Wodak - Friend or Foe - The Defamation or Legitimate and Necessary Criticism - Reflections On R PDF

Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517
www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom
Friend or foe:
the defamation or legitimate and necessary
criticism? Reflections on recent political
discourse in Austria
Ruth Wodak*
Forschungsschwerpunkt, Diskurs, Politik, Identität, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Austria
Abstract
This paper illustrates the necessity of very differentiated approaches to context when ana-
lyzing political discourses. Specifically, the case of antisemitic rhetoric will be regarded
because antisemitic beliefs were tabooed in official domains, in postwar Austria. Nevertheless,
politicians continued to use such prejudices for political purposes. Certain linguistic devices,
like presuppositions and insinuations can only be understood and interpreted when enough
co-text and context knowledge is assumed. The paper argues for an interdisciplinary approach
in the Social Sciences, because such complex problems, like populism, racism or antisemitism
cannot be grasped by one traditional discipline. It also argues for an intertextual approach
which regards historical developments and socio-political factors while analyzing discourses.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Critical discourse analysis; Allusion; Antisemitic discourse; Rightwing populist rhetoric;
Theories of context; Postwar Austria
1. Introduction
This paper considers the expression of anti-Semitic prejudices in post-war Austria

(see Wodak et al., 1990; Mitten, 1992, 1997, 2000; Reisigl and Wodak, 2001a,b).
Because of Nazi atrocities and the involvement of many Austrians in the Shoah,
explicit anti-Semitic utterances were tabooed in official contexts after 1945.
Nevertheless, many empirical quantitative and qualitative studies have illustrated
that anti-Semitism continued to exist, with the same stereotypes and prejudices
* Fax: +43-1-710-2510-6208.
E-mail address: ruth.wodak@oeaw.ac.at (R. Wodak).
0271-5309/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0271-5309(02)00022-8
496 R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517
as during the Nazi period as well as before 1938. Moreover, several new stereo-
types were created in relation to compensation issues, which primarily accused Jews
of ‘‘being rich anyway’’ and ‘‘exploiting a population which was itself a victim’’ (see
Marin, 2000; Wodak, 2001a). It is impossible to recapitulate the history of
anti-Semitic prejudice in Austria in this paper (but see Mitten, 1997). Nevertheless, it
is important to state that anti-Semitism has been and still is functionalized for
political reasons in the Second Austrian Republic, too. We are dealing with
‘‘syncretic anti-Semitism’’: whenever necessary, old and new stereotypes are used in
political debates which formerly were attributed to specific types or forms of anti-
Semitism, such as ‘‘racist anti-Semitism; Christian anti-Semitism; political anti-
Semitism, and so on. Secondly, it is also relevant to know that a whole
range of expressions and linguistic realizations of anti-Semitic prejudices exist,
from allusions and insinuations down to very blatant slurs (see Reisigl and Wodak,
2001a,b).
The ‘‘Waldheim affair’’ of 1986 brought this whole range of possible anti-Semitic
expressions to the fore. In a study of this affair, we were able to systematize and
analyze these discourses which are embedded in a ‘‘discourse of justification’’ (see
below; Wodak et al., 1990). Whenever sensitive topics relating to the Shoah and the
Austrian Nazi past are mentioned, justifications take over which easily degenerate
into accusatory invectives and discursive and argumentative strategies (‘‘blaming the
victim’’; ‘‘victim-perpetrator reversal’’).
However, because of the taboo on explicit anti-Semitic utterances in public
domains, specifically in official political discourses, a different mode of expressing
anti-Semitic prejudices and stereotypes was created after 1945, which we have
labeled elsewhere (Wodak, in press; Mitten, 1997) ‘‘discourses of silence’’ or
‘‘discourses of allusions’’. This means that anti-Semitic contents can only be inferred
to by listeners/viewers/readers who know the background and also the genesis of
such allusions/insinuations or presuppositions. In any case, if accused, the
speaker can always justify him- or herself by stating that s/he did not ‘‘mean’’ what
others implied had been said. This fact makes the analysis of such prejudiced
discourse a real challenge for discourse analysts, because the context of the
utterance has to be integrated into the analysis. Below, I will therefore elaborate on
the concept of ‘‘context’’ in our specific discourse-historical approach (see Reisigl
and Wodak, 2001a,b; Wodak, 2001). Only by taking the larger context and the co-
text of utterances into account, it is possible to grasp the intertextuality and
interdiscursivity of whole discourses on ethnic groups or on specific persons.
