IndexPower, ideology and hegemonyFairclough's three-dimensional modelResearch materials and analysis strategyTextual analysisDiscursive practiceSocial practiceEthical considerationsAnalysisTextual analysisThe understanding of discourse analysis on which this article focuses, and what will be described in the following section is Norman's Critical Discourse Analysis Fairclough. It keeps discourse distinct from other social dimensions and focuses on textual, spoken and semiological systems (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 18). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There are five commonalities described by Phillips and Jørgensen on how different approaches to CDA work and they are linked to the interpretation of discourse as something that works ideologically, how language is examined within social contexts, linked to processes socio-cultural and as well as the critical characteristics of CDA systems (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, pp. 60-64). The research in this article works with the interpretation of discourse as that which is both constituted and constitutive. In other words, discourse is a social practice that constitutes the social world while being constituted by social practices; it helps to (re)shape social structures within social worlds, while being a reflection of them. In the context of this master's thesis, the discourse therefore benefits the elaboration of social structures in the digital and “real life” sense, reflecting them at the same time. This article interprets discourse as a form of action, where people are able to mobilize change in the digital world and in “real life”. Below follows an overview of the five common characteristics of critical discourse analysis: The practices through which texts are produced and consumed, discursive practice, are seen as constitutive of social practice. It has an effect on the formation of social identities, relationships and social systems in the world (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 therefore require the analysis of other methodological tools (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 61) Cultural reproduction and change social is partially enabled by the discursive practices of everyday life, which make cultural and social processes structured as linguistic-discursive (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 61). What the 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 article, discourse is understood and used as an idea that includes written language as well as images. Where applicable, the focus will be on visual semiotics in the same way as the analysis of the relationship between language and images, treating images as if they were texts. Images, whether visual or metaphorical, will be treated, "read" and analyzed as texts (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011). As described above, this article aligns with Phillips and Jørgensen's conception of discourse as being in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions, as discourse constitutes and is constituted by social practices and is in constant interaction with historically situated social structures ; Together with social dimensions, discursive dimensions constitute understanding of the world (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 62). Phillips and Jørgensen state that the third common characteristic is that CDA participates in specific analyseslinguistic-textual understanding of language use in social communication (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 62), detaching it from other discourse theories such as discursive psychology, where linguistic approaches are not emphasized (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011) The fourth commonality states that discursive practices contribute to creating and reproducing (unequal) power relations between social groups, for example on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, religion, age, physical and psychological abilities. The fifth commonality highlights 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. The critique aims to uncover the role of discursive practice in maintaining unequal power relations, with the overall aim of harnessing the findings of critical discourse analysis in the struggle for radical social change.” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 64)Power, ideology and hegemonyIt has been written previously how this article understands discourse within a dialectical relationship with social aspects, (re-)shapes, takes shape and reflects social structures . Therefore, discourse contributes to the maintenance and reproduction of current social structures, helps to develop them, as it establishes society and culture, with discursive practices that build identities, relationships and representations. This leads to discursive practices of representation that have ideological effects, which has the consequence of contributing to the production and reproduction of unequal power dynamics between social groups. (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; Wodak and Meyer, 2009). Power refers to relations of difference and the effects of these differences in the communities and social networks that constitute societies. Therefore, discourse, because it is connected to power, offers the tools to constitute differences in social power, which can be founded through ideology. Ideologies are regularly disguised in discourses as “conceptual analogies and metaphors” (Wodak and Meyer, 2009). Discourse, therefore, operates ideologically, and for this reason, CDA is concerned with ideology, revealing power relations through the exposition of ideologies, as ideologies are often imprecise. constructions of society (Meyer and Wodak, 2009; Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). Thus, since the CDA is interested in ideology, this article also focuses critically on ideology and is in line with Norman Fairclough's understanding of the concept. It states that ideologies are specific constructions of meanings and practices, which represent and construct power relations of domination in societies, and therefore help to produce and reproduce power relations within society's social dynamics and structures. This process is enacted by interactions, which are communicated through identities, which are (ideologically) established within power dynamics (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011: Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Fairclough sees 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 it possible to analyze and understand how discursive practice is interconnected to more comprehensive social practices, involving power relations. Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011) Critical discourse analysis emphasizes its focus on how discursive practices construct identities, relationships and representations in connection with power relations, and how these dynamics maintain inequalities between social groups. InIn this context, this article builds on Fairclough's emphasis on CDA as a method for researching the connections of power struggles between "discursive practices, events and texts, and broader social and cultural structures, relationships and processes" (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 63). Fairclough's Three-Dimensional Model Since this article builds on Fairclough's work on critical discourse analysis, this section of the chapter describes Fairclough's interdisciplinary approach to discourse analysis and how textual analysis combines with an analysis of discursive and social practices in the analyzed data. Fairclough is critical of analytical tools that exclusively employ a linguistic approach in discourse analysis, as they risk focusing only on textual content, without including a macro-scale discussion of how discourses relate to social relations, identities and power structures. This article builds on Fairclough's understanding of the importance of focusing on the relationship between text, social and cultural practices and structures, throughout analysis (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011). The CDA approach provided by Fairclough enables an analytical framework, with interconnected concepts within a three-dimensional model, focusing on the following traditions; “detailed textual analysis in the field of linguistics” (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011, p. 65); “macrosociological analysis of social practice” (ibid); and “micro-sociological interpretive traditions within society” (ibid). This approach uses detailed textual analysis to linguistically understand the functions of discursive processes in texts. It uses a macrosociological analysis of social practice and recognizes how social practices are shaped by power relations and social structures. The microsociological interpretive tradition provides insight into understanding how people construct worlds through everyday performance. These traditions and ideas in this article are realized through Fairclough's analytical framework for communication research in society, through the three-dimensional model of an analysis of textual content, discursive practice and social practice (Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011). Fairclough states how Communicative events, as part of the content of language, include these three dimensions, which requires the researcher to include them when conducting a discourse analysis. Discourse analysis should therefore 1) at the textual level, emphasize the linguistic features of the text, such as vocabulary and metaphors, etc., to illustrate where its discourses operate linguistically. 2) When focusing on discursive practice, the analysis should emphasize the processes of production and consumption in relation to the text and how the discourses of the text draw on other existing discourses. This can be done by classifying the specific language used in the text, to allow the presence of specific political discourse to be identified, for example. 3) In analyzing social practice, the analysis discusses more comprehensive relationships, at the macro level, between the text and social practices in society. This level of analysis should be accompanied with reference to culture or cultural theory, as a discourse analysis 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 used throughout the analysis, even though the dimensions intersect and are related. Fairclough's three-dimensional model will be used as a framework to illustrate how language and society are related. It should be noted that the analysis uses the analytical structure as a linesuggestive guidance and that the model is not prescriptive. The analysis is representative of the author's interpretations of this article (Fairclough, 1992). Research material and analysis strategy The original manifesto file, formally titled “The Great Replacement – ​​Toward a New Society We March Ever Forwards” (Tarrant, 2019) was uploaded to 8chan (8ch.net) on March 15, 2019, composed 74 pages and approximately 15,430 words. ”, The manifesto is not clearly structured and begins with a poem by Dylan Thomas and an introduction arguing that the white race is threatened with extermination (p. 1-3). The first third of the manifesto is constructed as three simulated “question and answer sessions” (p. 4-22) in which the manifesto asks questions regarding the motivations of the terrorist attack and the terrorist's ideals. The first question and answer session is structured to answer general questions, the second is directed at his supporters and the third is directed at those who oppose his action. This is followed by an edited version of a poem by Rudyard Kipling and some pages with messages directed at “conservatives”, “Christians”, “antifa/Marxists/communists” and “Turks” (p. 23-28). The rest of the manifesto until the end discusses “General thoughts and potential strategies” (p. 29-72), such as what is perceived as a natural connection between the environment and nationalism, why men in the West are becoming radicalized and “enemies high profile” made up of individual politicians. This is followed by a conclusion (pp. 72-74) and a final page with a montage of eight images of women, men and children, represented through idealized narratives about gender and nature, which will be further elaborated in the analysis chapter. The data analyzed consists of extracts from the manifesto which discusses the constructions of “European” and “non-European” identities, as well as the constructions of its author Brenton Tarrant. The content of the poster is repetitive, the