Analysis of Brenton Tarrant's Manifesto Through Fairclough's Three-dimensional Model

The understanding of discourse analysis that this paper is focused on, and which will be described in the following section is Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis. It keeps discourse distinct from other social dimensions and focuses textual, spoken and semiological systems (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 18).

There are five commonalities described by Phillips and Jørgensen, on how the different approaches to CDA function, and are connected to the interpretation of discourse as something that functions ideologically, how language is examined within social contexts, connected to socio-cultural processes and as well as the critical features of CDA systems (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, pp. 60-64). The research of this paper functions with the interpretation of discourse as that which is both constituted and constitutive. With other words, discourse is a social practice that both constitutes the social world while being constituted by social practices; it helps (re)shape social structures within social worlds, while it is a reflection of them. In the context of this bachelor thesis, discourse then benefits elaborations of social structures in digital and “real life” sense, while also being reflective of these. This paper interprets discourse as a form of action, where people(-s) are able to mobilize change in the digital as well as “real life” world. Below follows a walkthrough of the five common features of Critical Discourse Analysis:

The practices through which texts are produced and consumed, discursive practice, is seen as a constitutive of the social practice. It has an effect to the formation of social identities, relations and social world systems (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 61). At the same time, there are parts of the social world that are not automatically discursive, and therefore operate differently from discourse, and then demand other methodological instruments to be analyzed (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 61)

Cultural reproduction and social change is partially enabled by everyday life discursive practices, which makes the structuralizes cultural and social processes as linguistic-discursive (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 61). What different approaches to CDA have in common is the intention to “shed light on the linguistic-discursive dimension of social and cultural phenomena and processes of change in late modernity” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 61). In this paper, discourse is understood and used as an idea that includes written language as well as images. Where it is applicable focus will be given to visual semiotics in the same way as with analyzing the connection between language and images, discussing images as if they were texts. Images, whether they be visual or metaphorical, will be treated and “read” and analyzed as texts (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011).

As described earlier, this paper aligns itself with Phillips and Jørgensen’s understandings of discourse as being in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions, as discourse constitutes and is constituted by social practices and is in a constant interplay with historically situated social structures; Along with social dimensions, discursive dimensions constitute understandings of the world (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 62).

Phillips and Jørgensen state how the third common feature is that CDA participates in specific linguistic textual analysis of language use in social communication (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 62), detaching it from other theories on discourse as discursive psychology, where linguistic approaches are not emphasized (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011) The fourth commonality claims that discursive practices contribute to creating and reproducing (unequal) power relations between social groups, such as on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, religion, age, physical and psychological capabilities. The fifth commonality points out how the critical emphasis in Critical Discourse Analysis, as a method dedicated to social change:

“In the name of emancipation, critical discourse analytical approaches take the side of oppressed social groups. Critique aims to uncover the role of discursive practice in the maintenance of unequal power relations, with the overall goal of harnessing the results of critical discourse analysis to the struggle for radical social change.” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 64)

Power, Ideology and Hegemony

It has previously been written how this paper understands discourse within a dialectical relationship with social aspects, (re-)shapes, is shaped and reflects social structures. Therefore, discourse contributes to the maintenance and reproduction of current social structures, helps develop it, as it institutes society and culture, with discursive practices constructing identities, relations and representations. This leads to discursive practices of representation having effects ideologically, which has the consequence that it contributes to the production and reproduction of unequal power dynamics between social groups. (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Power indicates to relations of difference and the effects of these differences in social communities and networks, which constitute societies. Thus, discourse, as it is connected to power, offers the tools to constitute differences in societal power, which may be founded through ideology. Ideologies are regularly disguised with discourses as ‘conceptual analogies and metaphors (Wodak and Meyer, 2009).

Discourse, then, operates ideologically, and because of this, CDA is occupied with ideology, revealing power relations through exposing ideologies, as ideologies often are inaccurate constructions of society (Meyer and Wodak, 2009; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). So, as CDA is interested with ideology, this paper is as well has a critical focus on the ideology and is aligned with Norman Fairclough’s understanding of the concept. He states that ideologies are specific constructions of meanings and practices, which both represent and construct power relations of domination in societies, and thereby aid to producing and reproducing relations of power within social dynamics and structures in society. This process is enacted by interactions, which is communicated through identities, which are (ideologically) established within power dynamics (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011: Wodak and Meyer, 2009).