Moreover, certain topoi are recontextualized from one public domain to the
next, but realized through different linguistic devices (Iedema, 1999; Wodak,
2000b,c). A comprehensive analysis should thus relate different approaches and
theories from neighbouring disciplines as well. To understand anti-Semitic
discourses, it is important to turn to historical, socio-psychological, sociological,
psychoanalytic and political claims because the phenomenon is so complex (see
Wodak and Reisigl, 1999). In this paper, I cannot summarize all these different,
but relevant theoretical and methodological theories. I will highlight only those,
which help understand and explain the specific case-study in this paper, which
R. Wodak / Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517 497
deals with the most recent manifestation of anti-Semitic prejudice in political

discourse: the utterances by Jörg Haider against the president of the Jewish
community in Vienna, Ariel Muzikant, during the Vienna election campaign 2001
(see also Wodak and Pelinka, 2002).
To be able to analyze these discourses adequately, it is important to focus first on
the theoretical concepts of ‘‘context’’, ‘‘criticism’’, ‘‘stereotype’’ etc. in more general
terms. Then, I will elaborate the two most recent discursive strategies of the Free-
dom Party (and also of the second coalition party, the People’s Party; see Rosen-
berger, 2001). The range of argumentative strategies and insinuations will illustrate
new dimensions of the discursive construction of the ‘‘other’’ in discourse.1 More
importantly, the precise discourse analysis will illustrate how important it might be
to integrate several levels of context and a multi-theoretical approach when analyz-
ing political communication.
2. What are we talking about?
2.1. Defamation, criticism, stereotype, prejudice
Since ancient times political discourse has employed particular rhetorical

strategies of argumentation, which turn up in many different cultures and epochs
(see Kienpointner, 1992). Among them are the most important rhetorical tropes,
such as metaphor, synecdoche and metonymy, and also rules of argumentation and
guidelines for particular types of political text. The contents are, of course, always
different and new, but the instruments themselves are old and familiar (Reisigl and
Wodak, 2001a,b).
Before we turn to the concrete examples from the Vienna election campaign of
2001, and in particular the attempts to legitimize anti-Semitic prejudices with
recourse to ‘‘legitimate criticism’’, it may be useful, by way of introduction, to
consider a number of definitions of terms and categories. On the one hand a number
of important concepts from prejudice research and rhetoric may be briefly reviewed,
and on the other hand some important linguistic concepts and terms. Both of these
are essential to an understanding of the following discourse analysis.
I am fully aware that some of these definitions are derived from a different genre—
from encyclopedias and manuals, that is, from an archive of knowledge. And yet I
am deliberately using the acknowledged codified authorities, since a number of
different theoretical approaches will always remain eclectic and contestable.2 I
1
The new government in Austria, which brought about the so-called ‘‘Wende’’ was installed on 4
February 2000. Immediately after its installation, the other member states of the EU decided on ‘‘mea-
sures against the government’’ because—for the first time in the history of the EU—an extremist right-
wing populist party was part of a government (for this debate and development, see Kopeinig and
Kotanko, 2000; Wodak, 2000a,d; Wodak and Pelinka, 2002).
