.png)
Sebastián Ronderos and Emmy Eklundh summarise their recent Journal of Language and Politics article 'Studying affect through discourse theory: Towards a methodology of practice'.
There are strong methodological reasons for broadening the scope of discourse, [...] but also an ethical imperative to recognise the political nature of acts which are often dismissed as simply disruptive
Historically, discourse theory has predominantly focused on analysing words and speech as the primary means of interpreting political identities. However, we argue that this narrow focus on language overlooks the profound influence of non-verbal expressions and affect in shaping collective identities. Emotions, symbols, and actions play a significant role in forging these identities, yet methodological approaches within discourse theory remain heavily language-centric, especially reliant on textual analysis.
In our recent paper, we propose an expanded framework for discourse theory that captures the ways in which collective identities are formed through both linguistic and non-linguistic elements, reflecting and shaping people’s underlying attachments and emotional investments. To deepen this understanding, we suggest that moving beyond language-based discourse analysis must be paired with an exploration of fantasy, which is crucial to understanding the ways we invest in signifiers and the affective dimensions that underpin them.
We illustrate this approach through two case studies: the UK’s Just Stop Oil movement and Argentina’s right-wing leader Javier Milei. These examples highlight how collective identities emerge from a blend of linguistic and non-linguistic practices that resonate on both symbolic and emotional levels, enabling a richer understanding of the processes that drive political identification and mobilisation.
Our Core Principles
1. Signifiers Beyond Words: Our framework urges a shift beyond the traditional view of signifiers as words alone, expanding analysis to include symbols, gestures, and embodied actions. Can we interpret political ideology through the occupation of a public square, a piece of artwork, or a hand gesture? We argue yes, affirming that the signifier encompasses much more than language.
2. Beyond Counting Words: Traditional discourse analysis often quantifies ideological commitment through word count. But what if we look at non-verbal indicators instead? The reach of a social media post, the turnout at a protest? It may also be that some signifiers mean more than others, even if they do not occur frequently such as a singular act of self-immolation? By focusing on embodied practices, we can capture levels of commitment that mere word frequency cannot reveal.
3. Policy is Central: Policies or any other action performed by an institution are, like rhetoric, part of discourse and constitute central practices of political engagement. Unlike solely text-based statements, policies translate ideology into action and contribute to shaping public identity. By examining the relationship between policy implementation and institutional responses, this analysis captures the legal and economic effects these practices have, as well as the power dynamics they contest or sustain. This approach, influenced by critical legal studies, highlights the importance of policy in shaping discourse and grounding ideological positions within material structures.
4. Fantasy as a Cipher: The psychoanalytic concept of fantasy provides critical insights into how people form profound attachments to political symbols, movements, and leaders (or any other type of signifier). We are keen to demonstrate how the concept of fantasy can show us not only that we invest affectively in signifiers, but how and why we engage with them. Fantasy operates by constructing political identities that tap into desires, anxieties, and ideals. Unlike a straightforward “us vs. them” antagonism, fantasy often reveals a more complex, internal conflict, where political subjects face a struggle not only with external opponents but also with elements within their own identity construction, through processes of self-transgression. This points to a modality of antagonism which is internal rather than external (i.e. us-versus-them), where it reveals points of tension, contradiction, or desire within the individual or collective psyche pointing to more nuanced aspects of the identity formation process.
Case Studies in Practice
Case Study 1: Just Stop Oil (JSO)
The environmental activist group Just Stop Oil (JSO) offers a vivid example of how non-verbal, practice-based discourse creates a collective identity. Using bold acts like roadblocks and striking visuals, including splashes of orange paint, JSO builds an identity around urgency and defiance. The use of orange paint has become a key symbol, frequently appearing in high-profile actions such as their blockade of the M25 motorway and even the spraying of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers with paint. These acts not only attract public and media attention but also serve as non-verbal signifiers, embodying their message about the environmental crisis and its urgency.
The UK government’s institutional response has been equally relevant, highlighting the policy aspect of political practice. Faced with JSO’s disruptive tactics, the government has introduced stronger laws and penalties, like extending prison sentences for protesters. These legal reactions not only try to curb JSO’s activities but also signify the government’s investment in maintaining order, showing how institutional responses also play a critical role in the construction of a political identity.
By applying the fantasy principle, JSO’s acts are seen as both hopeful and distressing. The destruction or defacing of art, like Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, evokes a societal guilt over environmental neglect, symbolising a world that’s slowly losing its beauty due to climate change. This symbolic destruction illustrates the complexity of antagonism in JSO’s discourse: the antagonist is not only the government or fossil fuel corporations; it is also humanity’s own actions that have brought the planet to this point.
Case Study 2: Javier Milei
Javier Milei’s rise as a central political figure in Argentina exemplifies how identity is constructed through transgressive practices that connect with audiences on both symbolic and affective levels. Milei’s public persona is defined by a series of provocative, symbolic acts that resonate deeply with his supporters. His use of the chainsaw in public rallies, for instance, becomes more than a gesture; it symbolizes his promise to “cut down” government bureaucracy and spending. These actions communicate a visceral, almost theatrical defiance in which practice takes the central stage.
Central to Milei’s representation is the figure of the lion, a powerful signifier of his self-image as a fierce protector and leader. This symbol, coupled with elements of rock culture, serves as a performative bridge, linking his political movement to Argentina’s countercultural and anti-authoritarian legacy of the 1980s. By incorporating football chants and orchestrated collective gestures into his rallies, Milei taps into practices deeply rooted in popular idiosyncrasies, evoking a sense of solidarity and emotional belonging among his followers. These communal practices, entrenched in familiar national rituals, reinforce a collective identity that aligns with his defiant, anti-establishment stance.
Milei’s political practice also incorporates performative elements deeply ingrained in the Argentine politics of the everyday, but which are mostly signified within the left. This is notable through the reimagining of traditionally progressive symbols like the green handkerchiefs of feminist activism or the white scarves of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo. In Milei’s movement, these icons are transfigured: supporters display orange handkerchiefs emblazoned with a black lion. Through this assemblage of repurposed symbols and practices, Milei crafts an identity grounded in an antagonism that, differently from classical right populists, lies within Argentina’s historical “popular-national” identity. His reenactment of cultural symbols thus serves a dual function: it resonates with those disillusioned by traditional politics while simultaneously offering a collective thrill by transgressing elements ingrained in the political habitus.
Conclusion: Rethinking Discourse Theory
We argue for a deeper integration of affect in the study of political identities. By emphasising discourse theory’s potential to incorporate affect and practice, we show how signifiers, inherently affective, operate within phantasmatic narratives. There are strong methodological reasons for broadening the scope of discourse, as shown above, but also an ethical imperative to recognise the political nature of acts which are often dismissed as simply disruptive, such as JSO. Our principles promote a broader engagement with affect and practice in political identity analysis. Instead of simply cataloguing diverse data types, we advocate for an analytic lens that foregrounds their affective dimensions. Using a psychoanalytic focus on fanatsy, we expand the concept of antagonism beyond the rigid friend/enemy divide, finding this shift crucial to our empirical analyses.
Through case studies on Just Stop Oil in the UK and Milei in Argentina, we illustrate how focusing on affect and practice reveals identificatory processes often obscured in text-based approaches. These practices, embedded in phantasmatic narratives, help explain the enduring appeal of these movements. We believe this approach has the potential to significantly enrich discourse theory, advancing political analysis by integrating affect- and practice-based insights alongside traditional text-centred methods.
Commentaires