8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
1/115
THE MARKETISATION OF ‘EQUALITY ’:
A CORPUS-BASED CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
CAMPAIGN’S ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2014
MARK JOSEPH WILKINSON
MASTER’S IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS
KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
SEPTEMBER 2015
SUPERVISOR: DR. CHRIS TRIBBLE
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
2/115
1360613 1
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
3/115
1360613 2
There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle
because we do not live single-issue lives.
-Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider, 1984
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
4/115
1360613 3
Acknowledgements
This thesis is dedicated to my father, Dr.Michael Wilkinson, without whose support,
insight, wisdom, guidance and editing expertise I could not have made it through this
master’s.
Thank you.
I would like to thank João for his unconditional support and tremendous patience while I
recounted every moment of my creative process. You also deserve a master’s in applied
linguistics.
I would like to thank my mom, Diane, for always thinking that everything I write is
brilliant and interesting.
I would like to thank Rachel for sharing all of her wisdom, experience and feedback.
Wyman and Wilkinson 2016!
And I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr.Chris Tribble, for his feedback, advice and
for opening up the wonderful world of corpus linguistics.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
5/115
1360613 4
ABSTRACT
This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of how The Human Rights
Campaign (HRC) represents the goals, values and aspirations of America’s lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming and queer (LGBTIQ*) population. As the
largest and most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy and lobbying organisation in the United
States, HRC occupies a unique position to influence government policy as well as media
representations of the LGBTIQ* campaign for social justice. Nevertheless, critics argue
that HRC pursue a single-issue politics that privileges the interests of the gay and lesbian
elite while neglecting crucial social issues that affect the most marginal and vulnerable
LGBTIQ* Americans.
A corpus analysis of HRC’s 2014 press releases revealed that critics’ accusations are
largely correct and that HRC primarily advocate for same-sex marriage at the expense of
all other issues. My conclusions are based on an analysis of keywords, collocations and a
corpora comparison using press release corpora from other LGBTIQ* organisations
during the same time period.
HRC make practical arguments for what actions should be taken to achieve equality for
LGBTIQ* Americans. A practical argumentation analysis was therefore conducted on a
typical HRC press release to identify how HRC represent the premises for action. This
analysis affirmed that HRC deliberately omit some major concerns of LGBTIQ*
Americans, such as racial and economic inequality, in favour of the premise that only
‘marriage equality’ can bring social justice to LGBTIQ* Americans.
Finally, an explanatory critique argues that ‘marriage equality’ serves only to bring
economic benefits to HRC, its corporate sponsors, and the LGBTIQ* elite, and not to a
sizeable population of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC successfully market ‘marriage
equality’ because it is good for the bottom line.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
6/115
1360613 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
ABSTRACT 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
LIST OF APPENDICES 8
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES 9
1.0. INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 Economic Inequality 11
1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS 12
1.3 Immigration 12
1.4 Homelessness 12
1.5 Criminalization 13
1.6 Racial Injustice 13
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW 15
2.1. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 15
2.1.1. Discourse 15
2.1.2. Power 17
2.1.3. Ideology 18
2.2. DIALECTICAL-RELATIONAL APPROACH 20
2.2.1. Social events 21 2.2.2. Social practices 22 2.2.3. Social structures 23 2.2.4. Mediation 23
2.3. PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS 24
2.4. CRITIQUES OF CDA 28
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
7/115
1360613 6
3.0. CORPUS ANALYSIS 30
3.1. Overview 30 3.1.1. Research questions 30 3.1.2. Data 30 3.1.2. Corpus linguistics 31
3.1.3. Corpus tools 32
3.2. Corpus analysis 32 3.2.1. Keyness analysis 32 3.2.2. Collocation analysis 33 3.2.3. Corpora comparison 39 3.2.5. Corpus analysis summary 45
4.0. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION
ANALYSIS 48
4.1. Text: 48
4.2. Outline of HRC argument 49
4.2.1. Circumstances 50
4.2.2. Values 53
4.2.3. A lternative 55
4.2.4 Means-goal 55
4.2.5 Summary 56
4.3. Explanatory Critique 58
5.0 CONCLUSION 62
REFERENCES 64
APPENDIX A 73
APPENDIX B 75
APPENDIX C 78
APPENDIX D 82
APPENDIX E 84
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
8/115
1360613 7
APPENDIX F 86
APPENDIX G 98
APPENDIX H 103
APPENDIX I 110
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
9/115
1360613 8
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A HRC Corpus: Keyness Analysis 70
APPENDIX B HRC Corpus: Collocations 72
APPENDIX C HRC Corpus: COUPLES + CAN MARRY concordance 75
APPENDIX D Lambda Legal Corpus: Keyness Analysis 79
APPENDIX E Williams Institute Corpus: Keyness Analysis 81
APPENDIX F HRC Corpus: MARRIAGE + EQUALITY concordance 83
APPENDIX G Williams Institute Corpus: EXTEND + MARRIAGE concordance
95
APPENDIX H HRC Corpus: INEQUALITY 100
APPENDIX I HRC Press Release #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs
Marriage Equality Now 109
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
10/115
1360613 9
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) 19
Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough
2012) 20
Figure 4.1 HRC argument: Why America needs ‘marriage equality’ now 43
Figure 3.1 MARRIAGE collocation 70
Figure 3.2 EQUALITY collocation 70
Figure 3.3 COUPLES collocation 71
Figure 3.4 GAY collocation 71
Figure 3.5 TRANSGENDER collocation 72
Table 3.1 Keyword comparison between HRC, Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute
corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus. 36
Table 3.2 HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute as reference corpora 37
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
11/115
1360613 10
1.0. INTRODUCTION
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claims to be ‘America’s largest civil rights
(HRC 2014). Founded in 1980, as ‘the first gay and lesbian political action committee
(PAC) in the United States’ (Cornell University 2006), the organisation now boasts 1.5
million members and its activities include lobbying, research and public policy as well as
running education and outreach programmes across the US (Cornell University 2006). In
the 2012 presidential campaign HRC’s political spending reached $4.2 million on
lobbying and campaign contributions. (opensecrets.org). In addition, HRC have also
pursued an aggressive strategy of branding, marketing and public relations activities that
have raised the profile of the organisation (Cornell University 2006). One notable
achievement in this campaign has been the HRC logo that is now claimed to be ‘asvisible at pride celebrations … as the iconic rainbow flag’ (HRC 2015a). The logo now
appears on countless bumper stickers and t-shirts, and is used by the media, politicians
and corporations to show support for HRC’s brand of LGBT equality (HRC 2015a).
HRC’s resources, membership, and media presence make it the most influential LGBT
advocacy group in the US – a unique position that allows them to speak, in Washington
and in the mainstream media, on behalf of LGBT people (Cornell University 2006;
Meronek 2015). But does HRC adequately represent the interests of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ*)1 Americans?
As the media presence and political profile of HRC has grown, so too have those
critical voices that dispute HRC’s claim to represent the political, social and economic
interests of the LGBTIQ* community (Warner 2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al 2011;
Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014). Critics maintain that LGBTIQ* people are women, men,
transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from multiple ethnic, religious,
1 The use of LGBTIQ* is a political choice by the author in an attempt to illustrate the diversityof lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and gender non-conforming people. Thelatter group is represented by the asterisk and includes those who do not identify themselvesthrough binary gender categories (gender expansive), two-spirited native North Americans whodo not identify with the identity categories given by colonial Americans, asexuals, those livingwith HIV, those who are questioning their sexual identity and those who reject any reductiveidentities ascribed by labels.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
12/115
1360613 11
regional, socioeconomic, and political backgrounds (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010;
D’Emilio 1993, 2006). Thus, any civil rights agenda representing this community would
need to be as diverse as the constituents it claims to represent (Warner 2000; Duggan
2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). Instead, HRC
are accused of employing a corporate-style decision making model that only serves the
interests of its largely white, upper-middle-class, cis-gender 2, gay and lesbian board of
directors (Duggan 2003). HRC, by ignoring people within the community who do not
have the resources and media-access to represent themselves, thereby obfuscates the
issues that affect most LGBTIQ* Americans (Warner 2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al
2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). Central to this critique is that HRC
are also pursuing a ‘single issue’ (Duggan 2003:47) political strategy that frames same-
sex marriage as the ultimate measure of equality and the primary goal of the movement
(Sullivan 1995; Warner 2000; Duggan 2001, 2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010;
Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). Conrad argues that HRC’s gay marriage campaign
hinges ‘upon … the gay subject as a … racialized figure embedded in a comfortable
upper-middle-class environment … untroubled by any … inequality other than …
“marriage rights”’ (2013:394). This essentially diverts attention away from the social
injustices actually affecting the LGBTIQ* population. Discussed below are six critical
issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans, most of which cannot be solved with an extension
of marriage rights (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006).