Fairclough views this as connected to discursive practice, emphasizing hegemony in his approach to Critical Discourse Analysis. While hegemony is seen as a negotiated process, Fairclough perceives discursive practices as something that can be understood as part of a hegemonic struggle, since hegemony makes possible to analyze and understand how discursive practice is interconnected to more comprehensive social practices, which involves power relations (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011) Critical Discourse Analysis emphasizes its focus on how discursive practices construct identities, relations and representation in connection to power relations, and how these dynamics maintain inequalities between social groups. In the context of this, this paper draws on Fairclough’s emphasis on CDA as a method to research connections of struggles over power between “discursive practices, events and texts and broader social and cultural structures, relations and processes” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 63).

The Three-Dimensional Model of Fairclough

As this paper draws on Fairclough’s works on Critical Discourse Analysis, this section of the chapter describes Fairclough’s interdisciplinary approach to discourse analysis, and how textual analysis is combined with an analysis of discursive and social practices in the analyzed data. Fairclough is critical toward analytical tools that solely employ linguistic approached in discourse analysis, as they risk focusing only on the textual content, without including a macro-scaled discussion of how discourses interrelate to social relations, identities and power structures. This paper leans on Fairclough’s understanding of the importance of focusing on the relationship between text, social- and cultural practices and structures, throughout the analysis (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011).

The CDA-approach provided by Fairclough makes possible for an analytical framework, with interconnected concepts within a three-dimensional model, focusing on the following traditions; “detailed textual analysis within the field of linguistics” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 65); “macro-sociological analysis of social practice” (ibid) ; and “micro-sociological interpretative traditions within society” (ibid). This approach employs a detailed textual analysis to understand the functions of discursive processes in texts linguistically. It utilizes a macro-sociological analysis of social practice and recognizes how social practices are formed by power relations and social structures. The micro-sociological interpretive tradition gives insight into the understanding of how people construct worlds through everyday performance. These traditions and ideas throughout this paper realized through Fairclough’s analytical framework for research on communication on society, via the three-dimensional model of an analysis of the textual contents, discursive practice and the social practice (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011).

Fairclough states how communicative events, as a piece of content of language, includes these three dimensions, which requires of the researcher to include them, when conducting a discourse analysis. The discourse analysis should then 1) at a textual level, emphasize the text’s linguistic features, such as vocabulary and metaphors, etc., to illustrate where its discourses operate linguistically. 2) When focusing on the discursive practice, the analysis should emphasize processes of production and consumption in relation to the text, and how the discourses of the text draw upon other existing discourses. This can be done by classifying specific language used in the text, to enable identifying e.g. the presence of specific political discourses. 3) When analyzing the social practice, the analysis discusses more comprehensive, macro-level relationships between the text and social practices in society. This level of an analysis should be accompanied with reference to cultural or cultural theory, since an analysis of the discourse in the data, is not adequate enough to understand broader social practice (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011).

This three-dimensional analytical model is presented separately, which is also how it will be employed throughout the analysis, even though the dimensions intersect and are interrelated. Fairclough’s three-dimensional model will be used as a framework to illustrate how language and society is interrelated. It should be noted that the analysis employs the analytical structure as a suggestive guideline and that the model is not prescriptive. The analysis is representative of the interpretations of the author of this paper (Fairclough, 1992).

