that are socially

created, but resistant to change.

Laclau and Mouffe understand actors (individuals or groups) as subject positions determined by discourses. Everyone does not have equal access to all

subject positions, and in our society, constraints can, for instance, be a function of

categories such as class, ethnicity and gender. (Phillips & Jorgensen, 2001: 55)

6.3.2 Discursive constructionism

The other approach I would like to discuss here is discursive constructionism (DC).

Its major focus is descriptions, allegations, reports and claims, which are viewed as

parts of human practice. The main domain of DC is discourse practices, namely the

way in which speakers construct their utterances in order to achieve their

communicative intentions.

Ashmore (1989) claims that DC is radically constructionist in the sense that it

believes in the value of authentic data and empirical research. In this respect it can be

classified also as anti-foundationalist and poststructuralist. One of the significant

features of DC is methodological relativism, i.e. a conscious avoidance of basing

research on just one partys version of an event and/or on participants or structures that would be taken as given.

The main topic of discursive constructionism is discourse through which mind,

social processes, organizations and events are studied. Discourse is defined as texts and talk as parts of social practice, and its focus is on similar discourse types to

conversation analysis (CA): talk in work settings, different kinds of mediated

interaction or professional client interaction. It uses as its main data live talk, in which

stress, emphasis, overlaps and silence are important signals. In its approach towards

discourse, DC focuses on action and practice rather than linguistic structure: i.e. the

focus is primarily on the interpersonal component of language use.

As is obvious from the above, there are many aspects in which discursive

constructionism draws on conversation analysis, mainly in the area of methods and

findings (Woofit, 2005). In many respects it parallels CA, nevertheless what makes

DC different is the fact that prior attention is given to construction as the main issue.

Conversation analysis has also been influenced by DC, and has begun to place more

emphasis on epistemic issues, which are a central focus of discursive constructionism.

DC distinguishes between two types of construction. One is the understanding

that discourse is constructed in the narrower sense of using linguistic structures; in the broader sense it works with categories, metaphors and rhetorical commonplaces.

People are extremely skilled builders of descriptions; they have spent a lifetime learning how to do it. Part of the analytic art of DC is to reveal the complex and

delicate work that goes into this seemingly effortless building. (Potter & Hepburn in Holstein & Gubrium, 2008: 279).

DC understands discourse as situated in three areas. Firstly, it is situated

sequentially, i.e. it builds upon the immediately preceding talk and at the same time it

provides the environment for the talk that follows. Secondly, it is situated

institutionally, which means that it originates from structures and practices of

institutional talk such as media talk etc. Thirdly, it is situated rhetorically.

9

CA, discursive psychology, discourse analysis and some areas of

ethnomethodology are disciplines that are constructionist in that they consider how talk and texts are assembled and how those assemblages work to accomplish actions (Potter & Hepburn in Holstein & Gubrium, 2008: 285). Potter (1996), outlining the

foundations of discursive constructionism, distinguishes between how discourse

accomplishes actions (the action orientation of talk) and how discourse is built as

factual (its epistemiological orientation).

Similarly to Laclau and Mouffes Theory of Discourse, discursive constructionism also works with categories. In the broader sense categories are

normatively tied to a range of different psychological states and characteristics,

including knowledge. Some categories are explicit and tied institutionally, others are

more open and/or more temporary (e.g. the categories of doctor, witness, ordinary

person). Categories are always associated with particular kinds of knowledgeability.

The discursive psychology of the mind/world relationship

One of the important features of discourse that stands in the centre of discursive

psychology is the existence of complex reflexive relationships between descriptions

of the world and descriptions of mental states (Edwards, 2005); the main point which is simple but fundamental is that the psychological construction works to build the reality. (This is also the basis of Van Dijks concept of mental models or Faircloughs mental representations, which form a foundation for the analysis presented in Chapter 2 of this volume.)

Another area that is a major focus of discursive psychology is the area of

mundane epistemics, which includes the study of knowledge and understanding that are viewed as practical and interactional. The concept of understanding in DC is not something floating in phenomenological space, but something structurally located with differential possibilities for checking and modifying. The notion of

shared knowledge has been reworked by Edwards (1999), and it implies agreement in mental representations of some kind. Agreement can be either abstract, i.e.

achieved through a mental calculus, or procedural, which means that is something

open to reformulation and denial.

Social structure and context

Context is a very important phenomenon for correct pragmatic interpretation and for decoding speaker meaning. Many disciplines such as discourse analysis, conversation

analysis, discursive psychology, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, ethnomethodology and

other interdisciplinary fields crossing traditional boundaries have attempted to delimit

or define the notion of context. Potter & Hepburn (in Holstein & Gubrium, 2008) outline the three main angles

of view from which discursive constructionism perceives context. First, the context is

studied through participants own orientation. In Scheggloffs terms there exists a wide range of potential contextual particulars, and the crucial issue is what contextual

particulars the participants themselves treat as relevant. The second approach

considers how social structure is an ongoing accomplishment of different parties.

It does not see the action as contextually determined by the institutional context

(media, school, court, etc.), but it views the context as a result of collaborative effort

10

between the participants in interaction who actively produce the relevant structures

(Drew & Heritage, 1992; Heritage, 2005; Clayman & Heritage, 2002). These

structures are normative and inferential, and they do not concern the context, but they

are responsible for the coherence of interaction. The third approach is complementary

to the previous two, and it studies how social structures are constructed through

talk and what those constructs are used to do. (Billig ,1992 on British Royal family

talk; Condor, 2006 on nationalism; Gubrium & Holstein, 2002 on family talk).