1.1 Economic Inequality
The LGBTIQ* community is disproportionately affected by economic inequality
(Albelda et al 2009). More lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) households live in poverty
than heterosexual households (Albelda et al 2009); children of same-sex couples are
twice as likely to live in poverty as children of different-sex couples (Albelda et al 2009);
and lesbians and LGB people of colour are most affected. The statistics for transgender
and gender non-conforming people are worse, being four times more likely to have a
2 A person whose gender identity corresponds with assigned sex at birth, ie. not transgender,gender non-conforming or gender expansive.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
13/115
1360613 12
household income of < $10,000/ year compared to the general population (Grant et al
2011). The unemployment rate is also double, while the Black and Latino transgender
populations have an unemployment rate nearly four times that of the general population
(Grant et al 2011).
1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS
Inadequate healthcare produces inferior health outcomes in the LGBTIQ*
population (Krehely 2009). 82% of the heterosexual population have health insurance,
compared to 77% for the LGB population, and 57% for the transgender and gender non-
conforming population (Krehely 2009). The LGBTIQ* community also has higher rates
of obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, and cancer (Krehely 2009). The Center for
Disease Control (CDC 2015) also reports that 56% of patients contract HIV through
same-sex activity (CDC 2015) and gay men have the fastest growing rate of infection
(CDC 2015).
1.3 Immigration
Of the nearly 1 million LGBTIQ* immigrants living in the US (Center for
American Progress 2014), 267,000 are undocumented (Burns et al 2013). Those held in
US immigration detention centres are often ‘subjected to solitary confinement, torture,
and ill-treatment, including sexual assault…. ‘ (Gruberg 2013). A UN Special Report
(Gruberg 2013) concluded that the placement of LGBTIQ* detainees within the
Department of Homeland Security was in violation of the Convention Against Torture.
1.4 Homelessness
LGBTIQ* teenagers comprise 40% of homeless youth in the US (Durso and
Gates 2012:3). The reasons are complex, though family rejection (68% of cases),
physical or sexual abuse (at over 54%), being aged out of the foster-care system, and
financial and emotional family neglect are major causes (Durso and Gates 2012:9).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
14/115
1360613 13
1.5 Criminalization
LGBTIQ* teens represent only 5-7% of the US youth population but constitute
15% of those in the juvenile justice system (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012 2012:1).
Homelessness forces them into drug sales, theft and prostitution (Hunt and Moodie-Mills
2012:3). LGBTIQ* youth of colour are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement;
ie. of the 300,000 LGBTIQ* youth arrested each year, 60% of them are Black or Latino
(Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012: 1). Often detained according to their registered sex at
birth, they are exposed to the danger of sexual assault and violence (Hunt and Moodie-
Mills 2012:6). Though many remain unconvicted of crimes, detention centres place
transgender youth in solitary confinement (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6), a practice the
American Psychiatric Association maintains ‘is … a form of punishment … likely to produce lasting psychiatric symptoms’ (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6).
1.6 Racial Injustice
African-American same-sex couples are twice as likely to be poor as African-
American different sex couples (Badget et al 2013). Compared to white gay male
couples, however, African-American gay men were six times more likely to be poor
(Badget et al 2013). African-American lesbians were also three times more likely to be poor than were white lesbians (Badget et al 2013). LGBTIQ* people of colour also
experienced higher rates of youth homelessness (Durso and Gates 2012), incarceration
(Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012; Durso and Gates 2012; Grant et al 2011) and HIV
infection (CDC 2015). Transgender and gender non-conforming people of colour are
also primary victims of an increase in hate crimes and murders (Grant et al 2011;). Of
the 12 transgender women murdered in 2015, 9 were black or Hispanic (Kellaway and
Brydum 2015).
Critics claim that HRC have remained largely silent on these issues (Bassichis et
al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). As these dissenting voices have
organized both independently and against HRC (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez
et al 2014), so the HRC has adopted rhetoric that addresses its critics (Becker 2014). In
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
15/115
1360613 14
2014 the HRC President addressed Transgender critics and claimed that he was ‘sorry for
the times [they had] been underrepresented or unrepresented’ and that ‘HRC has a
responsibility to do the struggle justice, or else we are failing’ (Becker 2014).
This thesis will address the critiques made against HRC through a critical
investigation of how they represent both the issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans and
the goals of their campaign for ‘equality’. HRC have established a strong media presence
to represent their values, goals and achievements. The study will therefore begin with a
corpus analysis of their press releases. A text chosen as representative of the corpus
findings will then be used for a critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough and
Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical argumentation. As an advocacy
organisation, HRC make arguments to the government and the public that certain actions
should be taken in order to reach ‘full equality’ for LGBTIQ* Americans. The main
research questions are:
To what extent does HRC represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ*
community in the US?
To what extent does HRC advocate on behalf of marginalised groups
within the LGBTIQ* community who do not have the resources to
represent themselves in the media and in Washington? To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the
accusations made against HRC?
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
16/115
1360613 15
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS & PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS
2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a ‘trans-disciplinary’ approach (Fairclough
2015: 45) to the study of discourse, power, and ideology – incorporating methods from
the critical social sciences and linguistics (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk
1993, 2001, 2008; Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak
2011). CDA seeks to understand how discourse contributes to social, political and
economic inequality (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk 1993, 2001, 2008;
Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak 2011). Its goal is not
simply to describe this relationship, but to provide a ‘critique of discourse and
explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a
basis for action’ (Fairclough 2015:5). CDA’s primary motivation is therefore
‘transformative action to change existing social reality for the better’ (Fairclough
2015:12; Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk 1993, 2001, 2008; Wodak and
Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak 2011).
This chapter presents an overview of how discourse, power, and ideology are
conceptualised within the present study. Subsequent sections provide an overview of the
CDA theories adopted in this investigation: Section 2.2 outlines the basic theoretical
framework of the Dialectical-Relational Approach (Fairclough and Chouliaraki 1999;
Fairclough 2003, 2010); Section 2.3 provides a framework for analysing practical
argumentation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) and Section 2.4 concludes with a
critique of CDA’s methods and a brief discussion of how corpus linguistics can be used
to strengthen analysis.
2.1.1. Discourse
Defining discourse is problematic as it is used in both ‘social and linguistic
research in …inter -related yet different ways’ (Baker 2006:3). Within CDA there is a
distinction between two separate but complimentary meanings (Fairclough 2015; Van
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
17/115
1360613 16
Dijk 2001, 2008; Wodak and Meyer 2009). The first refers to ‘naturally occurring
instances of language in use’ (Stubbs 1996:158). Traditional discourse analysts therefore
study the function of language above the sentence or clause level (Brown and Yule 1983;
Stubbs 1983) and how a ‘stretch of language … achieves meaning and coherence
…’(Cook 2011:431). When unequal power relations are exercised at this level, it is
referred to as power in discourse (PID) (Fairclough 2015:73). While PID can manifest
itself in face-to-face interaction, the concern in this thesis is with media texts. Thus when
discourse is produced and disseminated through the mass media, HRC control the
interaction by ‘determin[ing] what is included and excluded, how events are represented,
and … even the subject position of the audience’ (Fairclough 2015:79). HRC’s
significant media presence enables them to exercise their powerful position and represent
the LGBTIQ* equality movement according to their interests.
PID is related to Power behind discourse (PBD) – the idea that ‘the whole social
order of discourse is put together … as a hidden effect of power’ (Fairclough 2015:83).
