Essay: The way different power relations assigned to the institutional subject position of an agent, affects their practical argumentation.

Globalisation is characterised by the creation of a global marketplace, and by the compression of space and time. These advancements have gained social endurance by developments in communication and transportation technologies (Betz, 1994; pp27; Barney, 2011; pp158). Examples of these developments are the invention of the internet, and the creation of various social media platforms. The spread of globalisation in Europe, is partially the result of national governments and foreign policy deliberators, articulating certain discourses. These discourses have engineered the material and ideological replacement of industrialised economies with post-industrialised, capital-based, economies (Betz, 1994; pp27).
Economic and social policies, influenced by globalist discourses, which operationalise the language of globalisation, are hegemonized into many societies, located within the European Union (Ayes, 2015; pp868). The adoption of these discourses (and many other factors, including the collapse of the Soviet Union), has splintered the traditionally established left/right political cleavage in Europe, which had previously consisted of divisions between capital and labour during the early-mid 20th century. The parameters of political thought in Europe, are now directed by socio-cultural issues, including immigration levels and threats to national identity (Rydgren, 2006; pp16).
The inability of established political parties to acknowledge these shifting social dynamics, or to envision credible solutions to these issues, has led to the development of a political niche within European society. This niche has made it possible for RRP parties to gain electoral support in many European countries. RRP parties attempt to progress the socialisation (dispersal throughout a citizenship), of the political conflicts caused by these issues (Schattscheider, 1974; pp7). This has created fertile ground for the articulation of a new discursive hegemony in Europe.
The European Union (EU) is a transnational economic and cultural partnership, nominally linked to globalisation. Some political agents believe that the EU symbolises the potential for the creation of a transnational (cross-nation) point of authority. This authority is believed to be encapsulated in various international institutions formed by the EU, like the European Parliament. It is also believed to be shown, in various pieces of deontic legislation passed by the organisation, such as European Union law. Deontic powers are the various obligations, duties, and authorizations attached to a subject position or written pieces of legislation, thus maintaining social order (Searle, 2010; pp9) Deontic modals in argumentation, refer to the various obligations and values a person must consider, before choosing an acceptable means-goal, to achieve a claim for action (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013; pp42-43).
Attempts to constitutionalise the EU, have triggered portrayals of the union as a mere extension of globalisation and a threat to national sovereignty (Berezin, 2009; pp195). A constitutionalised EU would involve the dislocation of an agent’s national identity and would attempt to construct a unified Pan-European, multicultural, identity (a culturally integrated European identity overriding national identity). This Pan-European social identity is theorised to carry with it new obligations and new social practices, which could potentially be hegemonized across the continent (Berezin, 2009; pp6).
This process has arguably reacted negatively with nationalist values held by many European citizens. The promotion of discourses relating to national sovereignty, by RRP parties, is seen to be in direct conflict with the processes of Globalisation, Europeanisation, and Americanisation (the assimilation of pan-European and US culture within a population). National sovereignty relates to the belief that the ultimate power of governance in a specifically outlined geographical area (national borders), should lie with a national government and be representative of the population physically inhabiting that area (Marsonet, 2017; pp47-57).
To summarise, the growth of the EU and more generally, globalisation, has generated a large amount of political tension, within contemporary European society. This necessitates the need for a much deeper level of analysis, into the relationship existing between Anti-EU political agents and the transnational organisation itself. Research in this area will be extremely helpful towards an academic and empirical understanding of the agency/structure dialectic, which has dominated political science debates for decades (Marsh & Stocker, 2010; pp189-201).
It is particularly illuminating, for theories exploring the relationship, between group agents and an organisational structure in the international system, like the EU. This area of research is shockingly underdeveloped and will be highly important in the field of organisational studies. It will also be helpful towards evaluating the operation and public appeal of transnational, political organisations (Fairclough, 2005; pp931). This is because practical argumentation (a potent speech dialogue derived from the speech genre deliberation), is arguably the precursor to social action Therefore, it is a useful dialogue, which can be utilised by political agents in agency (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013; pp23).
One of the most fundamental aspects of political science research is to understand the motivations behind the agency of political agents (Marsh & Stocker, 2010; pp189-201). Agency is the action of a social agent set to a specific task, objective, or claim for action (Marsh & Stocker, 2010; pp189-201). If the task is political in nature, the typology of the agency will shift and become political. The individual or group will then be recognised as a political agent. The goal of agency is to influence social practices. Theories of structuralism proposition that unobservable social and economic structures determine the action of political agents, leaving little room for examples of individual autonomy and individual strategies, to influence events and social practices. An example of a deterministic social structure is the capitalist economic structure.
The version of discourse analysis that this study will use, does not utilize structuralism. This study recognises the radical social constructivist definition of discourse theory but disagrees with a few of its key theoretical concepts. Radical social constructivism in discourse theory, suggests there is no objective material world and every object, action, and process, cannot attain meaning unless it is part of a discourse. Social constructivism in discourse theory is also highly relativist.
Relativism in discourse theory, dissolves the boundaries between the material world and the realm of ideas. Relativism considers every discourse to be of equal ethical value. This means critical and normative evaluations made about discourses by political analysts, disregard the existence of preconstructed social structures (Howarth et al, 2000; pp4). In institutional terms, discourse theory is ahistorical and denies the existence of an institutional reality, which is a socially preconstructed and inherently deliberative concept.