Discursive constructionism also includes some aspects with relevance to

psychology, such as non-verbal behaviour (gestures; see the analysis presented in

Chapter 5 of this volume), perception (looking, seeing etc. in professional settings),

and emotion. The last area emotion has been studied only recently, and there is not much research literature on the topic of the social construction of emotion. For

instance, Edwards studies counselling talk, viewing emotions under focus (anger,

upset) as parts of accounts which work to construct actions as reactions. (1997). Although it is not a tradition in the vast majority of linguistic research to

consider emotions as a part of analysis, DC as an interdisciplinary field brings them

into an analysis rather than viewing them as a boundary posing a limit to analysis (e.g.

in research by Edwards or Buttney). (In relation to emotions, see also Chapters 2 and

3 of this volume on the impact of communication strategies on the emotional

component of the producer-reader relationship.)

This aspect of DC is of particular relevance to the corpus analyzed for this

chapter, because the emotions reflected in the participants choice of words and manifested in their intonation are very important carriers of communicative meaning,

not only in those parts of media discourse which handle disagreement and conflict,

but in general. Together with the content, i.e. information provided, they co-create the communicated meaning.

DC represents a particularly potent direction of research because it steps

outside the field of linguistics, combining it with the fields of psychology and

sociology. Offering a multi-dimensional approach to the analysis of language, DC

opens up a new space and new potential for further, more holistic research into

language as a means of communication.

6.3.3 Intentionality, rationality and strategy in talk

Since the study presented in this chapter deals with the concept of the communication

strategy, in this section I will discuss different definitions of the term as well as its

relation to action, intention and choice.

The analysis of social action and interaction is derived from sociological and

anthropological traditions. In the context of these traditions the notions of meaning and intention are associated with subjectivity, consciousness, goals, strategies and agency.

Along with these terms, traditional social science distinguishes between

behaviour and action. The American sociologist Parsons, who developed a general theoretical system for the analysis of society (Action Theory, 1937), claims that

actions are implemented by agents who consciously entertain and pursue goals, selecting means to achieve these goals by reference to standards of appropriateness

which may be more or less consciously entertained. (Heritage, 1991: 312).

11

Weber (1947) gives a more brief definition, claiming that action is viewed as behaviour to which subjective meaning is attached. Searle (1979) develops an

intentionalist view of meaning and action to support his theory based on Grices Cooperative Principle and more specifically conversational implicature. Searle draws

on a long tradition of philosophical argument, mainly in the sense that for a correct

interpretation of the meaning of action it is crucial to understand the intention that lies

behind it.

The key to the correct pragmatic interpretation of meaning is contextual

knowledge, i.e. knowledge of real-world objects, cultural context, social knowledge of

statuses, roles and other relevant sociological factors is important (Levinson, 1979) as

well as so-called procedural knowledge, which involves the normative organization

of action.

The concept of strategy

Social science theory offers two concepts of the term strategy. The first concept emphasizes the aspect of choice and rationality and has largely been developed from

these. This concept views a strategy as a set of actions of a rational agent who has a conscious goal and who has preferences that can be factored into the decision

procedure (Luce & Raiffa, 1957 in Heritage, 1991: 314). The other concept of strategy arises from cognitive psychology and has been

increasingly used by researchers of interactional data. The link shared by these

researchers is the belief by cognitive linguists that human behaviour is thought of as

rational.

The rationality concept represents one of the core values in Brown and

Levinsons politeness theory, where politeness strategies are viewed as outcomes of rational and conscious planning of speakers (1987). Also Miller et al. (1960) see

strategies as small actions that are coordinated as sub-plans with the respect to the achievement of some overall goal, however they do not attribute these strategies

to the conscious awareness of the agent.

Nevertheless, an important element of the concept of strategy as it is viewed in

this chapter is the distinction between a cognitive strategy, which fits behaviour and is

not a property of an agent (hence the agent cannot consciously control it), and a

conscious strategy, which guides behaviour (Heritage, 1991: 315; see the discussion

in the Introduction to this volume).

Another point that needs to be mentioned in this connection is the observation

that creating a theoretical typology of strategy types is somewhat easier than the actual

work with the data. What is particularly problematic is deciding under what

circumstances the participant intended to use a particular conversational procedure or employed it strategically and when it was merely unintentional.

As Heritage (1991: 316) states, strategic contexts often involve a conscious choice of two or more actions aiming to achieve the same goal (especially after the

first one has failed) moving from off-record to on-record and sometimes involving a kind of manipulation in order to achieve a desired outcome.

Generally, as Heritage (1991: 326) states in his article based on sociological

literature, there are three main areas in attributing conscious strategy when interpreting

data and assigning intent to the speaker of the utterance. The first area concerns the

12

problem of recognizing intent in contexts where such intent may be ambiguous or invisible, especially when the invisibility of a strategic move is often a feature of the success of a strategic procedure. Only in institutional settings, where the participants

have clearly defined and delimited social roles and goals, can the intentional strategies

be identified with a higher degree of certainty (Levinson, 1979; Atkinson & Drew,

1979; Moerman, 1988). Secondly, it can be difficult to determine the point at which

such an intention was formed. Thirdly, there is often a contingently fluctuating line between activities that are strategic (cognitive strategies) and those moments that reach

the threshold of conscious strategy (Sacks, 1967; Heritage & Atkinson, 1984; Jefferson, 1989 in Heritage, 1991: 328).

6.4 Media language, power, asymmetry and institutionality

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. George Orwell

The mass media in our contemporary world have a significant influence on many areas

of our lives. This is possible due to the medias creative and flexible use of communication and rhetorical strategies as well as their far-reaching influence on

millions of people around the world.

