No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The (Re) Birth of Far-Right Populism in Australia: The Appeal of Pauline Hanson’s Persuasive Definitions
Abstract
Pauline Hanson is Australia’s most significant far-right populist of recent times. She is arguably the nation’s most recognizable and effective political communicator and leads a far-right party of influence in a tightly balanced federal Senate chamber. However, empirical analyses of Hanson’s rhetorical style are almost non-existent. To redress that gap, this paper analyses a corpus of Hanson’s major speeches through the lens of persuasive definitions—that is, the premise that when politicians define objects, events, or ideas, they do so with a view to influencing the public’s attitudes about them. It is argued that Hanson uses four such techniques in the discursive construction of ideology: dissociation (breaking concepts into parts), reframing (placing new frames of reference around subjects), floating signifiers (making claims about contested cultural keywords), and definitions by effect (explaining concepts by reference to their negative social impacts). The ways in which these techniques may accord with far-right populists elsewhere are discussed.
... The 2017 "burqa stunt" and the 2018 "It's OK to be White" motion were noteworthy examples of Hanson's successful use of a political stunt to gain traction in the media. Often dismissed as inarticulate and unsophisticated in her communication, these critiques belie the fact that Hanson is an effective political communicator (Fenton-Smith, 2020). This point recognizes that Hanson has been remarkably successful in exploiting the media and generating coverage attention in spite of her relatively small electoral impact. ...
In this paper, I discuss the attempt by all right-wing populist parties to create, on the one hand, the ‘real’ and ‘true’ people; and on the other, the ‘élites’ or ‘the establishment’ who are excluded from the true demos . Such divisions, as will be elaborated in detail, have emerged in many societies over centuries and decades. A brief example of the arbitrary construction of opposing groups illustrates the intricacies of such populist reasoning. Furthermore, I pose the question why such divisions resonate so well in many countries? I argue that – apart from a politics of fear (Wodak 2015) – much resentment is evoked which could be viewed as both accompanying as well as a reaction to the disenchantment with politics and the growing inequalities in globalized capitalist societies.
Populist right-wing politics is moving centre-stage, with some parties reaching the very top of the electoral ladder: but do we know why, and why now?
In this book Ruth Wodak traces the trajectories of such parties from the margins of the political landscape to its centre, to understand and explain how they are transforming from fringe voices to persuasive political actors who set the agenda and frame media debates. Laying bare the normalization of nationalistic, xenophobic, racist and antisemitic rhetoric, she builds a new framework for this ‘politics of fear’ that is entrenching new social divides of nation, gender and body.
The result reveals the micro-politics of right-wing populism: how discourses, genres, images and texts are performed and manipulated in both formal and also everyday contexts with profound consequences. This book is a must-read for scholars and students of linguistics, media and politics wishing to understand these dynamics that are re-shaping our political space.
This paper uses argumentation tools to show by means of analyzing nine cases from law and politics how argument strategies using persuasive definitions and quasi-definitions are powerful rhetorical tools of persuasion. By bringing to lightthe argumentation structure found in these examples, it is shown that definitions and redefinitions can have serious legal and political implications. Persuasive definitions and quasi-definitions are modeled as two distinct strategies for altering the relationship between classification and evaluation of a state of affairs. Persuasive definitions are aimed at modifying the relationship between the definiendum and its referent. In quasi-definitions some characteristics of an entity or event leading to a specific value judgment are selected and made accessible, while other conflicting ones are excluded. Reframing an issue is shown to be related to both strategies.
To what extent do writings about Pauline Hanson or One Nation construct her or her party as a phenomenon of the Right, the Centre or the Left? To what sorts of values — Left or Right — did her major speeches mostly appeal? And where did electors, both those who voted for One Nation and those who did not, place the party ideologically? This article shows how Hanson's politics were frequently characterised as a politics of the Right, though what sort of Right — extreme Right, populist Right, plain Right, and so on — was a matter on which there was no agreement. It demonstrates that while her maiden speech in 1996 and the speech she gave to launch her party in 1997 focused on issues of race and ethnicity — Aborigines, migrants, and multiculturalism — in ways that have come to be associated with the Right, the speech she gave to launch her party's 1998 federal election campaign focused on jobs, an issue more often associated with the Left. The study also uses survey evidence to show that while One Nation was less likely than the Liberal or National Party to be seen as a party of the Right, respondents were more likely to see One Nation as a party of the extreme Right. Yet more than any other party, including the Greens, One Nation was also seen as a party of the extreme Left. The least commonly held view — except by One Nation respondents — was that One Nation was a party of the Centre.
