Terrorism Discourse and Emotions: Australia

Abstract

Terrorism has been often considered to be a subjective label rather than a distinct form of violence. Discourse has played an important role in creating the threat of terrorism, as well as in the legitimisation of counterterrorism level. The importance of studying discourse can thus no longer be denied. This article analysed the character of official discourse on terrorism delivered by Australian prime ministers between 9/11 and the end of 2019, since Australia is one of the countries involved in the War on Terror. The author used the NVivo software to analyse speeches delivered by John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, and Malcolm Turnbull. She applies Norman Fairclough’s three-level Critical Discourse Analysis to study the character of the speeches, positive and negative emotions which were invoked by the speeches and the connections that were drawn to other discourses. She also analyses the context in which the speeches were delivered as well as the adopted counterterrorism measures that were legitimized in the speeches. The results of the analysis demonstrated that all Australian prime ministers used the terrorism label to some extent, however each of them delivered speeches on terrorism that had a different character. All of the analysed prime ministers, with the exception of Kevin Rudd, also presented emotional discourse on terrorism. The article demonstrates how is the terrorism label portrayed differently by each speaker, and that not all discourse on terrorism has to necessarily be emotional.