The media represent a powerful and effective force not only in politics where they modify power dynamics and shape the outcomes of political events such

as elections but they also have an impact literally on all areas of life, such as education, health, sports, culture and leisure. One of the reasons why the media are so

powerful is that they shape the opinions of almost all age categories.

There are, however, two sides of the coin. The media can be both

manipulating and manipulated. The fact that the information they transmit can be

and often is ideologically loaded by those involved makes the media vulnerable to manipulation from the outside. This is a very sensitive issue because the media have

enormous responsibility in terms of desirable objectivity that is required from them by society because of their mass reach. Objectivity, nevertheless, is a very relative

concept, and it can be approximated by a willingness to present a particular problem

from as many different angles as possible, which enables an issue to be viewed in its

full complexity.

In relation to what has been discussed previously, the role and responsibility of

the media as I view it is not that of an institution which presents the audience with

ready-made solutions, or that intentionally selects only some opinions to be given

voice whilst excluding others, but as a democratic medium. After all, the function of

the media is encoded in the etymology of the word itself, defined as follows:

Media [] is a truncation of the term media of communication, referring to those organized means of dissemination of fact, opinion, entertainment, and

other information.1

1 http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/mass-media/etymology-and-usage.html. Retrieved August 20,

2009.

13

6.4.1 The centrality of language and the role of rhetoric in the media

One of the major means that gives the media power is language; the media make use

of languages expressiveness, the power of persuasion and a wide range of communication strategies operating through language. As Norman Fairclough claims:

the exercise of power in modern society is increasingly achieved through ideology, and more particularly through the ideological workings of language.

We live in a linguistic epoch, as major contemporary social theorists such as

Pierre Bourdieu, Michael Foulcault, and Jurgen Habermas have recognized in

the increasing importance they have given to language in their theories.

(1989: 3)

Although the power of the media is primarily determined by its linguistic power, it is

not only the language itself, nor the information that has the power, but it is primarily

the way in which information is communicated.

In relation to media communication, it belongs to the sphere of rhetoric how

language is managed, structured and conditioned in the presentation of information.

As Nwagbara argues, the skills of rhetoric are vital for the management of media

discourse, and the way utterances are constructed and managed significantly

determines either more objective and neutral or more biased ways of presenting an

utterance to the public. On the other hand the possibility of subjectivity is equally

significant. Therefore he claims it entails [] a serious need for the artful and strategic management of language and discourse [] especially in media discourse that has public appeal and mass reach. (2007: 122)

The influence of language on perception and behaviour

Ferdinand de Saussure claimed that language is one of the most conservative social

institutions. Language as a social construct involves institutional structures. If

knowledge is power, language is power too, and those who control language have an

enormous influence on how we perceive reality. Even more importantly, they set the

model for what behaviours are viewed as acceptable in a society.

Gay (1999) mentions two key ways in which language shapes both perception

and behaviour and more significantly, how it influences our thought and action. First, lexis is always loaded, and as such it serves as a means of

interpretation. More specifically, as Gay puts it, Individuals think about their world in the terms provided by their language. As a result of socialization individuals have a

predisposition to select those terms which coincide with the existing values in their

societies. I would add that in any spoken or written communication the entire process of

decoding the meaning is very complex. The words are always loaded. On one hand there is the speakers unique concept of the world as he perceives it, and hence the unique meaning that a particular word carries for him; on the other hand the same

word may be loaded differently for the addressee, and so the actual meaning in the immediate context needs to be negotiated. This, however, is possible only in spoken

discourse, and as communication, psychology, and neurolinguistic theories claim,

speakers often do not go through this phase, which is the main cause of

14

miscommunication. As Bolton (1986) claims, the main reason for semi-effective or

ineffective communication, which is a major social problem of our society, is that we

do not listen carefully to what the other conversational partner is saying. Successful

communication does not mean merely to hear the words, but above all it means to

understand what is the message being communicated behind the words.

The first of Gays claims is actually closely related to the cognitive linguistic theory of frames. It reflects the power of the word to activate a frame of semantic

knowledge which relates to the specific concept it refers to. A relevant aspect of frame

semantics in relation to media discourse is outlined in section 6.6.3 of this chapter.

Secondly, the idea of the symbolic power of language has been elaborated by

the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Gay (1999) builds upon his claim, saying that

behavior is shaped by the linguistic perspective of an individual's thought. I consider this to be a key idea. In other words, language gives a structure to consciousness

which guides action.

6.4.2 Radio discussions as a genre of media discourse

For the past three decades, institutional interaction (including media talk) has been a

focus of various discursive approaches to language, specifically Conversation Analysis

(Heritage & Clayman, 2002; Hutchby, 1996) and Critical Discourse Analysis (which

was established and further developed by Fowler, 1991; Hodge & Kress, 1992;

Fairclough, 1995, 2003; Weiss & Wodak, 2003). There will not be a detailed

discussion about these two approaches here, as it is not central to this study. The two

approaches share many aspects, with the major difference that CDA does not limit

itself to specific structures of talk, but systematically relates them to the socio-political

context, which is highly important for the analysis of media language.

Defining discussion A discussion as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is viewed as a consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate or as a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing.2

As an object of the analysis of media discourse, however the term discussion requires a more narrow definition. For this purpose I have adopted mejrkovs (2003) definition, which has been slightly modified.

Discussion can be defined as a communicative event that is characterized by particular features, namely (1) face-to-face communication, and (2) its public character

(it is addressed to a public that is or is not present in the studio, but the main target

audience are listeners outside the studio. Other characteristics are a fixed time of

broadcast, and a type of discussion (informative, entertaining, consensual,

confrontational) that corresponds with the radio stations intent. It is this intent that to a large extent influences the preference for particular communication strategies that

both host(s) and guests in the studio use. The radio discussions in the studied corpus

are for the most part informative, however all of the above aspects can be found there.