The Tea Party exploded on the US political scene with President Barack Obama’s election and scholarly research focuses on its role in national issues. However, Tea Party and property rights advocates, among others, also fiercely oppose sustainability city planning issues, recently having legislation introduced in 26 US states to stop such practices. They perceive planning as directly connected to the United Nation’s 1992 document, Agenda 21: the Rio Declaration on Development and Environment. The counter-narrative suggests the UN seeks to restrict individual property rights and American sovereignty. Meanwhile, Agenda 21-related planning is favourably considered and practiced worldwide. Through a mixed-methods approach using quantitative and case-based research, we track the opposition’s emergence through the introduction and sometimes adoption of state legislation. We draw conclusions and implications for research and practice using a theoretical framework routed in scholarship from planning, geography, political science, and communications/new media.
The scientific debate about populism has been revitalised by the recent rise of extreme-right parties in Western Europe. Within the broad discussion about populism and its relationship with extreme-right, this article is confined to three topics: a conceptual, an epistemological and an empirical issue. First, taking a clear position in the ongoing definition struggle, populism is defined primarily as a specific political communication style. Populism is conceived of as a political style essentially displaying proximity of the people, while at the same time taking an anti-establishment stance and stressing the (ideal) homogeneity of the people by excluding specific population segments. Second, it is pointed out that defining populism as a style enables one to turn it into a useful concept that has too often remained vague and blurred. Third, drawing on an operational definition of populism, a comparative discourse analysis of the political party broadcasts of the Belgian parties is carried out. The quantitative analysis leads to a clear conclusion. In terms of the degree and the kinds of populism embraced by the six political parties under scrutiny, the extreme-right party Vlaams Blok behaves very differently from the other Belgian parties. Its messages are a copybook example of populism.
What are the implications of taking seriously Cham Perelman's proposition that definitions are rhetorical? Efforts to find Real Definitions are dysfunctional to the extent they direct argumentation toward pseudo is claims and away from explicit ought claims about how words are to be used. Addressing definitional disputes explicitly as propositions ofought rather thanis could put on the agenda the pragmatic concerns of definitional choice that might otherwise remain tacit.
What is populism? What is the relationship between populism and democracy? Populism: A Very Short Introduction presents populism as an ideology that divides society into two antagonistic camps: the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite,” and that privileges popular sovereignty above all else. It illustrates the practical power of this ideology by describing populist movements of the modern era—European right-wing parties, left-wing presidents in Latin America, and the Tea Party movement in the United States—and charismatic populist leaders such as Juan Domingo Péron, H. Ross Perot, Silvio Berlusconi, and Hugo Chávez. Although populism is ultimately part of democracy, populist forces constitute an increasing challenge to democratic politics.
Right-wing populist movements and related political parties are gaining ground in many EU member states. This unique, interdisciplinary book provides an overall picture of the dynamics and development of these parties across Europe and beyond. Combining theory with in-depth case studies, it offers a comparative analysis of the policies and rhetoric of existing and emerging parties including the British BNP, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Danish Folkeparti.
The case studies qualitatively and quantitatively analyse right-wing populist groups in the following countries: Austria, Germany, Britain, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Hungary, Belgium, Ukraine, Estonia, and Latvia, with one essay exclusively focused on the US.
This timely and socially relevant collection is essential reading for scholars, students and practitioners wanting to understand the recent rise of populist right wing parties at local, countrywide and regional levels.
‘Populism’ constitutes one of the most hotly debated topics in contemporary politics and academia. The concept is used to describe a series of heterogeneous phenomena: on the one hand, Donald Trump, BREXIT supporters and the European Far Right in government or in opposition; on the other, Bernie Sanders, the so-called Pink Tide of left-wing populist governments in Latin America and inclusionary populisms in the European South. Recent developments have undoubtedly generated significant research material and a new impetus to the scope and impact of populism research. However, major challenges have also been created, requiring urgent attention. This paper discusses three such challenges (reflexivity, definition, typology) from a discursive perspective. Starting from a double hermeneutic focus on the interaction between academic theorization and political orientation, it highlights the importance of discourse theory in populism research and concludes by formulating a crucial theoretico-political dilemma populism researchers are increasingly facing today.
In the last 20 years, industrialised Western nations have witnessed a marked increase in right-wing social movements and political parties. While the origins and agendas of these groups differ in important ways, all arose in a climate of intensifying globalisation. All arose in the context of a widespread embrace of multiculturalism and cultural diversity. And all are keenly focused on the perceived threats posed by immigration. This paper examines immigration threat narratives constructed by four of these groups: the British National Party, the One Nation Party, the Tea Party Patriots, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Striking similarities in the narratives employed by these groups suggest the emergence of a transnational right-wing populist ‘playbook’. The paper further argues that even when the direct electoral impact of such groups is relatively small, they have the potential to substantially reshape broader political discourse and public policy.
The Field of Discourse Analysis The Field of Discourse Analysis Laclau and Mouffe's Discourse Theory Critical Discourse Analysis Discursive Psychology Across the Approaches Critical Social Constructionist Research
Faced with the need to appeal simultaneously for continuity and change, Ronald Reagan dissociated the concept of need, producing the phrase “truly needy.” Successive redefinitions of this term and the phrase “safety net” are examined by the authors, as they trace the persuasive definitions whose connotative dimensions remain constant while their denotative meanings change in successive administration messages.
