Discursive strategies and ideologies in Mohammad Al-Arefe’s speeches
Manipulation is the exercise of illegitimate influence and authority towards others by means of discourse, so that people believe, accept, behave, and act according to the ideologies of a manipulator and against the interest of themselves (Van Dijk, 2006a). Moreover, texts and talks are not neutr...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/92161/1/FBMK%202017%2046%20-%20IR.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Manipulation is the exercise of illegitimate influence and authority towards others
by means of discourse, so that people believe, accept, behave, and act according to
the ideologies of a manipulator and against the interest of themselves (Van Dijk,
2006a). Moreover, texts and talks are not neutral; they are ideologically loaded and
discourse “plays a fundamental role in the daily expression and reproduction of
ideologies” (Van Dijk, 2003b, p. 4). The objective of any critical discourse analysis
(CDA) is to unravel the underlying hidden agenda which is left implicit in the
discourse. Indeed, public speakers and leaders can socially reconstruct reality
based on own ideologies and change the social cognition through discourse.
Following a qualitative research methodology, this research analyzed the
ideologies and discursive practices of Mohammad Al-Arefe’s discourse, the wellknown
Saudi preacher, to unveil the ideologies in his discourse with regard to the
current civil war in Syria. Van Dijk’s (2003b; 2006a) framework of semantic
strategies for positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation and
‘ideological square’ model were adopted as analytical tools to explore the
underlying ideologies related to ingroup and outgroup presentation at the levels of
meaning, formal structures, and actions and interactions. Three of Al-Arefe’s
Friday sermons delivered between 2009 and 2013 in Saudi Arabia and Egypt were
selected and critically analyzed at the textual and contextual levels.
The findings revealed that Al-Arefe’s discourse is indexed by strong polarization
between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ and construction of an exaggerated dichotomy that
divides the social groups into the two opposing poles of ‘Good’ versus ‘Evil.’ It
was revealed that positive self-presentation in Al-Arefe’s discourse is manifested
through lexicalization, self-glorification, victimization, euphemism, and
propaganda techniques. The negative other-presentation in his discourse is also enhanced through the discursive structures of derogation, demonization, and
construction of Non-Muslim identity for the Other in order to create fear and
hostility towards the Other. Furthermore, the findings showed that Al-Arefe’s
discourse encourages a non-human view of the ‘Other’ and legitimize violence
against them based on their faith and identity. It was also argued that Al-Arefe’s
discourse is heavily emotional and is featured with hyperbolic assertions,
stereotyping, appeal to angers, fallacious reasoning, and repetition of ideological
themes and Quranic references which contextually makes it hard for the Muslim
audience, and specifically the youth, to resist manipulation. Finally, it was
concluded that Al-Arefe has taken advantage of the mood of time and the context
of Syria war to promote his group’s political agenda.
The findings of this study offers insights into understanding how religious figures
construct hate speeches and polarization in the Muslim world context and create or
activate ‘preferred mental models’ which can lead to discrimination and violent
social actions of worldwide impact. Indeed, this study provides an example of the
way new practices are justified, legitimized, and naturalized through looking at the
radical discourses that emerged in the genre of preaching. Also, it is argued that
Muslim preachers’ discourse can strongly influence the social cognition, and
hence, preachers have a crucial role in reproduction of social practices, attitudes,
and ideologies; they can deify or satanize a cause and direct collective actions
through propaganda. Finally, it is concluded that Al-Arefe’s discourse is
representative of mainstream radical and extremist discourses and such discourses
should be counted as dangerous speech, since they can highly affect the safety and
security of multi-ethnic societies. In sum, this study can provide help with finding
solutions to the major issues that the Muslim world is facing today. |
|---|