different identities and perceived "races" are described with different terms that are used as synonyms, such as "non-Europeans", "invaders", "immigrants" and "Europeans", "whites" and " native Europeans." The excerpts used to analyze were chosen through passages that discuss these terms, to attempt to reflect on how the content of the manifesto draws on discourses within contemporary far-right digital, physical, intellectual and parliamentary movements, and constructs of a white idealized imagined community. The analysis strategy in this article consists of analyzing excerpts from the Great Replacement manifesto; they are researched through a textual analysis which is followed by an analysis of the discursive practice of the poster. The chapter on social practice will build on the writings of the analysis chapter will draw on Sara Ahmed's writings on the cultural politics of emotion, building on Benedict Anderson's concept of nations as “imagined communities”. Textual analysis The aim of textual analysis is to research linguistic features of the text, to illustrate how its discourses are activated textually. Emphasis is placed on the way in which the text contributes to the construction of specific representations of identity and social relations, as well as representations of the world. The analysis makes use of various linguistic tools; such as wording, metaphors, ethics to name a few characteristics. These linguistic tools reveal how the discourses in the manifesto function. Rhetorical or metaphorical features can reveal “hidden” ideologies or specific elements in the text. The textual analysis then discusses how the use of metaphors shapes understanding of the world and also illustrates what factors may have influenced metaphor use. Interpreting the meanings of words and specific words, the analysis reflects onhow theoretical, ideological, and cultural perspectives are linked to word choice. The analysis focuses on keywords with meaning and aims to identify the specific meaning underlying them (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011). The analysis seeks nominalization with choices in connection to voice, active or passive, to identify processes of responsibility and agency in the manifesto. The chapter analyzes the ethics of the text, analyzing the aspects that contribute to the construction of identities, through the use of grammar. Furthermore, the analysis examines identity constructions and action processes by analyzing how the text collectivises, individuates and personalizes its content (Fairclough, 1992;Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011). Textual analysis uses a multimodal analytical approach to be able to interpret the visual characteristics of the text, such as the images on the final page of the poster. This is to better understand how images contribute to specific representations of social identities and the world and to personalization and individualization in text (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Discursive Practice Analyzing the discursive practice of the text focuses on identifying how and which discourses are drawn upon. Attention is placed on the interdiscursivity of the text, to better understand which discursive typologies are used in the text. This chapter places emphasis on whether discursive practice is creative or conventional or not, to better discuss how discursive practice might employ change, discursive and cultural, in relation to the social order. The degree of interdiscursivity in the text can indicate how the text is influenced by, or draws upon, other texts to construct representations of society (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2011; Machin & Mayr 2011). Social practice The chapter on social practice aims to identify the social systems and structures to which discursive practice is connected. This is in order to discuss why discursive practice is constructed as it is and what its potential consequences may be. The chapter on social practice focuses on the order of discursive practice, how different discourses are elaborated and distributed in the manifesto. Social practice links textual analysis and discursive practice with non-discursive social relations and structures. The aim is to reflect on which political, cultural and digital conditions discursive practice relies on. The discussion on social practice aims to evaluate the hegemonic consequences that discursive practice suggests (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips and Jørgensen, 2011). This occurs through the integration of cultural theories, such as the writings on the cultural politics of emotions, produced by Sara Ahmed. This article adheres to Anderson's ideas of a “nation” as an imagined community. A nation is limited, because even the largest nation has borders, and is socially constructed by members of the community who "will never know most of their fellows, will not meet them or even hear of them, and yet in the mind of each lives the image of their communion” (Andersson, 2006, p. 6). This argument is developed by Sara Ahmed, seeing the imagined community as a collective body. The imagined community can therefore use feelings such as hatred and fear used by the proximity of “others”. Others, such as “non-Europeans”, are attributed characteristics, “sticky images” such as culture or “natural” abilities that can construct them as “foreign” and “against” the “European” community. When a discourse constructs the nation as “invaded,” Ahmed claims that the nation becomes a gendered and feminized body, a “soft nation” that is “too emotional, to be easily moved bydemands of others”… “Such attributes are obviously 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 deal with in relation to the production and distribution of this article, and this small chapter attempts to address some of them. As stated at the start of this article, there has been no news regarding Brenton Tarrant's mental health inquiry, issued by High Court Judge Cameron Mander. It will only be after these investigations that the High Court will decide whether Tarrant is fit to stand trial and receive his sentence. As Brenton Tarrant has not yet been convicted, this document does not purport to state that Tarrant is guilty of the judicially made charges of murder and attempted murder, something