Much has been written in a short space of time about the rapid rise and equally sharp decline of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party in Australia. Many of these studies have alluded to the importance of the race issue for One Nation, but argued that ultimately the anti-immigrant and anti-aboriginal sentiments associated with the party failed to mobilize voters. This study examines the debate using a multilevel analysis of One Nation [ON] support in the 148 federal electorates. The competing explanations for ON support are tested using a combination of survey data and aggregate political, demographic and socio-economic statistics. The results show that race and immigration were major factors mobilizing ON supporters, and concerns about economic insecurity were of lesser importance. Conclusions are drawn on the extent to which ON's emergence corresponds to the growth in radical right populism in many continental European nations.
In this paper Deutchman examines the rise and fall of the radical right in the late 1990s in Australia. In particular, she focuses on the rise and fall of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party In 1996 an obscure backbencher named Pauline Hanson was elected to the federal parliament. From the moment she made her first speech in September of that year she was rarely off the nation's front pages. By April 1997 she started her own political party, One Nation. By July 1998 her party was able to win an astonishing 23 per cent of the vote in the Queensland state election. And by October 1998 she lost her own seat in Parliament and saw her party's fortunes decline. Deutchman examines various theories which have attempted to explain the rise of radical-right parties in Europe and the United States in order to understand the Australian case. Notably, she argues that the convergence of the two major parties, the Coalition and the Australian Labor Party, provides the setting in which the emergence of a radical-right party becomes more likely. Such a party often emerges when the two major parties are centre-right ones, as is the case in Australia. In most countries research has shown that it is difficult for a radical-right party to do well nationally. Indeed, this has been true in Australia. Despite the fact that One Nation has lost much of its electoral support, Deutchman argues that it is premature to write off the radical right in Australia.
This essay responds to the claim that presidential rhetoric has little effect. It addresses three questions: (1) How do we understand the nature of presidential rhetoric and its effects? (2) What does presidential rhetoric do? (3) How do we know? From the perspective of the humanities, rhetoric is a complex transaction among speakers or writers, audiences, and critics. Effects are better understood as invitations to respond. A key function of presidential rhetoric is to define social reality, and this power to define is a significant presidential resource. Eight case studies explore how presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush have relied on rhetorical definition.
This essay originally was presented at a research symposium at Texas A&M University. It is reprinted here from Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34 (September 2004), 607–619.
Theory & Event - Volume 3, Issue 2, 1999
Abstract Since the 1980s the rise of so-called ‘populist parties’ has given rise to thousands of books, articles, columns and editorials. This article aims to make a threefold contribution to the current debate on populism in liberal democracies. First, a clear and new definition of populism is presented. Second, the normal-pathology thesis is rejected; instead it is argued that today populist discourse has become mainstream in the politics of western democracies. Indeed, one can even speak of a populist Zeitgeist. Third, it is argued that the explanations of and reactions to the current populist Zeitgeist are seriously flawed and might actually strengthen rather than weaken it.
Curran examines the political legacy of far-right neo-populist parties in Australia and Italy. She argues that assessments of their 'success' need to extend beyond the electoral decline or organizational implosion of the parties themselves. An important measure of their impact is the influence they have exerted on mainstream political discourse and styles of communication. That they have been successful in having such an impact is well illustrated in the politically expedient adoption of race-conscious, anti-immigration and anti-asylum policies in Australia and Italy. Curran examines the influence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party and Umberto Bossi's Lega Nord (Northern League) on the mainstreaming of populist discourse in these two countries. She focuses on some of the populist themes and styles embraced by the Australian political leader John Howard and his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi, and she concludes that, regardless of their political fragility or outright demise, these far-right neo-populist parties have been successful in injecting populist themes and prejudices into the mainstream political discourse in their respective countries. Yes Yes
Populism, understood as an appeal to ‘the people’ against both the established structure of power and the dominant ideas and values, should not be dismissed as a pathological form of politics of no interest to the political theorist, for its democratic pretensions raise important issues. Adapting Michael Oakeshott's distinction between ‘the politics of faith’ and ‘the politics of scepticism’, the paper offers an analysis of democracy in terms of two opposing faces, one ‘pragmatic’ and the other ‘redemptive’, and argues that it is the inescapable tension between them that makes populism a perennial possibility.
Agenda 21: A Conspiracy Theory Puts Sustainability in the Crosshairs.” Guardian
- Greg Harman
It Would be Dangerous to View Modern European Populism as a Triumph of Style Over Substance.” The London School of Economics and Political Science: European Politics and Policy Blog
- Ruth Wodak
Pauline Back at the Wheel
- Pauline Hanson
Address to the Reclaim Australia Rally
- Pauline Hanson
The White Queen: One Nation and the Politics of Race
- David Marr
- Cas Mudde
- Cristóbal Kaltwasser