This second concept derives primarily from Foucault (1972; 1982) who proposed that
social reality arises from a network of discursive practices that determine our speech,
behaviour and relationships. Discourse is therefore not just how we represent our world
through language, but actually constitutes how we perceive social reality, our identity,
and the power relations to which we are all subject (Foucault 1972). For example, the
LGBTIQ* rights movement is founded on discourses of shared identity and collective
history framed by a metaphor of ‘coming-out’ (D’Emilio 1993); ie. LGBTIQ* individuals
always existed, but suffered in isolation until they publicly asserted their sexual identity
and demanded equality. Foucault (1976 ) however, proposed that homosexual identity, as
understood today, is merely the product of discursive practices that emerged in a specific
historical era. While prior to the 19th century, same-sex sex was a forbidden act, the
‘perpetrator’ had no particular characteristics or identity traits associated with his
‘perversion’ (Foucault 1976:43). Westphal’s publication of ‘Contrary Sexual Sensations’
(1870) changed this, identifying homosexuality as a diagnosable condition (Foucault
1976). Thereafter, clinicians pathologised sexual behaviour by diagnosing mental
conditions based on sexual practice, and endowed the sexual act with mental and moral
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
18/115
1360613 17
characteristics (Foucault 1976, 1982). Thus homosexual identity did not exist outside of
discourse, but was born through discourse. As Foucault stated: ‘The sodomite had been a
temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species’ (Foucault, 1984:323).
The discursive construction of LGBTIQ* identity is but one example of how
discourse constructs our social reality. Identity however, is not a benign category. It has
profound effects on our life and freedom of movement. While psychiatric discourses
influence how we think and speak about mental illness, they are also connected to mental
health facilities and the law, both of which have power over human subjects and their
bodies (Foucault 1972). Thus, these dividing practices (Foucault 1982) – sane/insane,
legal/illegal, homosexual/heterosexual – actually function as a form of social control.
Inasmuch as prisons separate the law-abiding from the criminals, so the creation of ahomosexual identity separates the ‘pure’ from the now recognizable ‘deviant’ (McIntosh
1968:183). That is, a discrete identity associated with a deviant behaviour demarcated a
threshold that, if crossed, marked a transition into criminality ( Ibid ).
2.1.2. Power
Power only exists when it is put into action (Foucault (1982) and is ‘rooted in the
system of social networks’ that constitute society (Foucault 1982:224). Through physical
force, coercion or consent (Fairclough 2015), one group comes to dominate another.
However, domination is not won and maintained indefinitely and the possibility of
resistance is ever-present as power relationships continually shift over time (Van Dijk
2001). For one group to maintain dominance over another, their claims to power must be
‘legitimized…in discourses’ (Wodak and Meyer 2009:89). Legitimation is contingent on
access to discourse – that ‘the more discourse genres, contexts, participants, audience,
scope and text characteristics they actively control or influence, the more powerful social
groups…and elites are’ (Van Dijk 1993:256, 2008). These include governments, the
media and those who influence these institutions through their economic, social and
cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). Discourse is then controlled using ‘discursive
strategies’ that represent social actors, events, or objects in a way that is beneficial to
those in power (Wodak and Meyer 2009:93).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
19/115
1360613 18
HRC’s powerful media presence provides them with control of discourses
surrounding the LGBTIQ* community (Cornell 2006; Meronek 2015). Such power
established their ‘marriage equality’ agenda as the social issue most frequently
represented in the media. Indeed, to read contemporary media surrounding LGBTIQ*
people ‘is to receive the impression that gay people hardly care about anything else’
(Warner 2000:84). This is an incredibly powerful position. As noted, other crucial issues
affecting the community are then ignored and the people who are affected by them
effectively disappear, unrepresented as part of the LGBTIQ* rights campaign in the mass
media or in Washington. As HRC’s values have become embedded across many genres
and many locations, their interests and goals have begun to appear routine appear as the
accepted values of all LGBTIQ* Americans. Gramsci (1971) labelled this process
hegemony, proposing that to maintain power, the ruling classes must win the hegemonic
struggle for the hearts and minds of the people. The hegemony of HRC’s values allow it
to shape the scope of an LGBTIQ* equality movement. Many (if not most) LGBTIQ*
Americans favour inclusion in existing institutions like same-sex marriage because it has
been represented as the only way to achieve full equality.
2.1.3. I deology
Discourse and power function together to serve the interests of the elite. Though
these interests yield material wealth, the desire for wealth and power is actually rooted in
beliefs and ideas that view them as desirable in the first place. This system of beliefs and
ideas is referred to as ideology (Althusser [1971] 2006; Van Dijk 2008; Fairclough 2015).
While discourse, power, hegemony, and ideology are deeply imbricated, a specific
discussion of the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement will
provide context for the current study and indicate how ideology can have profound
effects on people’s lives.
The fight for LGBTIQ* equality effectively began with the Stonewall Uprising of
1969. At that time, criminalization of homosexuality was often achieved through raids of
LGBTIQ* social spaces. These ended in arrests, incarceration and police violence
(D’Emilio 1992, Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006). On the night of June 27th
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
20/115
1360613 19
1969, however, the patrons, staff, and local residents that frequented the Stonewall Inn
bar resisted arrest, barricaded the street and trapped police inside the bar (ibid ). In 1969
the civil rights movement and the mass demonstrations against America’s war in Vietnam
had created a political climate of radicalization, constituency mobilisation, and grassroots
activism. The Stonewall Uprising coincided with this ideological shift (D’Emilio 1992,
Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006). Modeling itself on the civil rights movement
(D’Emilio 1992, 2002), the uprising galvanized popular support for a ‘gay liberation
movement’ (D’Emilio 1992, Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006) that demonstrated
for an end to discrimination against LGBTIQ* people, but also against institutional and
cultural racism, gender inequality, police violence, poverty, housing discrimination and
the military industrial complex (Warner 2000; Bassichis, Lee and Spade 2011). They did
not seek to assimilate into the mainstream, but rather to radically transform it and create a
society based on economic equality and inclusiveness (Warner 2000; Bassichis, Lee and
Spade 2011).
Forty years later, the radical politics of the post-Stonewall era have been
abandoned and the LGBTIQ* movement is focused on an agenda of acceptance into
existing institutions; eg. serving openly in the military and the right to marry (Warner
2000; Duggan 2003; Puar 2007). Duggan (2003) argues that the ideological shift in
LGBTIQ* advocacy reflects the broader sociocultural and political turn towards a
neoliberal political economy. The ideological force of neoliberalism has resulted in HRC
adopting ‘neoliberal rhetoric and corporate decision-making models’ (Duggan 2003:45).
By abandoning the transformational politics of the past, HRC have gained greater
acceptance into corporate America and the political mainstream (Duggan 2003; Puar
2007; Warner 2000).
Unlike the ‘liberationists’ who challenged hierarchical gender roles and the
neoliberal capitalist state, this new ‘gay politics’ espouses conservative ideologies like
traditional family values, individual liberty, limited government and the free market
(Sullivan 1995; Duggan 2003). According to champions of this ideological shift, this new
direction opposes ‘a radical gay rights movement aligned with workers and…victim
groups against the capitalist oppressor’ (Bawer 1996:21). Equality is contingent on the
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
21/115
1360613 20
opposite of a ‘working-class revolt … a trickling down of gay-positive sentiments from
elite corporate boardrooms into shops…and factories’ (Bawer 1996:21).
By virtue of this ideological paradigm, HRC assumes that equality is achieved
merely by inclusion in the market and representation in the boardroom, ie. equality is
attainable through consumer practices (Duggan 2003). To ensure that LGBTIQ* voices
are heard and represented, HRC publish a ‘Buying for Workplace Equality’ guide (HRC
2015b) at the ‘start of the winter holiday and shopping season’ (HRC2015c:1). It urges
‘thousands of LGBT consumers - estimated to have spending power of $830 billion’
(ibid : 1) - to ‘send a … message that LGBT inclusion is good for the bottom line’
(ibid :1). HRC even surveys corporations for ‘any consumer … products to include in
HRC’s … Guide’ (HRC 2015d). Corporations can then brand themselves as ‘LGBTfriendly’, thereby marketizing equality in the name of corporate profit. HRC’s strategy
reflects the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement, one that is
unrecognisable compared with the post-Stonewall era of grassroots activism (Warner
2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014).
The following section provides a framework for how discourse, power and
ideology can be analysed in the social world through linguistic analysis. By looking at
social events, practices, structures and how these are mediated throughout society
through orders of discourse, we can begin to examine the analysis of individual HRC
texts.
2.2. Dialectical-relational approach
This study will adopt the Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA) as the primary
CDA framework (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).