2 http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion. Retrieved July 28, 2009.

15

Features of media talk as a type of institutional dialogue

As has already been mentioned, institutional dialogue of different kinds has been a

domain mainly (though not exclusively) of conversational analysis, which belongs

among the leading methods currently applied to media discourse. It observes the

interaction of people in natural settings and aims at identifying recurring patterns in

communication.

One of the fundamental assumptions of conversational analysts is that [] participants build the context of their talk in and through their talk. (Heritage in Silverman, 1997: 163). Drew & Heritage (1992) outline three basic features of

institutional talk of any kind, which have been modified here according to the corpus

data of radio discussions:

1. Institutional interaction (including media talk) involves participants in specific goal orientations which are tied to their institutionally relevant identities,

specifically host-guest, guest-guest, host-host, host-audience, and guest-

audience.

2. Institutional talk involves special constraints such as what topics will be discussed.

3. Institutional interaction is associated with inferential frameworks and procedures that are particular to media interaction. The most characteristic

procedure indicating institutionality is the turn-taking mechanism which

establishes who is going to talk when, signals when a participant has the right to

speak, and manages the overall structural organization of the interview.

Interviews as a discourse of power and asymmetry

Gubrium & Holstein (2002) offer another view of interviews, which includes also

radio discussions as a format with multiple participants. They say interviewing of all kinds mediates contemporary life and [it] is becoming the experiential conduit par excellence of the electronic age. (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002: 9)

The discourse of a vast majority of contemporary interviews in its essence is

genuinely asymmetrical. As has been mentioned before and will be discussed in

greater detail later, participants have roles that are given within the institutional

framework; these roles are fixed and consequently determine the type and functions of

the utterances which they produce. The host asks questions, collects and summarizes

information, whilst the guest in the studio typically provides answers. In this type of

discourse the operating principle is control, which is focused mainly on keeping these

functions and roles separate so that the expected institutional framework is not

violated.

The interviewer is not expected to provide answers or give his/her opinion; the

interviewee is not expected to ask questions or take over the initiative. It can be said

that media discourse as well as institutional discourse in general locates knowledge

within the respondent, but control with the interviewer.

The subjects behind interview participants

16

The interview not only produces interview data, but also it simultaneously constructs

individual and public opinion. What does it mean in terms of communicative

practice to be an interviewer, and what does it mean to be an interviewee?

An interesting concept of viewing the subjects roles in an interview encounter is offered by Gubrium & Holstein (2002), who perceive subjects participating in an

interview encounter as both active and passive at the same time.

Respondents are viewed as passive vessels of answers for experiential questions put to them by interviewers (2002: 12). They passively possess the information which the interviewer needs to obtain. This may sometimes be a sensitive

issue. Since the success of the interview is dependent on mutual cooperation between

the interviewer and the interviewee, it is of great importance that the interviewer is

careful about how s/he asks questions.

On the surface the interviewer can be seen as a purely active figure, however,

actually his/her passivity lies in the fact that s/he is detached from the actual data of the field in the sense that s/he merely collects what is already there. The main purpose of the interview is hence to tap into information without unduly disturbing and, therefore, biasing or contaminating the respondents vessel of answers. (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002: 13) The interviewer is expected to remain neutral and to

avoid shaping the information that is conveyed. This undoubtedly involves the

interviewers efforts to control him-/herself in order not to imprint his or her presence, own experience or opinion onto what the respondent communicates.

The core of an interviewer as an active subject is actually the same as that of

the respondent interviewers are producers of knowledge. Gubrium and Holstein call the interview a concerted interactional project, in which the interviewer is engaged in the interactional co-construction of the interviews content (2002: 15).

Another important aspect of media discourse is the notion of voice. Voice refers to the subject position that is taken for granted behind speech. (Gubrium, 1993;

Holstein & Gubrium, 2000 in Gubrium-Holstein, 2002; see also Chapters 2 and 3 of

this volume for a discussion of voice). The concept of voice involves the question of who actually speaks over the course of an interview and from what standpoint.

Sometimes participants shift their position, indicating these shifts by using verbal

prefaces such as This is what I would tell you as a doctor, but as a friend, sometimes offering solutions from different points of view Well, from the point of view of a politician , but from the point of view of a citizen and sometimes hiding behind collective concepts of we This is how we see it. In the course of an interview, voices mix and blur into each other, and it is sometimes difficult to identify who owns

the voice behind a particular opinion.

Interactional asymmetry as a feature of media talk: the case of Czech, British and

North American corpora of radio discussions

Asymmetry is one of the most central governing principles in media talk, and it is

closely related to sociological phenomena of power and control. Heritage (in

Silverman, 1997: 175) observes four types of institutional asymmetry, namely (1)

asymmetries of participation, (2) asymmetries of interactional and institutional

knowhow in which the interaction is embedded, (3) epistemological caution and asymmetries of knowledge, and (4) rights of access to knowledge.

17

The most obvious feature of asymmetry in the analyzed radio discussions is the

direct relationship between the institutional roles, tasks, rights and obligations of the

participants. In a previous study (Wilamov, 2008) dealing with the turn-taking mechanism, I was interested in how both interviewers and interviewees depart from

the established norm that is set in the institutional framework, how these departures are

addressed and potentially sanctioned, and how they reflect the asymmetric nature of

media discourse.

I looked more closely into the functions of hosts and guests turns as they relate to Heritages typology of institutional asymmetries. The results of the analysis showed quite a remarkable asymmetry, which is reflected in the unequal number of

diverse functions performed by hosts and guests turns, an asymmetry that is reflected in the communicative force that lies beyond the literal meaning of the utterance.