2
cf. the many debates on the term ‘prejudice’ in: Allport (1993), Adorno et al. (1950), Van Dijk (1984,
1993), Potter and Wetherell (1994), Wodak and Reisigl (1999) and Reisigl and Wodak (2001a,b).
therefore request readers to view the following definitions with a little patience, in
order to be able to set them against the quoted texts:3
‘‘Beschimpfen’’ (to abuse) therefore means ‘‘to insult’’, to withdraw from factual
argument. Emotionality certainly plays a role in discourses of this kind. Frequently
metaphors and analogies are indeed used as abuse.4 For example, the Federal Ger-
man Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was described as a ‘‘bomb in Berlin’’ by the
Carinthian provincial governor in his Ash Wednesday speech of 28 February 2001,
which made headlines throughout the world because of his insults of the President of
the Israelite Community in Vienna, Dr. Ariel Muzicant. In this same speech the
German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, was described as a ‘‘terrorist’’. And in
the context of this speech Jörg Haider even thought up a poem ‘‘in Honor of
Joschka Fischer’’ that we ought to reproduce here (www.fpö-ltklub-oö.at):
Who is kicking the watchman
Who is hitting him so hard in the face?
It’s Joschka, this lefty devil.
He’s punishing him with his feet
And making the poor man suffer for nothing.
But wait, what do I see?
There are three of them, right!
Alone he wouldn’t have been brave enough,
The green softy! (own translation)
People can therefore be abused in many ways, and the Ash Wednesday speech of
2001, in the Jahn gymnasium in Ried, presented us with a broad palette of
possibilities. The frequently cited justification to excuse Haider, that it was a
‘‘carnival speech’’, is astonishing in the context of Catholic Austria, since Ash
Wednesday is not part of the carnival period, with its jolly carnival behavior, but is
subject to quite different norms and traditions. Ash Wednesday, in terms of the
liturgical year, marks the beginning of a 40-day period of repentance and reflection
as a preparation for the Christian festival of Easter. To play it down in this way,
therefore, is vacuous.
Kritik (criticism). . . {fr.critique < gr. Kritike=art of judgment. . .1. [specialist]
assessment and its utterance in appropriate words: an objective, justified, open,
helpful friendly, factual, positive, negative, hard K. ‘I don’t object to constructive
criticism, and sometimes I deserve to be criticized’ [Spiegel 1985(37), p. 125] (2)
. . .find fault with: ‘his criticism (of the circumstances) disturbed none of them; she
cannot stand criticism’. . .5
‘‘Criticism’’ is to do with judgment or assessment. An utterance, a piece of work,
an idea or a piece of behaviour may be judged. ‘‘Criticism’’, however, should be
3
The full discourse of the Vienna electoral campaign, as well as the speech in Ried on 28 February
2001, have been analyzed in detail in Wodak and Reisigl (2001), Linguistisches Sachverständigen-
Gutachten, Wien.
4 1
2000 Dudenverlag: DUDEN (2000). Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 10 vols. on CD-
Rom.
5 1
2000 Dudenverlag: DUDEN (2000) Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 10 vols. on CD-
Rom Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut F.A. Brockhaus AG, 2000.
factual and make the assessment criteria explicit. ‘‘Criticism’’ makes disagreement,
discussion and debate possible. ‘‘Criticism’’ may also be rejected, with appropriate
argument or evidence. Or else a ‘‘counter-criticism’’ may be expressed.
In contrast to this we may consider another important concept: ‘‘prejudice’’. Pre-
judices are often disguised as factual criticism, as judgment than can be substantiated.
In other words, prejudices are presented as ‘‘criticism’’: what are the differences
here?
‘‘Vorurteil’’: ‘‘prejudice’’: opinion hastily formed or adopted without examination
of objective facts, mostly characterized by hostile feelings towards someone or
something. . .6 According to this ‘‘prejudices’’ are neither proved nor provable. They
rely on beliefs and opinions that are generalized, on judgments that are transferred
from individuals to an entire group. Prejudices cannot be discussed, since they
depend on affective opinions and serve to confirm world-views. Prejudices depend
on group-formation, on the constitution of ‘‘we’’ and ‘‘others’’. The ‘‘others’’ are
devalued, evaluated, without factual evidence and debate. They are often accused,
insulted and defamed. Prejudices are essentially hostile. Among them we may also
include ‘‘stereotypes’’:7
Simplifying, generalizing. . .judgment, [unjustified] prejudgment of oneself, or
another or a thing, fixed cliché-ridden image. . .8
2.2. Theorizing context
One methodical way for critical discourse analysts to minimize the risk of critical
baseness and to avoid simply politicizing, instead of accurately analyzing, is to
follow the principle of triangulation. One of the most salient features of the dis-
course-historical approach is its endeavour to work interdisciplinarily, multi-
methodically and on the basis of a variety of different empirical data as well as
background information (see Wodak, 2000b,c, 2001b; Wodak and Meyer, 2001).