Research Material and Strategy of Analysis

The original file of the manifesto, formally titled “The Great Replacement – Toward a New Society We March Ever Forwards” (Tarrant, 2019) was uploaded on 8chan (8ch.net) the 15th of March 2019, consisting of 74 pages and approximately 15.430 words. ”, The manifesto is not clearly structured and starts with a poem by Dylan Thomas, and an introduction arguing that the white race is under threat of being exterminated (p. 1-3). The first third of the manifesto is constructed as three simulated “Q&A-sessions” (p. 4-22) where the manifesto poses questions regarding motives of the terror attack and the ideals of the terrorist. The first Q&A-sessions is constructed as answering general questions, the second being directed at his supporters and the third being directed at those opposing his act. This is followed up by an altered version of a Rudyard Kipling-poem, and a few pages with messages directed to “conservatives”, “Christians”, “Antifa/Marxist/Communists” and “Turks” (p. 23-28). The rest of the manifesto up until the end discuss “General thoughts and Potential Strategies” (p. 29-72), such as what is perceived as natural connections between the environment and nationalism, why men in the West are being radicalized, and “high profile enemies” consisting of individual politicians. This is followed up by a conclusion (p. 72-74) and a final page with a montage of eight images of women, men and children, represented through idealized narratives on gender and nature, which will be elaborated further in the analysis chapter.

The analyzed data consists of extracts from the manifesto that discusses constructions of “European” and “non-European” identities as well as constructions of its author Brenton Tarrant. The content of the manifesto is repetitive, the different identities and perceived “races” are written about with different terms that are used synonymously, such as “non-Europeans”, “invaders”, “immigrants” and “Europeans”, “white people” and “native Europeans”. The excerpts used to be analyzed have been chosen through passages that discuss these terms, to attempt to reflect on how the content of the manifesto draws on discourses within contemporary digital, physical, intellectual and parliamentary far-right movements, and constructs of an idealized white imagined community.

The strategy of the analysis in this paper consists of an analysis of excerpts from the Great Replacement manifesto; they are researched through a textual analysis which is followed up by an analysis on the discursive practice of the manifesto. The social practice chapter chapter will draw upon the writings from the analysis chapter will lean on Sara Ahmed’s writings on the cultural politics of emotions, developed on Benedict Andersons concept of nations as “imagined communities”.

Textual Analysis

The aim of the textual analysis is to research linguistic characteristics of the text, to illustrate how its discourses are activated textually. Emphasis is put on how the text contributes to constructions of specific representations of social identities and relationships as well as representations of the world. The analysis employs different linguistic tools; such as wording, metaphors, ethos to mention some features. These linguistic tools reveal the way in which discourses function in the manifesto. Rhetoric or metaphorical features can disclose “hidden” ideologies or specific elements in the text. The textual analysis therefore discusses how the usage of metaphors shape understandings of the world, and in addition illustrates what factors may have been an influence on the usage of the metaphor. Interpreting meanings of wording and specific words, the analysis reflects upon how theoretical, ideological and cultural perspectives are connected to the choice of wording. The analysis focuses on key words with significance and aims to identify the specific underlying meaning of these (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011).

The analysis researches nominalization with choices in connection to voice, active or passive, to identify processes of responsibility and agency in the manifesto. The chapter analyses the ethos of the text, analyzing aspects that contribute to constructions of identities, through the usage of grammar. Further, the analysis examines constructions of identities and how processes of agency by analyzing how the text collectivizes, individualizes and personalizes its content (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011).

The textual analysis employs a multimodal analytical approach to be able to interpret visual features in the text, such as the images on the final page of the manifesto. This, to better understand how images contribute to specific representations of social identities and the world and personalization and individualization in the text (Machin & Mayr, 2012).

Discursive Practice

Analyzing the discursive practice of the text, has a focus on identifying how and which discourses are drawn upon. Focus is put on the interdiscursivity of the text, to better understand what discourse types are used in the text. In this chapter, emphasis is put whether or not the discursive practice is creative or conventional, to better discuss how the discursive practice could be employing change, discursively as well as culturally, in relations to the social order. The extent of interdiscursivity in the text can indicate how the text is influenced, or draws upon, other texts to construct representations of society (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips and Jørgensen, 2011; Machin & Mayr 2011).

Social Practice

The social practice chapter aims to identifying social systems and structures that the discursive practice is connected to. This, in order to discuss why the discursive practice is constructed as it is, and what its potential consequences can be. The social practice chapter has a focus on the order of the discursive practice, how different discourses are drawn upon and are spread across the manifesto. The social practice connects the textual analysis and discursive practice with non-discursive social relations and structures. The aim of this is to reflect upon what political, cultural, digital conditions the discursive practice is reliant on. The social practice discussion intends to evaluate the hegemonic consequences that the discursive practice suggests (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips and Jørgensen, 2011). This is done through integrating cultural theories, as the writings on the cultural politics of emotions, produced by Sara Ahmed.