DRA possesses three stages: Normative critique, Explanatory critique, and Action.
Normative critique compares certain behaviours, actions and social practices against a
moral standard of what constitutes a good society (Fairclough 2003; Fairclough and
Fairclough 2012). Normative critique of discourse therefore examines whether texts are
true or false, manipulative, or deliberately omit critical information in efforts to maintain
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
22/115
1360613 21
unequal power relationships in the social world. In the case of HRC’s press releases, I
will investigate how the HRC represent their claims for action and their goals against the
reality of social issues facing LGBTIQ* Americans. Explanatory critique asks why
unequal power relationships exist, and for whose benefit. It seeks to understand how
inequality is held together by discourse. In the case of the HRC, I will assess why the
goals of the LGBTIQ* social justice movement are represented in a certain way and for
whose benefit. The first two stages allow for transformative action to be planned and
then undertaken in order to address these issues and effect social justice for LGBTIQ*
Americans.
DRA also emphasises the dialectical relationships existing between social events,
structures, and practices as well as between their semiotic aspects (texts, discourses,genres, and styles; Barthes 1967). By including semiotic aspects, Fairclough (1992,
2003, 2006, 2010) extended the study beyond spoken and written language to examine
how any system of signification (images, gestures, objects, music, etc) contributes to the
construction of discourse. Relationships between semiotic elements and social reality are
dialectical because they are separate, but not discrete (Fairclough 2003, 2010). For
example, while discursive strategies can legitimate dominance of one group over another,
the ability to exercise discursive strategies is a result of existing dominance in the first
place (Fairclough, 2010:4). Similarly, while social events are a product of established
social practices, individual agency can shape social events and transform social practice.
The following section will explore these concepts in more detail.
2.2.1. Social events
Social events, in their semiotic dimension, are enacted through written, spoken,
visual or multimodal texts (Fairclough 2003, 2010). Their purpose is to simultaneously
‘represent aspects of the world…enact social relations…in social events…and coherently
and cohesively connect texts with their situational contexts’ (Fairclough 2003:27). They
consist of social actors whose agency is neither completely unregulated nor ‘totally
socially determined’ (Fairclough 2003:23). For example, HRC’s press team must abide
by grammatical conventions and by the style and genre of a press release. But they may
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
23/115
1360613 22
also ‘texture the text’ to convey the values and goals of their organisation (Fairclough
2003:22). The text is therefore a product of the dialectical relationship between social
events and structures as mediated by social practice. Much CDA analysis begins with
texts as an entry level for normative critique.
2.2.2. Social practices
Social practices ‘mediate the relationship between social structures at the most
general and abstract level and … concrete social events’ (Fairclough 2010:232).
Marriage, for example, is an ancient social structure that has endured as a fundamental
component of the social world. In order for this institution to have survived, it required a
network of repeated social practices that maintained the social structure. The semiotic
dimensions of these social practices are enacted through orders of discourse, constituted
by genre, discourses, and style (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999; Fairclough 1992, 2003,
2010).
Genres are ‘semiotic ways of acting and interacting’ (Fairclough 2010: 232 ) and
include the wedding ceremony, the vows spoken between two people, and the legal
marriage contract. Genres thus shape specific social events and how the social structure
of marriage is enacted in reality.
Discourses are ‘semiotic ways of construing [or representing] aspects of the world
(physical, social or mental) which can … be identified with ... different groups of social
actors’ (Fairclough 2003:232). For instance, same-sex marriage is represented through
discourses associated with the politics or moral stance of specific groups. Right-wing
Christian groups in the US construe same-sex marriage as an attack on tradition or a
perversion of a union ordained by god (Allon 2015). These discourses contrast with
those of HRC who construe same-sex marriage as an issue of inclusion or freedom (HRC
2014a).
Style refers to ‘identities – or “ways of being” – in their semiotic aspect’
(Fairclough 2003:232); ie. how we construct our identities through the texts we create.
For instance, HRC and many advocates for same-sex marriage emphasize the traditional
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
24/115
1360613 23
values inherent in marriage and the dignity it bestows couples. In so doing, they position
themselves and their social justice campaign as deeply moral and inline with traditional
family values.
Genres, discourse and styles combine to create orders of discourse and social
practices associated with certain institutions or social structures. Nonetheless, ‘social
practice does not merely “reflect” a reality that is independent of it; social practice is in
an active relationship to reality and it changes reality’ (Fairclough 2015:68). Over time,
social agents alter social practices, thereby altering the nature of both the social structure
and the social events. So, while marriage has survived for centuries, the social practices
that define how it is performed have changed and will continue to change.
2.2.3. Social structur es
Social structures define ‘a potential, a set of possibilities’ (Fairclough 2003:23).
Marriage is such a social structure and serves different functions for various groups
across time and history; however, the structure has traditionally involved the union of two
persons, their family ties and has included economic benefits. It is upheld by the social
practices and events.
2.2.4. Mediation
The relationship between texts and the social world must be understood through
the concept of mediation (Fairclough 2003) – the “movement of meaning’ – from one
social practice to another, from one event to another, and from one text type to another’
(Fairclough 2003:30). The modern era has seen a proliferation of mass media through
radio, television and the Internet. The ability to connect many people across space and
time permitted an acceleration in the movement of text. The result is a networking of
texts, or genre chains (Fairclough 2003:31), which allow information to be
recontextualized from one genre to another. For example, an HRC press release is
recontextualized into print and visual media, and then shared through social media or
verbal communication. In our world, ‘the capacity to control processes of mediation is
an important aspect of power’ (Fairclough 2003:31).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
25/115
1360613 24
In the next section, Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for practical
argumentation will be discussed. As HRC are an advocacy and political lobbying
organisation, the nature of their work is concerned with making arguments for certain
actions to be taken over others. While the overall method and theoretical framework of
DRA is effective for this study, practical argumentation analysis is an ideal framework
for analysing specific texts (events).
2.3. Practical argumentation analysis
DRA provides a framework for analysing the dialectical relationships between
social events, structures, practices and their semiotic elements (texts and orders of
discourse). Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) argue, however, that DRA’s textualanalysis is incomplete as it is limited to representation and does not extend the analysis
to how representations function as a premise for action. They argue that ‘ways of
representing the world enter as premises into reasoning about what we should do. Unless
we look at arguments, and not just at isolated representations, there is no way of
understanding how our beliefs feed into what we do’ (2012: 87). This omission of
argumentation analysis is problematic for CDA, inasmuch as CDA is a critique of
political discourse that, by its very nature, is primarily ‘about making choices about how
to act in response to circumstances and goals’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:1). An
analysis of how arguments are constructed can therefore make a ‘major contribution to
strengthening textual analysis in CDA’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:86). Since
political lobbying and advocacy fall within the genre of political discourse, their
framework is an appropriate model for analysing HRC’s claims about what actions are
required to achieve the goal of full equality for the LGBTIQ* community. With that in
mind, the following section provides a brief overview of Fairclough and Fairclough’s
(2012) framework for practical argumentation analysis.
Practical argumentation involves advocating for what should or ought to be done
regarding a particular problem or situation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). The
structure of the argument begins with a claim for action based on a particular set of goals
and circumstantial premises (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). These goals and
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
26/115
1360613 25
circumstances are determined against a normative background of values usually informed
by ‘a moral order (informed by shared moral values or by universalizable rules of
conduct), an institutional order (generated by laws or rules), against a background of
various other values (kindness, generosity)…simply in view of what your actual desires
and preferences are’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). A means-goal is then proposed
as the best possible way of achieving the goal proposed. Figure 2.1 shows the structure
of a practical argument.
Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
27/115
1360613 26
Practical reasoning is incomplete, however, if it does not involve deliberation
over other possible courses of action (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012); eg. ‘considering
what reasons would support not doing the action (i.e. a counter-claim), but may also
involve alternatives (doing something else, not just refraining from action)’ (Fairclough
and Fairclough 2012:89). This process is illustrated in figure 2.0. Ideally, deliberation
occurs when multiple agents arrive ‘at a common course of action by examining various
proposals…in light of reasons for and against each proposal’ (Fairclough and Fairclough
2012). These ‘alternative arguments and counter arguments [are] formulated in terms that
advance the rhetorical goals of the participants that advocate them’ (Fairclough and
Fairclough 2012:92). In much political discourse this is often not the case (Fairclough
and Fairclough 2012; Wyman 2012). In a political speech, where a claim for action is
being advocated, monological or false deliberation is often used as a rhetorical device to
give the illusion that other options are being considered or that no other option is
available. Alternative options ‘are formulated in ways which favour his own conclusion’
and ‘actual deliberation is avoided by representing alternatives in rhetorically convenient
ways’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:92).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
28/115
1360613 27
Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough
2012).