Guests in the corpus data either answer or react to the hosts questions, or react to his/her request for the clarification of a particular term or concept s/he has used or

to his/her request to expand on their answer, or the guests contribute their opinions on

another guests answer. However, the power behind the hosts turns is much stronger. Hosts typically outline the structure of the discussion and the topic discussed;

they decide when one topic will be closed and another opened; they open a discussion

with the knowledge about the topic that guests and audience outside the studio are presented with; they choose which guest will answer the question; they require the

guests to explain, add or specify their answer. The hosts evaluate to what extent the

answer provided is satisfactory, and determine whether or not the length of the reply is

appropriate; they may ask the guest to further elaborate on the reply or they may

interrupt the guest if the utterance is too long. It is the host who evaluates whether or

not the guests answer is relevant to what is expected, and the host has the authority to decide. The host has the right to complement a guests answer any time, and sometimes s/he even provides his/her own answer, although this is not within the

expected norm of the institutional framework.

The last case is actually an example of departure from the norm. However, even

in cases when participants rights ensuing from an expected institutional framework are overstepped (whether such a departure from the norm is sanctioned or not), we can

see the true nature of power and asymmetry that lies at the core of media interaction

as a type of institutional discourse. The analysis of the radio debate corpus data

identified several types of departures from the norm both by the hosts and by the

guests, and showed that it is only the host that has the right to exercise sanctions if a

guest oversteps the given framework, not vice versa.

Relating language and power to the context of Austins speech act theory (1962), which is discussed in relation to the power of the word in a greater detail in

section 6.6.1 of this chapter, it is obvious that whereas guests use language to say things, a large number of the hosts turns are used to do things. In Austins terms, the hosts utterances perform actions as they make guests do what the host requires. This reflects the nature of power issuing from the institutional framework and enabling

the host to perform these actions.

18

6.5 The nature of violence and non-violence in communication

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

Mahatma Gandhi

Communication technologies today allow us to communicate and cooperate instantly

almost with the whole world. In this sense our planet has become a global village. An ongoing process of globalization in which regional economies, societies, cultures,

languages and ideas have become integrated through global networks of exchange is at least in the developed world considered to be given.

Violence is any act of aggression and similarly to language it is a social construct. What is considered as violent is context-sensitive, and acts that are labelled as violent in a certain social and cultural context are not necessarily

considered violent in another.

6.5.1 Defining violence and non-violence: a dualistic concept of todays world Dictionaries define violence as a physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging (in the sense of meaning, content or intent), or abusing (unjust exercise of

power).3 The Violence Preventive Aliance (VPA) in its World Report on Violence and

Health defines violence as:

the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or

has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm,

maldevelopment, or deprivation.4

Violence that can be defined as a physical or psychological degradation of something

or somebody represents only one of many alternative responses to conflict. However it

represents a conscious and intentionally chosen way to achieve a goal, and as such it

can be classified as a strategy.

Typology of violence

Violence manifests itself in many forms physical, psychological, behavioural and verbal. The World Health Organization (WHO) divides the general definition of

violence into three subtypes according to the victim-perpetrator relationship. Violence

can be (1) self-directed, (2) interpersonal (in the family and community) or (3)

collective (social, political and economic violence committed by larger groups).5

Violence and non-violence is a complex and multi-level concept that manifests

itself on both concrete and abstract levels, and it can be verbal as well as non-

verbal. One of the most cogent attempts to grasp the complexity of the polar nature of

this concept is the one presented by Allen (2005 in Allen, 2008): 3 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/violence. Retrieved August 5, 2009.

4 http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/index.html. Retrieved August 5,

2009. 5 http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/index.html. Retrieved August 8,

2009.

19

Violence is individual and institutional, personal and political. It might be

silence, bullying, harassment, physical assault, suicide; oppression, exploitation,

war Violence is injustice that results in dysfunctional, imbalanced relationships among people, groups, nations, people and our environment, even within one body and mind. Non-violence in this context means moving

toward dynamic balance justice, health, peace by devising creative interventions into the dysfunctional systems ideally, before a crisis occurs; but with conflict resolution, direct action, and other creative, non-violent methods,

afterwards. Non-violent action generates win-win outcome for inevitable

conflict and change; it moves toward better balance in relationships with the

goals of wholeness, fairness, and sustainability. (Allen, 2005: 292)

6.5.2 The Nature of Conflict

There is a large amount of conflict and disharmony in our society and media talk. All

sorts of conflicts in the world enter our reality via the media. Racial issues, minorities

fighting for their rights against majorities, labour disputes, abortion versus pro-life

movements, environmentalists against city councils, journalists against politicians,

politicians against politicians, anarchists against the whole society. Military conflicts,

terrorism, arms races, breakdowns in negotiation.

Focusing on a problem rather than on a solution creates negative energy and has

an influence over the way in which information is communicated. Moreover, the

problem is often not even a part of our immediate reality, but it is channelled via the

media (radio, television and newspapers) in a dramatic and conflictive way, which has

direct or indirect effects on our conscious and subconscious mind.

Conflict has a dual nature. As Bolton (1986) claims, conflict is both

constructive as well as disruptive and/or destructive. Conflict is constructive because

it allows for honest expression of feelings. Research in psychology and social science

confirms that open disagreement enables a person to achieve clarity and to

communicate their needs, values and opinions, which as a result enhances their self-

confidence and self-esteem. Another positive impact of conflict is its dynamic nature,

which prevents stagnation and fosters creativity as it allows for the exchange of often

conflicting or at least opposing views. It may increase motivation for change and

innovativeness because of the greater diversity of the viewpoints. Consequently, this

may enhance ones awareness of ones identity as well as increasing understanding for the others position. (Bolton, 1986: 208).