This paper subscribes to Anderson’s ideas of a “nation” being an imagined community. A nation is limited, because even the largest nation has borders, and it is socially constructed by members of the community who “will never know most of their fellow members, meet them or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Andersson, 2006, p. 6). This argument is built on by Sara Ahmed, seeing the imagined community as a collective body. The imagined community can therefor employ feelings as hatred and fear utilized by the proximity of “others”. Others, such as “non-Europeans” are attributed characteristics, “sticky images” as culture or “natural” capabilities that can construct them “foreign” and “contrary” with the “European” community. When a discourse constructs the nation as “invaded”, Ahmed states that the nation becomes a gendered and feminized body, a “soft nation” that is “too emotional, to easily moved by the demands of others” … “Such attributes are of course gendered: the soft national body is a feminized body, which is ‘penetrated’ or invaded by others” (Ahmed, 2004, p. 2).

Ethical Considerations

There are several ethical dilemmas to be occupied with in relation to the production and distribution of this paper, and this small chapter attempts to address some of them. As stated in the beginning of this paper, there have not been any news regarding the mental health investigation of Brenton Tarrant, issued by high court Judge Cameron Mander. It is first after these investigations that the high court will decide whether Tarrant is fit to stand trial and receive his sentence. Since Brenton Tarrant has not been sentenced yet, this paper intends not to state that Tarrant is guilty of the judicially formulated murder- and attempted murder charges, something that will as earliest be decided in June 2019. While he has not been judicially found guilty of the charges, Brenton Tarrant is named throughout the paper, as he has been in globally recognized and respected newspapers and media outlets such as the New York Times, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera and BBC.

It should be noted that there have been considerations regarding using the categories as “European people” and “non-European immigrants” and “descendants of non-European immigrants”, in regard to the formulation of the research question and following that, the entire paper. It might be seen as a risk of reproducing far-right discourses that are prevalent in the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant. The choice of constructing the research questions with these terms is based on the conceptualization of “identities” in the Great Replacement theory, as well as the reason that the manifesto excludes certain “Europeans”, from the white community as it views e.g. them as “traitors”, which will be elaborated on. Using these broad unspecific – definitions, make possible a nuanced analysis that reveals what lies beyond the loaded and coded terms, which encapsulates the purpose of this paper.

This paper will not refer to a link where the Great Replacement manifesto can be downloaded. Firstly, this is because the manifesto is constantly removed by file sharing websites, where it is uploaded. Secondly, it is because several of the webpages where the manifesto is accessible contain far-right and offensive content, which there is no reason for sharing in a paper like this that tries to critique such contents. The .pdf-file containing the manifesto that has been used during the process of producing this paper was retrieved on the webpage www.mediafire.com via the original Christchurch-post, on 8chan March 15th, 2019. The page on Mediafire, where the file was uploaded by the alleged perpetrator does no longer exist. Therefore, the full manifesto will be attached with the appendix (see Appendix B). The manifesto is not uploaded in its completely original version but has been edited with the an adding of page numbers, to make it easier to navigate through.

Analysis

The analysis of this paper is split into two parts, the first being a textual analysis and the second an analysis of the discursive practice, of the manifesto. It should be noted that the textual analysis is divided into two sub-chapters; the first analyzing how the manifesto constructs concepts and identities of “Europe” and “European people” in relation to “non-European” people (“Our lands will never be their lands”), and the second analyzing how the manifesto constructs its author Brenton Tarrant (“Just a ordinary White man”).

Textual Analysis

“Our lands will never be their lands”

“If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 3). Obsessed with the birthrates in Europe (the word is written 12 times throughout the manifesto, along with “fertility”, which is written 24 times), the text starts off with collectivizing “European” people as a collective that transcends borders. “The Great Replacement”, the manifesto claims, is an existential threat to the survival of Europe, constituted by the proximity of the migrated Other, that by “nature” is much more reproductive than the European population. The categorization of “Europeans” and “Non-Europeans” produces a binary narrative, an “us” and “them”-rhetoric where the Other is seen an existential threat and inferior subject within “Europe”.