Deliberation (and false deliberation) can be persuasion towards one action in light
of alternative actions being available. Persuasion is a legitimate form of argumentation,
though when persuasion takes the form of ‘re-describing or re-framing reality inrhetorically convenient ways’ (Fairclough and Fairlcough 2012), it becomes
manipulation. This occurs when representations ‘are put forward or accepted as the one
and only possible way of understanding the matters in question, as uncontroversial truth’
(Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:93). A critical analysis of representation then becomes
paramount as it is only through value-laden representations of the world that actions can
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
29/115
1360613 28
become a reality. Manipulation of premises also occurs when emotive language or loaded
terms are used. Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) distinguish ‘between those cases in
which loaded terms are used legitimately to defend a particular standpoint, when it is
clear that there is also a contrary standpoint in play, and both are open to critical
questioning, and those cases in which loaded terms and definitions are used deceptively,
as if no other possible viewpoint is possible, as if they were neutral fact-stating
propositions beyond any conceivable doubt’ (2012:93). This is true also of presenting the
means-goal as the only possible solution.
The credibility of argumentation is established by holding up the claim, and the
proposed course of action, against a measure of validity and truth in accordance with the
norms of rational action (Habermas, quoted in Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). In otherwords, an argument should provide for genuine deliberation and that, if this is not the
case, intentional manipulation is occurring. The HRC are a financially powerful and
influential political lobbying and advocacy group that makes claims about how the
federal government should address inequality in the LGBTIQ* community. Successful
political lobbying leads to changes in policy. Changes in policy have effects on people’s
lived experiences. Unless a critical understanding of how their arguments are constructed
is gained, then genuine social justice cannot be achieved. This thesis will use practical
argumentation to establish if HRC’s arguments are credible when measured against
validity and truth.
2.4. Critiques of CDA
A principal tenet of CDA is the adoption of an explicit political stance on social
injustice. Through the analysis of discourse, an understanding of how inequality is
reproduced can be gained as a starting point to effect positive social change in solidaritywith those most affected. However, this political commitment is also the starting point of
much criticism. CDA is accused of circularity in that it identifies social injustice and
then goes looking for it in text (Stubbs 1997; Widdowson 2004). Critics argue that this is
not so much rigorous linguistic analysis as it is a way of selecting ‘those features of the
text which support its preferred interpretation’ (Widdowson 2004:142). Stubbs (1997)
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
30/115
1360613 29
proposed that applying quantitative methods could address the criticisms that CDA’s
‘methods of data collection and text analysis are inexplicit [and] that the data are often
restricted to text fragments’ (Stubbs 1997:102). In recent years, the integration of corpus-
linguistic methods into CDA has begun to bridge the gap between overly subjective
interpretations of text and the quantitative turn advocated for by Stubbs (Stubbs 1997;
O’Halloran and Coffin 2004; O’Halloran 2009, 2013, 2014; Baker et al 2009; Baker
2012). Specifically, the use of reference corpora can guard against the ‘over - and under-
interpretation’ of findings or conclusions when working with single texts (O’Halloran
and Coffin 2004). Large corpora can also direct analysis towards patterns of language
use not evident in smaller samples of data (Mautner 2009).
The current study adopts a method used by Wyman (2012) who combined corpus-analysis with Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical
arguments. This method grounds the analysis in quantitative data while strengthening a
traditional CDA approach with argument deconstruction.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
31/115
1360613 30
3.0. CORPUS ANALYSIS
3.1. Overview
3.1.1. Research questions
This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of the HRC. It investigates
how this organisation represents its goals and values as well as those of the overall
LGBTIQ* social justice movement. As the most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group in
the US, the repercussions of their advocacy and campaigns are twofold. HRC influences
legislation passed in Washington that affects the lives of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC also
impacts how the media represent the goals and values of the LGBTIQ* movement. To
what extent, then, does the HRC:
Represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US?
Advocate on behalf of marginalised groups within the LGBTIQ* community who
do not have the resources to represent themselves in the media and in
Washington?
Because many critics have argued that HRC focuses exclusively on issues that benefit
white, upper-middle-class, cis-gender gays and lesbians, this study also asks:
To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the accusations
made against HRC?
3.1.2. Data
To answer these questions, I performed a corpus analysis of HRC’s press releases
(PR) from 2014. PRs are a public relations tool used by an organization’s media team toconvey specific information to the press. This genre allows organizations, like HRC, to
represent itself in a calculated, premeditated way (Belch and Belch 2012). A corpus
analysis of PRs should therefore provide an overview of how HRC represents itself and
the LGBTIQ* movement in the media. Beginning my research with a corpus analysis
also addresses potential researcher bias within CDA by providing ‘a quantitative, and
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
32/115
1360613 31
thus robust, basis for confirming or falsifying intuitions about language use’ (O’Halloran
2013:140).
The PR corpus was created using the HRC.org ‘Press Room’ feature that provides
a database of PRs (HRC 2015e). It is equipped with a search option for sorting by Issue
( e.g. marriage, HIV/AIDS, immigration) , Year , or State. However, selecting for an issue
or state would likely limit the data. I elected instead to use all press releases from 2014,
producing a corpus of 396 PRs and 184,240 words; a sizeable corpus that provided
insight into how HRC portrays their organization and the movement.
Nevertheless, Stubbs claims that ‘the most powerful interpretation emerges if
comparisons of texts across corpora are combined with analysis of the organization of
individual texts’ (Stubbs 1996:34). A specific PR was therefore chosen that reflected the
data from the corpus analysis as well as the discourse style of political lobbying, ie.
advocating for political action. An analysis of the argument presented in this PR was then
conducted using the framework for analysing practical arguments designed by Fairclough
and Fairclough (2012).
3.1.2. Corpus linguistics
Corpus linguistics analyses corpora, or ‘large bodies of naturally occurring
language stored in computers’ (Baker 2006:1). Using computational methods to uncover
linguistic patterns, ‘corpus linguists … discover things about language use which may
otherwise remain invisible’ (O’Halloran 2013:139). Though subjective choices about
which features to study are still involved, corpus analysis ‘means that exhaustive and
objective searches may be possible for all examples of a feature’ (Stubbs 1996:131). I
began the analysis by looking at KEYWORDS and COLLOCATIONS. Based on these
data, I then compared the HRC corpus against PR corpora from other LGBTIQ*
organizations to determine if HRC’s media strategy was unique. Finally, the HRC corpus
was searched for key terms related to the social issues discussed in Section 1.0
(economic inequality, racial injustice, etc) to establish whether the HRC discussed these
issues in a significant way.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
33/115
1360613 32
3.1.3. Corpus tools
WMATRIX3 (Rayson 2008) was the primary corpus analysis tool. The main
reasons for this choice are:
WMATRIX employs the American English 2006 (AmE06) reference corpus.
Because I used a corpus of American written English, AmE06 was likely to
improve the keyness analysis and control for any variation between American and
British written English
WMATRIX3 is a web-based platform that made it easier to access from multiple
locations.
Antconc (Anthony 2014) was also used to cross-check results.
3.2. Corpus analysis
3.2.1. Keyness analysis
I began the analysis by looking at ‘Keyness’ (Baker 2006:121), a method that
compares wordlist from the corpus in question against the wordlist frequency of a
reference corpus. I compared the 2014 HRC PR corpus against the AmE06 reference
corpus and recorded the top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus (Appendix A). The top 10
keywords are shown:
Frequency Rank
Keyword
1 LGBT
2 MARRIAGE
3 EQUALITY
4 HRC
5 RIGHTS
6 SAME-SEX
7 COUPLES
8 GAY
9 CAMPAIGN
10 TRANSGENDER
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
34/115
1360613 33
Keywords were then sorted by relevance. LGBT, HRC, RIGHTS, and
CAMPAIGN were considered irrelevant because LGBT would have a high frequency in
any LGBT rights campaign and HRC, RIGHTS, and CAMPAIGN were most likely only
representative of the phrase:
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) civil rights organization.