On the negative side, conflict in its essence is disruptive, and in worse cases it

may be destructive. When it starts, its destructive effect has a tendency to expand.

Often conflict becomes detached from the original cause and whilst escalating, it

absorbs and emotionally exhausts those who are involved.

Emotional, value and substantive aspects of conflict

Social psychology and communication theory generally distinguish between three

kinds of conflict, namely:

1. a conflict of emotions (i.e. antagonistic feelings between participants);

20

2. a conflict of needs (i.e. substantive issues that are objective and tangible and can be approached rationally and therefore solved); and

3. a conflict of values (principles, standards, and qualities ranked high and considered desirable), which rarely has any solution. The reason is that in this

type of conflict nothing is tangible or concrete, because the conflict is a matter

of attitudes to life, of the expectations, opinions and beliefs we hold; these

differ from individual to individual or from company to company.

All three aspects of conflict mentioned above can be observed in the radio

debate corpus data from the three cultures under investigation. The most frequent

types of conflict observed in the corpus are those of needs as well as those of values.

Radio discussions are in fact meant to cast light on particular issues, to clarify them for

the audience as a target addressee, and to offer a range of potential solutions.

Unfortunately, these discussions are often blurred by the imposition of one persons values and opinions on others, or with the use of overt or covert manipulation that

involves the rhetorical skills of the speaker hiding the manipulations more or less

successfully behind pseudo-rational justifications and objective reasons. Emotions often come into play and the original disagreement turns into a heated conflict ending

up dramatically and as a rule without any solution.

Within the set frame of the institutional discourse it is the hosts responsibility to prevent such conflict or to manage it if it is already in progress. The ways in which

interview hosts handle conflict are diverse, and depend on their experience, their

ability, and the use of power which issues from their institutional role and their right to

stop violent discourse. There are, however, cases in the corpus data when the host

forgets about the rule of neutrality, departs from the expected normative institutional

framework and joins the conflict. For example: in the case of a discussion about a

documentary portraying a handicapped family, it is the host who (being blind himself)

actually initiates the conflict and stirs it up. Instead of being aligned with his role as a

host and ensuring an equal right for each participant to express their opinion in a

discussion, he steps out of his role, takes sides and positions himself not as a host, but

as an aggrieved blind person.

6.5.3 The two dimensions of non-violence

Robert J. Burrows (1996), in his book The Strategy of Non-Violent Defense, classifies

four categories of non-violence based on two sets of continua, namely

1. principled pragmatics as an approach whose core aspect is full commitment to non-violence, and

2. reformist revolution, which focuses on and reflects the way the conflict is handled.

Burrows draws a demarcating line between these two approaches to non-

violence. Whilst the first views non-violence as a way of life, the second applies it as a

technique or a pragmatic strategy to achieve a communicative goal.

21

Burrows claims that in order to practice non-violence as a way of life, three

principles have to be followed, namely:

1. Non-violent action is chosen because of its ethical superiority.

2. Only non-violent means will be conducive to the creation of a society free of violence.

3. The purpose of the fight is not to defeat the so-called other side because they are partners and not opponents. To see the so-called others as partners is a

crucial step toward the notion of the unity of humankind. (Satha-Anand, 2002)

However, Satha-Anand, in a paper presented at the International Peace

Research Association Conference (2002), argues that the dividing line between the

above-mentioned approaches is illusory because a pragmatic non-violent strategist

cannot claim to be non-violent if his use of non-violent language or non-violent action

is not consistent.

Non-violence: Going beyond the absolute

Violence of any kind, including violence in human communication, is by its nature

dividing, separating and in its essence fear-based. Violence is exclusive because it is

based on the either-or polarity scale. It draws on the concept of Ego as the centre of

the world, who is the owner of the only truth. Life, however, is far more complex than this, and every person creates and represents the world for him-/herself. Through

the state of our inner world, we create a unique perspective for the way in which we

perceive and understand the world outside us. Perception reflecting mental patterns

and coloured through the filter of emotions, as well as the system of our beliefs and

concepts, is based on individual experience often rooted in cultural and societal norms.

As long as we consider our truth to be the only truth, there will not be peace.

Everything needs to be considered in the larger context and seen from various angles,

because only such an approach can lead to awareness of the complexity which is

denied by violent strategies (which by contrast enhance polarization). This is the kind

of complexity which McAlister (1988) says is to be seen in:

feminists who rail against the system of male supremacy, but at the same time love their fathers, sons, husbands, brothers, and male friends. That kind of

complexity that sees an underpaid working man who beats his wife both as someone who is oppressed as well as an oppressor. Violent tactics and strategies

rely on polarization and dualistic thinking and require us to divide ourselves into

the good and bad [and] assume neat, rigid little categories easily answered from

the barrel of a gun, ... Non-violence allows for the complexity inherent in our

struggles and requires a reasonable acceptance of diversity and appreciation for

our common ground. (McAlister, 1988: 56)

As Allen states, the main benefit of a non-violent approach is that it is an

organizational paradigm which avoids unnecessary confrontation, does not ignore

abuses of power and injustice, and prioritizes a principle that reaches beyond the

22

progressive community, hence gaining hence recognition and support from people

outside that community (96). In Allens view, the concept of non-violence, which is ranked hierarchically above individuals, institutions, communities and cultures,

represents the core value for the sustainable development of the world:

we humans need to consciously change from a culture and world organized around violence (which came to us by way of the theory of survival of the

fittest) to species that has learned enough about sustainability to begin

organizing ourselves around non-violence. (2008: 96)

6.6 Non-violence as a communication strategy and category of force

Non-violence is a weapon of the strong. Mahatma Gandhi

Non-violence in communication can be viewed as a strategy of managing good conflict. And because its main goal is to build harmonious and equal relationships, it should be the preferred strategy in any culture.

