Critical Discourse Analysis of Prime Minister’s Conference Speech

This piece is an analysis of the speech of Prime Minster Gordon Brown at the Labour Party Conference 2007 using Critical Discourse Analysis. Firstly, a short introduction into Critical Discourse Analysis and its relevance to this text will be conducted. This will be followed by an in depth examination of the text itself, looking at it at the level of discursive and social practice, and using the theory to examine it further.
Norman Fairclough, Sociologist and proponent of Critical Discourse Analysis argues that its function is to give an account of social change looking at the way in which, ‘social changes are changes in discourse.’ Fairclough focuses on two aspects in particular. Firstly semiosis, which seeks to examine social practices for representations and identity. Secondly, the ‘order of discourse’ allows a Habermasian analysis of hegemony and dominance. Christina Schaffre shows the extent to which this school of analysis fits perfectly into the examination of a political speech, ‘This process of manifesting a political will and transforming it into a concrete social action is sealed first of all between political parties. In this process, language plays an important role.’ It is Fairclough again, who warns us not to oversimplify an analysis of social change, for whilst discourse plays a vital role, it can not be reduced down to being the sole reason. For Teun van Dijk, the most important part of conducting an analysis is to accept the influence of Jurgen Habermas and Antonio Gramsci and be overtly political, ‘Unlike other discourse analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, should take an explicit sociopolitical stance.’ Further than being most suited to analysing a political speech, a speech by the leader of the Labour Party is most suited to discourse analysis. An analysis of the birth of New Labour by Norman Fairclough in The Observer highlighted the importance of language, ‘With New Labour came a whole new vocabulary; a way of speaking that suggests the ‘spinmeisters’ want to control not merely our perception of politics, but the very words we use to describe it.’
In analysing the speech of Prime Minister Gordon Brown it is important to look at elements of Social Practice. Norman Fairclough describes Social Practice as, ‘a relatively stabilised form of social activity (examples would be classroom teaching, television news, family meals or medical consultations).’ An important part of the Social Practice here is that the discourse is taking place in a social arena where the audience has gathered to listen to one person. Importantly, normally there would be many variables in a text. Christina Schaffre correctly highlights that political speeches are not homogenous as subtypes can be determined by the communicative situation, who is speaking, why they are speaking and when. When we examine the social practice of this text in conjunction with Schaffre’s analysis we see that the potential variables have been greatly reduced. In a speech such as Gordon Brown’s all the variables have been managed prior to the delivery of the speech, including; planning, who will be in the audience. This vastly limits the Discourse Access Profile, meaning that all power in this text rests with the speaker, and that as a media audience the recipients are passively controlled in their participation. Norman Fairclough correctly highlights this as being important. The Order of Discourse is the term used to describe the dominance and hierarchy involved in social interaction. He argues that an Order of Dominance need not be rigid, but can be changed by actual interactions. An example of this would be in Prime Minister’s Questions where the Prime Minister is obviously at the pinnacle of the hierarchy, but that can soon be changed by actual interactions with other members. However, this set up of speech, totally planned and delivered to a sympathetic audience means that dominance becomes Hegemony, whereby it becomes a common sense view that this man is powerful and top of the hierarchy.
The actual text and the discursive practice therein, will now be examined. It has already been shown that in this text Gordon Brown has unqualified dominance in this text, therefore because he is appealing to a wider audience throughout the media he chooses to play down this authority. It was again Fairclough who pointed out that doctor’s try to put the patient at ease by down playing their authority. Gordon Brown does this, ‘Honoured and humbled by the trust you have given me, I speak to you for the first time at our conference as prime minister and leader of this party.’ This can be seen in the context that the previous Prime Minister resigned, and that Gordon Brown was not elected. Using van Dijk’s notion of trying to maintain a dominant discourse it is clear that Brown is attempting to manufacture a consensus and legitimacy to his dominance by underplaying with words like ‘humble.’ Importantly looking at the Semiosis of the speech it is clear in his discursive practice that he is fitting into a linguistic and social style associated with the position of leader of a country. ‘Put something back and by doing so make a difference. And this is my moral compass. This is who I am. I am a conviction politician.’ Also, in highlighting his abilities he is showing himself to be a man of action, someone who can ‘make a difference.’ As we have already seen he is downplaying his dominance again, saying that he will put something back into the community. However, the semantics of this sentence structure are very revealing. He argues that he believes in repaying the community, that he has a moral compass, and that he is a conviction politician. We are also meant to recognise that by elimination, the leader’s of the opposition parties do not have these qualities, and supposedly nor did the previous Prime Minister. Following this the modality changes as he repeats a list of what he as Prime Minister stands for, ‘I stand for a Britain where every young person who has it in them to study at college or university should not be prevented by money from doing so.’ Again, the semantics suggest that a leader of a Conservative Party could not possibly believe in this. This is once again followed by a shift in rhetorical figures. Aware that he is in discourse with his party as well as the wider viewers, he shifts from ‘I” to ‘Our’ seeking to incorporate them into the part that he feels applies to the Labour Party and its history, ‘Our purpose has always been to be the party of progressive change, once our struggle was to secure minimum standards, then to extend opportunity.’
It is also clear that this speech is aimed towards an audience which holds more conservative views. Van Dijk highlights that, ‘The conservative press is primarily interested in topics that also concern the authorities.’ However, in the case of New Labour, the authorities sought to align themselves with conservative causes to attract the support of the press and non-Labour supporting member of the public. Local Meanings play a part in this. When the Prime Minister says that, ‘I stand for a Britain where it is a mark of citizenship that you learn our language and traditions.’, he is doing so because he knows that a conservative section of the population will see this as common sense, and not xenophobic. Van Dijk used this theory in the 1980s when western leaders would attack communism, in confidence that the majority of people watching would describe these views as ‘common sense.’ Ultimately, Critical Discourse Analysis highlights how discourse perpetuates inequality in all its guises. This theory would see in New Labour’s changed discourse an attempt in the 1990s an attempt to attract the establishment and Conservative supporters and thus maintain the hegemonic status quo. In his speech Brown keeps the new language developed by Tony Blair for this purpose, ‘New Labour, now the party of aspiration.’ Interestingly, the speech does focus on equality though and seeks to again use local meanings, that it is hoped Labour supporters will pick up on to suggest this leader will be more traditional than his predecessor, ‘Not just occupying, but shaping and expanding the centre ground.’ However, the fact that he has to use these local meanings, almost attempting to sneak it past the conservative press, shows what a tight grip these hegemonic forces have over political discourse.
The Critical Discourse Analysis theory is highly useful in analysing texts. It allows for an insight into political and ideological discourses. In addition, its overtly political nature allows it to look into why these discourses result in us thinking or responding in the way we do, or what power we have over this. Using this to analyse the Prime Minister’s speech it highlighted the way in which the speech used different styles of discourse to attract different people, and to enforce or underplay his dominance depending on the group. In the final analysis, critical discourse analysis shows us the extent to which hegemony constrains political discourse.