This phrase occurs 396 times in every press release in 2014. The keywords relevant to an
analysis of how HRC represent their values and goals were therefore: MARRIAGE,
EQUALITY, SAME-SEX, COUPLES, GAY and TRANSGENDER. To gain a better
idea of how they are used across the corpus, the next step in the analysis examined
frequent collocations.
3.2.2. Collocation analysis
Collocation occurs when ‘a word frequently appears near another word, and the
relationship is statistically significant in some way’ (Baker 2006:95-96). Stubbs (1996)
claims that by looking at the frequency of certain collocations, we acquire a sense of the
encoded cultural concepts in the text. The following section looks at the 10 most
frequent collocations and what this might suggest about the goals and values of HRC’s
campaign for social justice. Lists were generated using the WMATRIX3 collocation tool.
Results were then sorted according to Log-Likelihood and T-Score (Appendix B).
3.2.2.1. Marriage
Collocations
marriage equality
Marriage Equality
state marriage
marriage bans
marriage cases
support marriage
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
35/115
1360613 34
constitutional marriage
marriage unconstitutional
challenging marriage
marriage ban
MARRIAGE is a frequently discussed social justice issue.
MARRIAGE mostly collocates with EQUALITY, suggesting that HRC
represents EQUALITY as primarily constituted by the right to marry or that
EQUALITY is measured against this right.
MARRIAGE is discussed in terms of law and government (BANS, BAN, CASES
and UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
3.2.2.2. Equality
Collocations
marriage equality
Marriage Equality
Equality Index
support equality
equality cases
LGBT equality
Corporate Equality
ban equality
full equality
bans equality
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
36/115
1360613 35
EQUALITY most strongly collocates with MARRIAGE. This reinforces the idea
suggested above that that EQUALITY is overwhelmingly measured against the
right to marry.
EQUALITY is discussed in terms of law (CASES, BAN, BANS). These are the
same frequent collocates for MARRIAGE which suggests that CASES, BAN, and
BANS are collocating with MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
3.2.2.3. CouplesCollocations
sex couples
lesbian couplescouples marry
gay couples
couples legally
couples can
loving couples
committed couples
couples states
couples nineteen
SEX is part of ‘SAME-SEX’ suggesting that the most frequent collocate is
actually SAME-SEX COUPLES
Couples are discussed as LOVING and COMMITTED. Such language suggests
that LGBTIQ* couples are being positioned within discourses of domesticity.
Discourses of domesticity are primarily used within same-sex marriage
campaigns in an attempt to bring LGBTIQ* couples within the fold of
heteronormative kinship systems (Chávez et al 2014).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
37/115
1360613 36
Couples are discussed in terms of ability: ‘COUPLES CAN…’ Referring to a
concordance list shows that this is primarily the start of the phrase, ‘COUPLES
CAN MARRY’:
American society. Yet today, as same-sex couples can legally marry in 32 states an
, the number of states where same-sex couples can legally marry has jumped fro
up the issue of marriage. Same-sex couples can legally marry in thirty-four
that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in 35 states an
the U.S. Supreme Court. Same-sex couples can legally marry in thirty-five
(Appendix C)
Couples are also discussed in terms of the geography of same-sex marriage.
‘NINETEEN’ and ‘STATES’ both refer to the number of states in which gay and
lesbian couples could legally marry in 2014:
that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states
down marriage ban June 25] Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states
to support marriage equality. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states
that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states
down marriage ban July 28] Same-sex couples can legally marry in 19 states and the
(Appendix C)
3.2.2.4. GayCollocations
gay lesbian
gay couples
loving gay
committed gay
gays lesbians
openly gay
marriage gaynow gay
years gay
support gay
gay men
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
38/115
1360613 37
GAY (S) most frequently collocates with LESBIAN (S) as in ‘gay and lesbian’ or
‘gays and lesbians’ when referring to issues like ‘gay and lesbian couples’ or
‘discrimination against gays and lesbians’
As part of the phrase ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender’
GAY collocates with COUPLES, COMMITTED, MARRIAGE and LOVING.
Again, gay people are primarily being discussed through discourses of
heteronormative domesticity.
3.2.2.5. Transgender
Collocations
bisexual transgender
transgender people
transgender women
Transgender Remembrance
transgender employees
transgender color
transgender community
transgender woman
Center Transgender
Transgender Day
TRANSGENDER collocates with WOMAN and WOMEN which suggests that
HRC primarily discuss transwomen as opposed to transmen or gender non-
conforming people.
TRANSGENDER collocates with REMEMBRANCE and DAY as per HRC’s
promotion of the Transgender Day of Remembrance for those killed as a result of
transphobia and the resulting violence against trans people.
COLOR refers to ‘trans people of color’
Concordance lines show that COMMUNITY largely refers to HRC’s discourses
surrounding the TRANSGENDER community.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
39/115
1360613 38
goes for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as well,said
identity. absolutely refuse to leave the transgender community behind in non-
Guard Reggie Bullock. "Even as the transgender community experiences historic
In addition to these victories, the transgender community has also become more
constant threat of brutality faced by the transgender community. HRC Steering
3.2.2.6. Same-sex
Collocations
At this point, WMATRIX3 was unable to search SAME-SEX in the collocation
function most likely because of the hyphen. My solution was to use Antconc for the
collocation analysis. The following collocates were sorted by frequency (including both
left and right sorts).
same-sex sex
same-sex couples
same-sex marriage
same-sex to
same-sex the
same-sex of
same-sex for
same-sex in
same-sex On
SAME-SEX collocated most significantly with COUPLES, MARRIAGE and
LEGALLY
COUPLES collocated most significantly with MARRIAGE
LEGALLY collocated most significantly with MARRY and MARRIED
3.2.2.7. Summary of collocation analysis:
Analysis of the frequently occurring keyword collocations suggested that HRC
discuss MARRIAGE more than any other social issue affecting LGBTIQ* Americans.
With the exception of TRANSGENDER, all other high frequency words were often used
to discuss marriage. The use of phrases like LOVING COUPLES and COMMITTED
COUPLES also implied that HRC promotes a vision of LGBTIQ* relationships as
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
40/115
1360613 39
heteronormative and domestic; a rhetorical strategy that serves the argument for inclusion
within the institution of marriage.
Another significant finding was that EQUALITY collocated closely with words to
do with marriage or the campaign for federally recognized same-sex marriage.
EQUALITY was not discussed in relation to any other social issue. This suggests that
the campaign for marriage equality has come to overshadow all other issues pertaining to
inequality. By measuring EQUALITY solely against the right to marry, any and all other
issues disappear from the discussion, indicating that accusations over HRC’s alleged
privileging of same-sex marriage is founded in the corpus data.
The only exception was the significant discussion of transgender issues. This
suggests that HRC are at least discussing one other critical issue outside of same-sex
marriage.
In order to ascertain if HRC’s primary focus on marriage equality is unique to
their organization, I compared corpora from other major LGBTIQ* advocacy groups.
3.2.3. Corpora comparison
To establish whether the HRC’s focus is unique within the mainstream LGBTIQ*
social justice movement, I compiled two separate corpora from other major LGBTIQ*
organisations: Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute. Lambda Legal is an advocacy
group providing legal council for the LGBTIQ* community as well as people living
with HIV/AIDS. They focus on impact litigation, societal education, and public
policy work. They are recognised for their work on Lawrence v. Texas that made the
criminalisation of consensual same-sex intercourse illegal and unconstitutional (Lambda
Legal 2015). The Williams Institute is a think-tank at UCLA Law that conducts
independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law as well as public
policy. They are highly cited within discussions of LGBTIQ* issues (The Williams
Institute 2015). The corpora consisted of PRs from 2014. The Lambda Legal corpus
contained 147 PRs, with a total of 77,397 words. The Williams Institute corpus contained
76 PRs, with a total of 36,364 words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIVhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
41/115
1360613 40
In order to establish how LGBTIQ* social issues are represented between
organisations, I conducted a keyness analysis of Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute using AmE06 as a reference corpus – the same method used for establishing
keyness in the HRC corpus. I recorded the top 50 keywords in the Lambda Legal and
The Williams Institute corpora (Appendices D and E) and have presented the top 10
keywords below.