which will be decided no earlier than June 2019. Although he has not been judicially found guilty of the charges, BrentonTarrant is named throughout the paper, having appeared in globally recognized and respected newspapers and media outlets such as the New York Times, The Guardian, Al-Jazeera and the BBC. It should be noted that there were considerations regarding the use of categories such as “European people” and “non-European immigrants” and “descendants of non-European immigrants”, with reference to the formulation of the research question and, subsequently, to the entire article. It could be seen as risking reproducing the far-right discourses prevalent in Brenton Tarrant's manifesto. The choice to construct the research questions with these terms is based on the conceptualization of “identities” in Great Replacement theory, as well as why the manifesto excludes some “Europeans” from the white community as it sees them, for example, as “ traitors”, which will be explored further. Using these broad, non-specific definitions, enables a nuanced analysis that reveals what lies beyond the loaded and coded terms, which encapsulates the purpose of this document. This document will not refer to a link where you can download the Great Replacement manifesto. Firstly, this is due to the fact that the poster is constantly being removed from file sharing sites, where it is uploaded. Secondly, it is because many of the web pages where the manifesto is accessible contain offensive and far-right content, which there is no reason to share in a newspaper like this one that attempts to criticize such content. The .pdf file containing the manifesto that was used during the production process of this document was retrieved on the web page www.mediafire.com via the original Christchurch post, on 8chan on 15 March 2019. The page on Mediafire, where the file uploaded by the alleged author no longer exists. Therefore the complete manifesto will be attached in the appendix (see Appendix B). The manifesto is not uploaded in its completely original version but has been modified with the addition of page numbers, to facilitate navigation.AnalysisThe analysis of this article is divided into two parts, the first textual analysis and the second a analysis of discursive practice, of the manifesto. It should be noted that the textual analysis is divided into two subchapters; the first analyzing how the manifesto constructs concepts and identities of "Europe" and "European people" in relation to "non-European" peoples ("Our lands will never be their lands"), and the second analyzing how the manifesto constructs its author Brenton Tarrant (“Just a Regular White Man”). Textual Analysis “Our lands will never be their lands” “If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, it is that birth rates must change. Even if we deported all non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still find themselves in a spiral ofdecay and finally death” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 3). Obsessed with birth rates in Europe (the word is written 12 times throughout the manifesto, along with “fertility,” which is written 24 times), the text begins with the collectivization of “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, who 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 in which the Other is seen as an existential threat and an inferior subject within “Europe”. “Maintain a population, the people”. must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels. In the Western world this is approximately 2.06 births per woman” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 3). The manifesto states from the beginning how the role of European women is to (re)produce European children, for the survival of the "race". “Millions of people are pouring over our borders, legally. Called upon by state and corporate entities to replace whites who have failed to reproduce, failed to create the cheap labor, new consumers, and tax base that corporations and states need to thrive” (Tarrant, 2019 , p. 3). The text clearly states how the concept of “Europeans” is synonymous with “whites” and that the threat is constituted by a collectivized and homogeneous unity of Other immigrants. They are constructed as an opposition force to white Europeans. The “millions of people pouring across “our” borders” are immediately constructed as actively entering and penetrating borders that are not “theirs,” but white. The Others, both metaphorically and literally, are “pouring” across Europe's borders, constructed as a natural catastrophe. Therefore, they are incompatible with the environment of white European nations, imported by political and economic elites, who wish to replace the “natural” environment and order. The poster asks why Tarrant committed the attack, replying that it is “to show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 5), where the text goes on to state that it is a act of revenge for “The young, innocent and dead Ebba” (Tarrant, 2019, 7). Here the text refers to Ebba Åkerlund, the 11-year-old girl killed in the terrorist attack in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2017. Attempting to draw on a globally established sensational narrative, Ebba's personalization illustrates the embodiment of the victims of the replacement. The phrase “young, innocent and dead Ebba” makes it clear that the “invader” (who is mentioned more than 50 times in 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 who constitute the idea of ​​European. Ebba's innocence makes her the representation of a feminized and victimized Europe, which is under attack. The concept of Europe and Europeans is elaborated in the answer “What makes you believe you are European, not just Australian?” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 21), which the poster asks Tarrant himself. Answering “…Australia is a European colony, in particular of British stock and therefore an extension of Europe” (Tarrant, 2019, p. 21), expands the idea of ​​fighting for “Europe” not only as fight for the white “race,” but being a fight that transcends national and even regional boundaries. The construction of the European community becomes a transnational and white community, of which Tarrant himself is an embodied manifestation. Even though he may not be a child of Nuova.