Depending on the respective object of investigation, it attempts to transcend the
pure linguistic dimension and to include more or less systematically the historical,
political, sociological and/or psychological dimension in the analysis and inter-
pretation of a specific discursive occasion.
In investigating historical and political topics and texts, the discourse-historical
approach attempts to integrate much available knowledge about the historical
sources and the background of the social and political fields in which discursive
‘‘events’’ are embedded. Further, it analyzes the historical dimension of discursive
actions by exploring the ways in which particular genres of discourse are subject to
diachronic change, i.e. the intertextuality and interdiscursivity.
6 1
Rom, Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut F.A. Brockhaus AG, 2000.
7
Wodak and Reisigl (1999) give an overview of the most important scientific literature on the forma-
tion of prejudice, on the motivation behind prejudice and on the analysis of every kind of prejudice, be it
sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic or racist. I refer readers to the voluminous literature on this topic.
8 1
Rom, Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut F.A. Brockhaus AG, 2000.
Fig. 1. Levels of theories and linguistic analysis.
In accordance to other approaches devoted to Critical Discourse Analysis the

discourse-historical approach perceives both written and spoken language as a form
of social practice (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997). A discourse is a way of signifying a
particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective (Fairclough, 1995,
p. 14). As critical discourse analysts we assume a dialectical relationship between
particular discursive practices and the specific fields of action (including situations,
institutional frames and social structures) in which they are embedded. On the one
hand, the situational, institutional and social settings shape and affect discourses,
and on the other, discourses influence discursive as well as non-discursive social and
political processes and actions. In other words, discourses as linguistic social prac-
tices can be seen as constituting non-discursive and discursive social practices and, at
the same time, as being constituted by them.
Our triangulatory approach is based on a concept of ‘‘context’’ which takes into
account four levels; the first one is descriptive, while the other three levels are part of
our theories on context:
1. the immediate, language or text internal co-text;

2. the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts,
genres and discourses;
3. the extralinguistic social/sociological variables and institutional frames of a
specific ‘‘context of situation’’ (Middle Range Theories);
4. the broader sociopolitical and historical contexts, which the discursive
practices are embedded in and related to (Fig. 1: Grand Theories).
In our example, I will illustrate each level of context and make the sequential
analysis transparent, following the categories of analysis, which will be defined
below. Specifically, we will be concerned with the four levels of context and the
linguistic means, which relate the contexts with each other. This implies that we have
to demonstrate how certain utterances realized through linguistic devices point to
extra-linguistic contexts, diachronically and synchronically. In our case, we are
dealing with anti-Semitic remarks, which can only be understood by analyzing
certain implications and presuppositions as well as insinuations. The impact of such
a discourse, however, can be grasped when relating such meanings to the Austrian
history and political developments, and most importantly, to the instrumentaliza-
tion of anti-Semitism.
Thus, we start out by the context of the history of anti-Semitism in Austria, then
try to integrate theories on the development of the Freedom Party and its populist
rhetoric, as well as the event of negotiating compensation in the years 2000 and 2001
for the survivors of the Shoah. The immediate context is the Vienna election cam-
paign, and Haider’s role in the campaign as well as his speech in Ried, on 1 March
2001. When analyzing the chain of utterances from January 2001 up to the election
itself, we can study certain interdiscursive and intertextual phenomena. The
linguistic devices, like insinuations and presuppositions, then have to be linked to all
the context layers just mentioned.