Non-violence is often mistakenly understood as weakness, when confronted

with the violation of the human right to freedom, dignity and respect. However,

although peaceful and calm on the surface, it is a powerful and effective strategy in

dealing with conflict and represents an alternative option to both inaction and

aggression.

Non-violence is often confused with other non-violent alternatives for handling conflict, such as denial, avoidance, compliance, indifference or capitulation,

which issue from learned behavioural patterns, or with other non-violent alternatives in

managing conflict, such as civil disobedience, mediating, peacemaking or pacifism. It

is, however, not the purpose of this study to deal with the differences between these

alternatives in greater detail.

Netzer (2007) defines non-violence as a field that [] refers to behaviour in conflict and is a strategy for using ones Power. It demands making a conscious decision to regard the opponents as human beings, the same as we are, and actively

confront them with moral Power without causing them physical or psychological

damage (humiliation). Both violence and non-violence are types of force. However whilst non-

violence is force by virtue of being based on respect for oneself and others, resulting in

harmony, the true mechanism of violence is based on an unequal distribution of power

which results in pressure.

6.6.1 On the power of the word in the context of Austins and Searles speech act theory

Shakespeare was not the only nor the first person to have considered the power of the

word when in 1600 he had Rosencrantz in Hamlet say that ... many wearing rapiers are afraid of goosequills. The Greek poet Euripides, who died in about 406 B.C. said, The tongue is mightier than the blade.

23

By the term behaviour as it is used in this study I understand not only behaviour traditionally perceived as action, but language behaviour too. Austins speech act theory (1962), further developed by Searle (1969), represents one of the

central concepts in the branch of pragmatics that represents unlike conversational or discourse analysis a rationalist approach to language. The main idea of speech act theory is based on the Austins observation that utterances perform actions.

For the present discussion, however, of greater importance is Austins belief that there is a lot more to language than the meaning of its words and phrases. Austin

was convinced that we do not just use language to say things (to make statements) but

we use it to do things (perform actions). It was this conviction that eventually led him

to a theory of what he called illocutionary acts, which examines what kinds of things

we do when we speak, how we do them and how our acts may succeed or fail. Any speech event consists of three related acts. First there is the locutionary

act, which is the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic

expression. Although it may sometimes not seem so on the surface, what we say we

say with a certain intention. This is another dimension, or the so-called illocutionary

act. The illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of the utterance.

In other words, there is power behind the words. The power that is behind the words

is called the illocutionary force of the utterance.

We do not create an utterance that has a particular function (e.g. an explanation,

request, apology, etc.) without intending it to have an effect which we want to see in

reality. This phase is the third dimension in speech act theory, the perlocutionary act.

Depending whether the hearer decodes our intention correctly and the speaker gets the

message across as s/he intends, the act leads consequently to a concrete action.

For pragmaticians, the most important aspect of speech act theory is the

illocutionary force, i.e. the speakers intention, because it is this power that enables that the same locutionary act to have different illocutionary forces. For example the

force behind the speech act of thanking can be that of refusal, whilst an explanation

can actually be an apology. (See Wilamov, 2004.) Austins Speech Act Theory, based primarily on a lexical classification of

illocutionary acts, was further developed and modified in Searles A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts (1975); Searle classified the five types of general functions that are

performed by SAs according to how the acts fit the world and vice versa.

Speech act type Direction of fit S = speaker

X = situation

Declarations make words change the world S causes X

Representatives

make words fit the world S believes X

Expressives

make words fit the world S feels X

Directives

make the world fit words S wants X

Commissives make the world fit words S intends X

24

Table 1 Searles taxonomy of speech acts in Thomas (1995)

Declarations are speech acts that from a position of authority have the power to

change the world via the utterance. This is a feature typical of institutions or specific

contexts; in radio discussions or interviews, a host may say And this is where we stop

our discussion for now.

Representatives, by contrast, are speech acts connected to our belief system,

i.e. to what the speaker believes to be the case or not. Here belong statements of fact,

assertions, conclusions, descriptions that we have accepted from our parents, teachers,

friends, authorities and have made a part of our belief system which creates our reality.

Here there belong many beliefs issuing from what Carl Gustav Jung calls the

collective consciousness, i.e. shared beliefs and moral values rooted and operating as a unifying force in the society. This is how children should be raised. This is how we

do things here.

Expressives are speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They express our

emotional states (anger, fear, defensiveness, pleasure, pain, joy, sadness). In many

cultures feelings are treated as something that it is not appropriate to display publicly

because it is mainly the mind, information, knowledge and mental energy that the

society values. Nevertheless, research into psychology, quantum physics and

bioenergetics confirms that emotions represent a strong driving force, a powerful

energy and a key for the correct interpretation of the message, containing more

substantial and unique information compared to a message which is communicated

merely by words.

Whilst expressives reflect our inner world, directives are speech acts in which

speakers use their power through words to get someone else to do something. Thus the

host of a radio discussion says: Norman Filkenstein, your assessment of why Israel

attacked now?

The last type of speech act as classified by Searle is the category of

commissives. By performing commissives, speakers commit themselves to some

future action and hence use the power of the word to create a potential reality for the

future (e.g. promises, threats, refusals, etc.)

6.6.2 Linguistic violence

From what has been outlined above, it is obvious that language is a powerful tool in

the respect that it co-creates our reality.

Language is a social construct and as such it can do violence: violence against

either individuals or groups that is psychological rather than physical. Physical

violence causes pain and often it is connected to the immediate survival reaction, based on our instincts. Physical pain brings us to the present moment in which it is

happening and makes us more alert and conscious about what is going wrong.