These reasons have forced this research project, to adopt an epistemology developed by Jessop (2002), known as critical realism (Marsh & Stoker, 2010; pp200; Fairclough, 2005; pp916-931). This approach views the divide between agency and structure to be non-existent and sees them as two logically interwoven entities. Critical realism states interactions between the two concepts, and the relationship these interactions build over time, is a constitutive element of social and institutional reality.
Critical realism theorises that institutional realities are historically and deliberatively conventionalised into communities by political and social agents, creating real-world boundaries. This restricts the strategies formed by social agents. This allows for a much more normative type of discourse analysis to be conducted, as operationalised discourses can be compared to preconstructed, institutional, realities. Discourse theory, critical realism, and institutional reality will be explained more fully, later in this thesis.
The methodology this study will adopt, has appropriated the method outlined in the highly informative academic text, named Political Discourse Analysis (PDA), authored by Isabella and Norman Fairclough (2013). Its focus on practical argumentation is linked to a fundamental aspect of political theory. Argumentation is viewed as a crucial part of deliberation, a concept linked to a key, Aristotelian theory, about the core nature of politics (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013; pp1-3).
Deliberation can take place both internally and externally, it is normative, and it describes the process of an individual or a group, assessing all available options and points of view. Public deliberation is normative, as it aims to provide a judgement about a claim for action that is consensually agreed upon to be the best, to resolve a conflict. Put simply, deliberation is a process of critically evaluating the points of view articulated by various agents. A concluding decision is then made, on the point of view that is judged to deliver the most practical claim for action (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013; pp14-15). The link between argumentation and deliberation is established because the process of argumentation, is precisely a person standing for their point of view about a claim for action.
Practical argumentation in politics operationalises discourses. Practical arguments propose a claim for action, and a practically reasoned means to achieve this action. Operationalisation in discourse theory, simply means to use discourse in a claim for action (Fairclough, 2005; pp931). As practical argumentation is based on claims for action, it is vital in the process of operationalising discourse used in the political arena. This process has implications for decisions on policies that have real-world implications.
This study will primarily determine the way different power relations assigned to the institutional subject position of an agent, affects their practical argumentation. Specifically, it will determine how power relations attached to ministerial subject positions in a national government, affects the practical arguments made by RRP parties, as they are referring to EU policy. The subject position of an agent relates to the numerous identities a person can adopt throughout their life. These identities are contingent with the contextual, political, cultural, and material forces that combine to develop the specific norms and values (belief system) of an identity (Griggs & Howarth, 2000; pp54-56). A subject position politically orientated and is part of an established, governmental, process, is defined as being institutional. An example is a member of parliament (MP).
In this study, the main institutional subject positions being investigated, are a party leader holding a ministerial position in a national government, and a party leader of a marginalised political party.
The main aim of this study is to:
Investigate how the level of political legitimisation RRP parties have achieved, within a national government, affects the nature of each party’s practical argumentation, whilst it is referring to an organisational structure in the international system (EU).
This research project features primary, textual analysis, of practical argumentation generated by four RRP parties, in an institutional setting. Furthermore, it shows how the different levels of power each group has attained nationally, affects the discourse each party uses to feed the circumstance premises of each practical argumentation. This has provided key insights into the way institutional subject positions of each party, affects the interactions they have, with this organisational structure in the international system (see chapter 2.03). This study also shows how a political agent’s institutional subject position, can affect the way each party articulates its core ideological beliefs, relating to the EU. Crucially, it will normatively evaluate all these points.
To show a clear difference in power each party holds, the sample will consist of two RRP parties that have attained governmental positions in national coalition governments, and two marginalised RRP parties. The sample of this study will consist of four RRP groups, originating from Austria, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The groups this study will feature are; the Austrian Freedom Party, the National Rally, the Northern League and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The practical arguments will be selected from; Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the Freedom of Austria party and Vice-Chancellor of Austria, Matteo Salvini, Federal Secretary of The Northern League party and Prime Minister of Italy, Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally party, and Gerrard Batten, leader of UKIP (Shroufi, 2015; pp24 Farrell, 2017; Vlamms Parliament; 2018; UKIP, 2018).
Chapter two of this thesis outlines and explains the theoretical frameworks used by this study, which support the overall evaluations and conclusions drawn from each practical argumentation sample. Chapter three features a literature review, which works to contextualise each sample and examines how each RRP party has previously referenced the EU. The methodology used to attain the conclusion of each source will also be evaluated and contrasted to practical argumentation analysis. It will be shown that practical argumentation analysis is the most appropriate methodology to critically evaluate the agency/structure dialectic, existing between national agents and organisational structures in the international system. Chapter four will explain the theory behind practical argumentation and its importance to political discourse analysis.
Chapter five is the analytical section and will attempt to deconstruct each sample’s practical argumentation. It will compare ideological and discursive trends in the different premise of each argument. It will also compare the means-goal and ‘future state of affairs’ each party proposes. Chapter six will feature interpretations into the implications the analysis has, for understanding how RRP parties interact and want to influence the EU. It will also draw conclusions on how useful the analysis is towards observing the agency/structure dialectic at a national/international level. Chapter seven will evaluate the overall conclusions that are drawn from the analysis and asses the overall methodology used. It will also suggest useful avenues of research future studies may want to pursue, which are seeking continue the use of political discourse analysis to analyse the agency of RRP parties.