3.2.3.1. Corpora comparison (A):
Lambda Legal The Williams Institute HRC
LAMBDA COUPLES LGBT
LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
MARRIAGE MARRIAGE EQUALITY
COUPLES LGBT HRC
SAME-SEX DE RIGHTS
COURT STUDY SAME-SEX
2014 WILLIAMSINSTITUTE
COUPLES
TRANSGENDER STATE GAY
V. EXTENDING CAMPAIGN
LGBT TRANSGENDER TRANSGENDER
Table 3.1: Keyword comparison between HRC, Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus.
The corpora comparison demonstrated that HRC are not unique in focussing on
same-sex marriage. The most common keywords across HRC, Lambda Legal and The
Williams Institute were:
1.
LGBT
2. MARRIAGE
3. COUPLES
4. SAME-SEX
5. TRANSGENDER
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
42/115
1360613 41
The only notable differences between the corpora were attributable to organisational title
(e.g. LAMBDA, LEGAL, WILLIAMS INSTITUTE) and their functional remits. For
instance, the Lambda Legal corpus featured keywords like COURT and V. (e.g.
Lawrence v. Texas). This was attributable to their legal advocacy work. In The Williams
Institute corpus, keywords like STUDY were likely due to the academic nature of their
work.
To determine if there was a difference in the way these issues were discussed, I
conducted a keyness analysis of HRC PRs using Lambda Legal PRs and The Williams
Institute PRs as reference corpora. The top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus were
recorded (Appendices E and F) and the top 10 keywords presented below.
3.2.3.2. Corpora comparison (B):
HRC Keywords
(Lambda Legal Reference
Corpus)
HRC Keywords
(The Williams Institute
Reference Corpus)
HRC EQUALITY
LGBT HRC
EQUALITY CAMPAIGN
SAME-SEX SAME-SEX
TRANSGENDER COURT
CAMPAIGN PRESIDENT
HUMAN RIGHTS
PRESIDENT HUMAN
SUPPORT ORGANIZATION
AMERICANS WASHINGTON
Table 3.2: HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute as reference corpora
A keyness analysis of the HRC corpus using Lambda Legal and The Williams
Institute as reference corpora revealed that the three organisations speak about marriage
and transgender rights in different ways. After removing keywords that only referenced
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
43/115
1360613 42
the title and slogan (i.e. HRC, LGBT, HUMAN, RIGHTS, CAMPAIGN, and
ORGANIZATION), the data revealed the following.
The most notable result when compared to Lambda Legal was the keyword
TRANSGENDER. This suggests that transgender issues factor more prominently in the
HRC corpus. Both corpora however revealed that HRC uses the keywords EQUALITY
and SAME-SEX significantly more. As demonstrated in 3.2.1., SAME-SEX collocated
most frequently with COUPLES and MARRIAGE. The most compelling data, however,
came from the use of the keyword EQUALITY. In the HRC corpus, EQUALITY
primarily collocates with MARRIAGE making it a noun phrase:
state, and national efforts for marriage equality; serve as a national platform for
challenging Oregon’s ban on marriage equality, known as Measure 36. Judge McS Republicans 41 and older support marriage equality, an astonishing 59 percent of tho
the U.S. Constitution to block marriage equality. HRC believes this should be a wa
kickoff event for Americans for Marriage Equality, a bipartisan coalition formed
(Appendix F)
This was unique when compared against The Williams Institute corpus. When
sorted right, MARRIAGE collocated primarily with TO SAME-SEX COUPLES. When
sorted left, MARRIAGE collocated primarily with EXTENDING. In The Williams
Institute corpus, MARRIAGE was discussed primarily as part of a process – as the
subject in a verb phrase.
seen in states that already extend marriage to same-sex couples, this
states that have not yet extended marriage to same-sex couples. The online
mar-2014Colorado: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Should Add
first three years LOS ANGELES, Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Colorado
the first three years of extending marriage to same-sex couples, the study
(Appendix 95)
The nominalisation of MARRIAGE EQUALITY is not unique to HRC, but its
frequency is. In the HRC corpus, EQUALITY collocates almost entirely with
MARRIAGE. This suggests that EQUALITY is now synonymous with same-sex
MARRIAGE, as opposed to same-sex MARRIAGE being one step on the path towards
true EQUALITY. This raises the following questions:
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
44/115
1360613 43
Has HRC co-opted the phrase EQUALITY for the sole purposes of its
campaign for same-sex marriage?
Is HRC implying that, with the legalization of same-sex marriage, EQUALITY
has been achieved?
Does this use of EQUALITY limit the discussion of other forms of equality, ie.
economic equality, equal access to quality health care, equal access to
housing, and so on?
In order to begin answering these questions, I returned to the HRC corpus to
investigate if HRC significantly discussed any other issues pertaining to equality or
inequality.
3.2.4. Key terms search: IN/EQUALITY KEY
In order to establish if HRC discussed any other issues pertaining to in/equality, I
generated a wordlist that showed both the frequency and the relative frequency of each
word in the HRC corpus. While the frequency showed the actual number of times a word
was used, the relative frequency tool normalised the results with respect to the corpus
size and converted the frequency to a more representative percentage value (Rayson
2008:530). I then conducted a search of key terms using the socioeconomic issues
discussed in Section 1.0 as a guide:
Economic inequality
Healthcare and support for people living with HIV
Immigration
LGBTIQ* youth homelessness
Criminalisation and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth
Racial injustice
My question was:
Does HRC discuss, in a significant way, any socioeconomic issues facing the
LGBTIQ* community?
The full results of this analysis are shown in Appendix H. What I have provided
in the next section is a list of the key terms searched and a summary of any significant
findings.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
45/115
1360613 44
3.2.4.1. Economic inequality:
Key terms: Job, Income, Employment, Work, Wealth, Poverty, Welfare
The lemma, WORK, had the highest relative frequency of the key terms searched.
However, WORK and WORKING were primarily used in verb phrases unrelated to
employment. WORKPLACE collocated primarily with words like DISCRIMINATION,
NON-DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTIONS. WORKERS collocated primarily with
LGBT and referred to protections and discrimination. The only other word with a relative
frequency over 0.05 was EMPLOYMENT which, like WORKPLACE, collocated
primarily with DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTION
These findings suggest that HRC focuses primarily on employment and the
workplace, but does not frequently address the ramifications of unemployment like
poverty, welfare, and protections for low-income people.
3.2.4.2. Healthcare and support for people living with HIV/AIDS
Key terms: Healthcare, Care, Treatment, HIV, AIDS, Access, Disability, Medical,
Mental, Insurance
None of the terms associated with HEALTHCARE had a relative frequency
above 0.03. CARE, HEALTHCARE, TREATMENT, HIV and ACCESS had the highest
relative frequencies ranging between relative frequencies of 0.02 and 0.03. This
demonstrates that, while discourses concerning HEALTH and HEALTH CARE are
present in the HRC corpus, their relative frequency suggests a significant lack of
consideration. The issue of HIV/AIDS is neglected altogether.
3.2.4.3. Immigration
Key terms: Immigration, Migrant, Deportation, Asylum, Refugee
None of the terms associated with immigration had a relative frequency above
0.01. The highest frequency terms were IMMIGRANTS, occurring 13 times, and
DEPORTATION occurring 10 times. This demonstrates that HRC are almost entirely
overlooking the issue of immigration and asylum seekers.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
46/115
1360613 45
3.2.4.4. LGBTIQ* youth homelessness
Key Terms: Homelessness, Shelter
HOMELESSNESS and SHELTER have relative frequencies of 0.00 indicating
that the issue of LGBTIQ* Youth Homelessness is effectively absent in the HRC corpus.
Their silence on the issue is conspicuous as 40% of all homeless youth identify as
LGBTIQ* (Durso and Gates 2012:3).
3.2.4.5. Criminalization and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth
Key Terms: Prison, Imprisonment, Incarceration
The highest relative frequency was for PRISON at 0.01. Concordances showed,
however, that more than half of the time PRISON was used (nine times out of 16), it wasin relation to the incarceration of LGBTIQ* individuals in countries other than the US,
e.g. Uganda and The Gambia.