Unfortunately we seem to be far less aware, less sensitive and more tolerant of

linguistic violence just because it happens on a more subtle level. Linguistic violence

uses psychological force, not physical force, which however does not mean that it is

less dangerous. It is as dangerous as physical violence and its most dangerous aspect is

that it is more abstract and hence less tangible and therefore more covert, which

makes its perception less obvious.

25

Linguistic violence occurs when we are hurt psychologically and/or socially

by words. Gay (1998) draws attention to a very important aspect of linguistic

violence. While most people are conscious of the pain that words can cause, many social groups are often unconscious of injustices that language helps to create and

sustain. (545) Gay (1998) views linguistic violence as a continuum that ranges from subtle

through abusive to grievous forms. By subtle forms he generally means linguistic

forms that cause harm and hurt that is minimal and unintentional, like for example the

case of childrens jokes or lighter forms of irony. Abusive forms can be traced especially in racist, sexist, and classist discourse. These uses of language hurt

psychologically, and unlike subtle forms, participants are more aware of their

degrading intent. The third type grievous forms are the strongest in their force and they intend to silence or even eliminate individuals or a social group.

Another important distinction that Gay (1999) suggests is a distinction between

oppressive and offensive language; this distinction is found on all levels of the continuum of linguistic violence which includes subtle, abusive, and grievous forms.

Whist offensive language relates to language forms that hurt the individual against whom they are directed, oppressive language represents more intense forms that cause psychological harm:

Within moral philosophy Joel Feinberg has distinguished hurt and harm, and this

distinction has been applied to language by Stephanie Ross and others.

Sometimes, when we are conscious of the negative effects of terms, words hurt

us. Such hurt is equally real in individual verbal insults and institutionally

sanctioned demeaning terminology. It usually hurts a child when someone yells

You're ugly! [] Language that hurts us is termed offensive. On other occasions, when we are not conscious of the negative effects, words can still

harm us. Such harm also occurs on both individual and institutional levels.

[] Inhabitants of Africa may accept their nations as underdeveloped and less civilized until they learn about the imposition of colonial rule and Eurocentric values. Language that harms us is termed oppressive. (Gay, 1999: 309)

I agree with Gay in the respect that linguistic violence and its perception is

much better classifiable in terms of a continuum because the actual boundaries

between hurt and harm are based on the subjective perception of an individual and/or collective values. As has been said before, every person lives in his/her own

world created by the system of beliefs, concepts and expectations. Every person views

the reality through the filter of their own mental patterns, which create the frames in

which we organize our perception of the world, as well as through our emotions,

which are closely connected to our thoughts, creating in every individual a unique

perception of reality. Therefore what one person may feel or consider as hurt or harm

may hardly be noticed by another.

26

6.6.3 Discourses and frames

Galtungs peace and security discourses Discourses and frames are mental mechanisms by which we organize our thoughts,

ideas and the concepts of the world. New information is integrated into pre-existing

frames or discourses which constitute the existing system of our perception about how

the world works. Our use of these mechanisms is generally unconscious, however they

represent the filter through which we perceive the outside world. Therefore for the

mass media such as radio or television that directly work with information, it is

inevitable to bring discourses and frames to the level of awareness, because they have

an enormous influence and a wide-reaching effect.

Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist and a founder of the discipline of Peace

and Conflict Studies, originated the concept of so-called Peace Journalism, which is

becoming increasingly influential in the area of communication and media studies.

Galtung (2004) identifies two opposing types of discourse, namely peace

discourse and security discourse. Security discourse is in its essence fear-based, i.e.

it focuses on the clear and present danger of violence either real or potential, and its

main strategy to achieve peace is security, in order to weaken evil/strong parties through defeat or deterrence or to convert them into good parties.

Peace discourse, by contrast, is based on conflict transformation, which is

empathetic, creative and non-violent in turn producing. It takes the opposite direction

to security discourse, and its best approach to security is peace. The key words for this approach are acceptability and sustainability.

Galtungs concept of peace embraces a wide range of relationships as well as groups and nations, and also distinguishes between Negative and Positive Peace.

Negative peace in Galtungs conception refers to the mere absence of overt violent conflict, whilst positive peace includes an added value of collaborative and supportive relationships.

Lakoffs cognitive linguistic frames The basic concept of frame semantics draws on the claim that a word activates a frame

of semantic knowledge that relates to the specific concept to which it refers. In this

way a word unlocks access to particular knowledge. Frames are based on recurring

experiences and words specify a certain perspective in which the frame is viewed.

Lakoff (2004) presents his cognitive linguistic approach of two competing

frames which dominate the current American political scene and that can be also

observed in the corpus data from British, Czech and North American radio

discussions. They are related to the two general perceptions of the family model in the

society, namely (1) the nurturant parent frame, which Lakoff links to the progressive stream of American society, and (2) the strict father frame, which he relates to the conservative stream. The main points to compare the two frames as Lakoff

characterizes them are summarized below:

The nurturant parent frame The world is basically good and can be made even better. It is our responsibility

to work towards that.

27

Both parents share responsibility for raising children. Nurturing equals empathy (feeling and caring how others feel) plus

responsibility (for taking care of oneself and others for whom we are

responsible).

Political values based on empathy, protection from harm, fulfilment in life, fairness, freedom and open communication.

Political values based on responsibility: competence, trust, commitment, community building.

Role of government: provide infrastructure and services to enact these values. Foreign policy: Promote cooperation and extend these values to the world.

The strict father frame The world is dangerous and difficult; children are born bad and must be made

good.

The father is the moral authority; he has to su