“To maintain a population the people must achieve a birthrate that reaches replacement fertility levels. In the Western world this is roughly 2.06 births per woman” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 3). The manifesto claims early on, how the role of European women is to (re)produce European children, for the survival of the “race”. “Millions of people pouring across our borders, legally.Invited by the state and corporate entities to replace the White people who have failed to reproduce, failed to create the cheap labour, new consumers and tax base that the corporations and states need to thrive” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 3). The text clearly states how the concept of “Europeans” is synonymous “white” people, and that the threat is constituted by a collectivized, homogenous unity of immigrant Others. They are constructed as an oppositional force to white Europeans. The “millions of people pouring across ‘our’ borders” are at once constructed as actively entering, penetrating, borders that are not “theirs”, but white. The Others are, in both a metaphorical and literal sense, “pouring” through European borders, constructed as a natural catastrophe. Thus, they are incompatible with the environment of white European nations, imported by political and economic elites, who wish to substitute the environment and “natural” order.

The manifesto asks why Tarrant committed the attack, answering that it is “to show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 5), where the text moves on to state it is a revenge act for “Young, innocent and dead Ebba” (Tarrant, 2019, 7). Here the text refers to Ebba Åkerlund, the 11-year-old girl who was murdered in the terror attack in Stockholm, Sweden in 2017. Attempting to draw on a globally established sensational narrative, the personalization of Ebba illustrates the embodiment of the victims of the replacement. The phrase “young, innocent and dead Ebba” makes clear, that the “invader” (which is mentioned more than 50 times throughout the manifesto) – meaning all immigrants who are not white and embodied by the Stockholm terrorist Rahmat Akilov – is constructed as a brute, willing to attack even the youngest and most harmless beings that constitute the idea of Europeans. The innocence of Ebba makes her a representation of a feminized and victimized Europe, that is under attack.

The concept of Europe and Europeans is elaborated on, in the answer “What makes you believe you are European, not just an Australian?” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 21), that the manifesto asks Tarrant himself. Answering “…Australian is a European colony, particularly of British stock and thereby an extension of Europe” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 21), widens the idea of fighting for “Europe” as not only being the struggle for the white “race”, but being a fight that transcends national and even regional borders. The construction of the European community becomes a transnational and white community, which Tarrant himself is an embodied manifestation of. While he may not be a son of New Zealand, he is a son of the extended European, white community, and his acts of terror toward those who he does not perceive as Europeans, is constructed an act of solidarity with those living in New Zealand that he views as members of his white nation.

Repeating the word “truth” four times in the beginnings of several paragraphs on one page, the text discusses how radicalization of “young Western men” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 34) is inevitable to the manifesto's narrative. The manifesto suggests that it is only through violent action that the truth of the replacement can be revealed to the masses, who are otherwise deceived by mainstream media and politicians. The manifesto constructs itself as the bearer of truth, the revelation of which is necessary for the survival of the European race. This narrative frames the terrorist act as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good of the white community, positioning the author as a martyr and hero fighting against the perceived threat of replacement.

The construction of the author, Brenton Tarrant, within the manifesto is that of an ordinary white man who has been radicalized by the existential threat posed by the replacement. By presenting himself as an average individual who has been driven to extreme action by circumstances beyond his control, the manifesto attempts to normalize and justify the terrorist act. Tarrant portrays himself as a reluctant hero who has taken it upon himself to defend his people and way of life from the encroaching tide of immigration and multiculturalism.

However, despite the attempts to portray himself as a sympathetic figure, the manifesto also contains elements of arrogance and narcissism. Tarrant revels in the attention and notoriety that his actions have brought him, boasting about the media coverage and public reaction to his manifesto. This self-aggrandizement is coupled with a sense of entitlement and superiority, as Tarrant sees himself as a savior figure who is destined to lead the white race to victory over its enemies.

Overall, the textual analysis of the manifesto reveals a complex and deeply troubling narrative that seeks to justify and glorify an act of mass violence. By framing the terrorist act as a necessary response to the perceived threat of replacement, the manifesto attempts to legitimize and normalize extremist ideology. However, the underlying message of hate and intolerance is clear, and the consequences of such rhetoric are both dangerous and destructive.