3.2.4.6. Racial injustice
Key Terms: Race, Ethnicity, Color, Racism, Racial, Profiling, Black, African-
American, Hispanic, Latino/a, Asian, White
While RACE and COLOR were the most frequent terms, neither of the terms hada relative frequency above 0.02. BLACK and HISPANIC both had a relative frequency
of 0.01 while the remaining terms associated with racial injustice all factored at 0.00. By
omitting issues of race and ethnicity from their platform for equality, HRC demonstrate
that they do not view the LGBTIQ* social justice as imbricated with the rights of ethnic
and racial minorities.
3.2.5. Corpus analysis summary
In Section 3.2.1, the keyness analysis demonstrated that the most frequent
keywords were MARRIAGE, EQUALITY, SAME-SEX, COUPLES, GAY and
TRANSGENDER. In 3.2.2, a collocation analysis of each keyword revealed that
MARRIAGE was the most frequently discussed social justice issue. EQUALITY,
SAME-SEX, COUPLES, and GAY all collocated with MARRIAGE in some way.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
47/115
1360613 46
TRANSGENDER was the only keyword that did not connect to the campaign for same-
sex marriage.
A compelling finding was the collocational frequency between MARRIAGE and
EQUALITY. This revealed the extent to which MARRIAGE EQUALITY (Appendix F)
has become a fixed noun phrase. This has significant repercussions. First, using
EQUALITY almost exclusively with MARRIAGE suggests that EQUALITY is
synonymous with MARRIAGE. Same-sex marriage is no longer represented as one step
on the road to LGBTIQ* equality, but as the sole measure by which LGBTIQ* equality is
achieved. The second implication has to do with the construction of social reality
through discourse. Stubbs claims that ‘if particular lexical and grammatical choices are
regularly made, and if people and things are repeatedly talked about in certain ways, thenit is plausible that this will affect how they are thought about’ (Stubbs 1996:92). If the
most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group frames EQUALITY as synonymous with
MARRIAGE, then we can expect that the media will follow suit and the public will begin
to believe this is the case.
In Section 3.2.3, I compared the PR corpora from two other LGBTIQ* non-profit
organizations ( Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute) against HRC. This comparison
demonstrated that, while the privileging of same-sex marriage over other issues was not
unique, the use of the phrase MARRIAGE EQUALITY was. This suggested that HRC’s
critics are justified in accusing HRC of framing same-sex marriage as the only path to
equality. In 3.2.4, I investigated the accusation that HRC do not discuss any other social
issues in a significant way. I searched key terms relating to economic inequality, racial
injustice, immigration, healthcare, HIV/AIDS, LGBTIQ* youth homelessness as well as
LGBTIQ* criminalisation and incarceration. Results showed that HRC are effectively
silent on all of these social issues. For example, while the relative frequency of
MARRIAGE and EQUALITY were 1.0 and 0.86 respectively, the highest frequency key
term from the list above was EMPLOYMENT at 0.07.
The HRC is uniquely positioned to influence the shape and scope of the campaign
for LGBTIQ* social justice. They have the media presence and resources to shape public
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
48/115
1360613 47
perceptions about what LGBTIQ* Americans hope for and what they wish to achieve in
the fight for equality. In fact, the corpus data reveal that HRC is an organisation that has
limited the scope of equality to a single-issue. The data also show that HRC wilfully
neglects issues that affect marginalised and vulnerable populations within the
community. PRs are not a reflection of how HRC is covered in the media. PRs reveal a
calculated media strategy to advance the interests of the organisation. The data suggest
that people of colour, the poor, the sick, the homeless, and the incarcerated are not
included in the HRC’s interests. Many people, however, still actively support HRC. An
important question is:
How do HRC represent the argument for marriage equality in the media?
In the next section, I will conduct a practical argument analysis of an HRC PR that
explains why marriage equality is the primary goal for HRC.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
49/115
1360613 48
4.0. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION
ANALYSIS
Based on the corpus analysis, I selected a text on which to conduct a CDA using
Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical arguments. This
exercise aimed to determine how HRC represents the Marriage Equality campaign and
what practical arguments they use to justify their claims. In the DRA framework, this
stage of analysis constitutes the normative critique of discourse. The press release chosen
is titled #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now (Appendix J) and
was selected for the following reasons:
1.
It focuses on HRC’s ‘marriage equality’ (L1) campaign and is thereforerepresentative of the corpus findings.
2. It provides a practical argument for why ‘marriage equality’ is a critical issue
facing LGBTIQ* Americans. It is therefore a rationale for HRC’s preoccupation
with ‘marriage equality’ (L1) and could reveal why HRC privileges this one issue
at the expense of others.
3. The text is structured as a practical argument for why ‘marriage equality’ (L1) is
the best solution for many social injustices – an argument best analysed using
Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing political discourse.
4.1. Text:
The #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now PR was
distributed on September 30th, 2014. In it, HRC argues that the time has come for the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to begin hearing cases on the
constitutional right of same-sex couples to wed. The PR was also written to generate
publicity for their hashtag #LoveCantWait – a social media campaign that encouragesAmericans to share their stories about same-sex marriage under the HRC banner and at
HRC.org/LoveCantWait. The following practical argumentation analysis addresses the
claim that ‘America needs marriage equality now’ (L1).
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
50/115
1360613 49
4.2. Outline of HRC argument
Figure 4.1 HRC argument: Why America needs ‘marriage equality’ now
In the #LoveCantWait PR, HRC claims that America needs marriage equality
immediately in order to achieve the goal of ending ‘the legal, financial and emotional
hardships’ (L2) of same-sex couples. According to HRC, the means-goal for achieving
this requires SCOTUS begin hearing pending marriage cases. The alternative option, that
SCOTUS does not hear these cases immediately, would result in ‘real families suffer[ing]
the often tragic consequences’ (L12-13) of being unable to legally wed. The
circumstances that HRC provide for this claim are based on the broad and systematic
suffering of same-sex couples ‘solely because they can’t get married’ (L3). The values
for such a claim are represented as a belief in equality and fairness for all Americans and
a belief that legal marriage is the fundamental vehicle for equality.
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
51/115
1360613 50
4.2.1. Circumstances
In 2004, a ruling in the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health case resulted in
Massachusetts becoming the first state to recognise same-sex marriage ( Goodridge v.
Department of Public Health 2003). While SCOTUS initially declined to hear appealsagainst this ruling (Kirkpatrick and Zizima 2004), a series of state ‘marriage-bans’, made
it inevitable that SCOTUS should make a decision on the constitutional protection of
same-sex marriages. At the time #LoveCantWait was published, same-sex couples could
marry in 19 states as well as Washington, DC (L23-24). Nonetheless, without
constitutional protection, independent states could deny recognition of same-sex
marriages performed in other jurisdictions (L24-26). The HRC PR advocates that
SCOTUS, as the final arbiter of the law and constitution, should make decisions to
protect ‘real Americans’ (L55) suffering the consequences of marriage-bans. The HRC
president emphasizes the necessity of legal action: by stating that ‘while we usually think
of love and celebration when talking about weddings, the truth is there are essential legal
protections and safeguards that come with marriage’ (L16). The PR text then draws on
two strategies to outline how banning same-sex marriage affects ‘real people and real
families’ (L15).
The text begins its exposition on the ‘devastating hardships’ (L18) faced by‘unwed same-sex couples’ (L18 – emphasis added) by claiming that, ‘without legal
marriage recognition, same-sex couples face issues in’ (L22):‘Out-of-state recognition’
(L23), ‘property rights’ (L27), ‘healthcare decisions’ (L30), ‘parenting’ (L34), ‘adoption
and custody’ (L37), ‘Taxes’ (L41), ‘employer benefits’ (L44), ‘social security’ (L47),
‘veterans benefits’ (L49), and ‘emergency services’ (L52). Each issue is written in bold
capitals followed by a colon and a brief explanation (2-3 sentences) that details how
same-sex marriage bans have legal ramifications on people’s lives. Between lines 22-54,
the text reads like a legal report. Sentence subjects are collective groups like ‘same-sex
partners’ (L31), ‘same-sex couples’ (L34) and ‘same-sex spouses’ (L45). Human
subjects become ‘someone’ (L28) and ‘a person’ (L28). The high lexical density indexes
a formal register that is then contrasted with a section using emotional language to
recount ‘stories from real Americans that detail why the Supreme Court shouldn’t delay
8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark
52/115
1360613 51
in taking up a marriage equality case’ (L55-56). Divided into three accounts, the titles
are: ‘If she’d lived six days longer…’ (L59), ‘A man’s final moments