2.3. Some linguistic terms
Let us now turn to a number of linguistic terms that are of particular importance
for the description of post-war anti-Semitism in Austria:
Since in the case we are concerned with ‘‘allusions’’ are of central importance, they
ought to given more detailed consideration: through allusions (cf. also Wodak et al.,
1990) one can suggest negative associations without being held responsible for them.
Ultimately the associations are only suggested. The listeners must make them in the
act of reception (Wodak and de Cillia, 1988, p. 10). Allusions depend on shared
knowledge. The person who alludes to something counts on a preparedness for
resonance, i.e. on the preparedness of the recipients consciously to call to mind the
facts that are alluded to.
In the area of politics, allusions may have the intention, and achieve the result, of
devaluing political opponents, without accepting responsibility for what is implicitly
said, because this was not, of course, said explicitly: at best an invitation was given to
make particular connections. What is not pronounced creates, in the case of allusions,
a kind of secrecy, and familiarity suggests something like ‘‘we all know what is
meant’’. The world of experience or allusion exists, however, in a kind of ‘‘repertoire
of collective knowledge’’. Allusions frequently rely on topoi and linguistic patterns
already in play which show a clear meaning content (cf. ‘‘East Coast’’; v. Mitten,
1992), or which point to well-established and perhaps even anti-Semitic stereotypes
(such as ‘‘Jewish speculators and crooks’’; cf. Wodak and de Cillia, 1988, p. 15).
Franz Januschek defines ‘‘allusions’’ in the following way:
[. . .] In contrast to slogans, allusions require active, thinking and discriminating

recipients. Not everyone can understand allusions, and those who do understand
them have to do something about it: they have to give meaning to the allusion.
The creator of the allusion can thereby renounce responsibility for the meaning
that arises: he may distance himself. In other words: allusions can be very short
— but they can never be one-sided communicative acts. And, allusions may be
understand in a highly explosive way — but always so subtly that they provoke
contradiction and cannot be casually filed away in particular drawers. Whereas
electoral slogans tend to cause fragmented discourse to break down completely,
allusions drive it forward. Under the conditions of fragmentized political
communications they are the linguistic means that relies on the fact that citi-
zens, under these same conditions, generally act intelligently and not merely as
puppets for the cleverest manipulators (Januschek, 1994).
Allusions are conscious references to common experiences; but the level and
degree of this consciousness can differ. If someone uses the word ‘‘special treatment’’
(Sonderbehandlung) today, in most cases they can hardly be aware of the fact that
this could be understood as an allusion to the gassing of a selected proportion of the
newly arrived transports of detainees at the Auschwitz annihilation camp.
While the act of allusion is fundamentally symbolic, what is alluded to may be
both symbolic and non-symbolic behavior. To put this in more concrete terms: one
can allude to utterances, but also to events, processes, and practical actions. A
general characterization of the function of allusions must bring out their group-
including or excluding effect: the group becomes more aware of its existence as such
and thereby of their difference from all others. Both belong together, although there
may be clear differences of emphasis. In understanding allusions we must distinguish
two stages:
Understanding that there is an allusion

Understanding what is meant by the allusion
In accusing Dr. Ariel Muzicant, Dr. Jörg Haider frequently used allusions. By this
kind of discourse strategy, he (and others) implied certain presuppositions, which
many people saw as ‘‘common sense beliefs’’ or ‘‘shared truth’’. This is, of course,
not a new linguistic strategy in prejudiced discourse. The allusions, as was men-
tioned above, enable politicians and other speakers to deny the possible meaning
attributed to the allusion and refer to the beliefs of the readers or listeners projected
into the utterance.
The concept of presuppositions is central to linguistic pragmatics. The analysis of
presuppositions within speech act theory, which began with John Austin and John
Searle, makes it possible to make explicit the implicit assumptions and intertextual
relations that underlie text-production (see Schiffrin, 1994).
In the case of anti-Semitic allusions, at least since 1945, no enclosed ideological
edifice of anti-Semitism is directly and completely addressed and spelled out. It is
rather that an amalgam of ideological tenets is invoked by linguistic ‘‘clues and traces’’,
Table 1
Types of presupposition
Type Example Presupposition
Existential The X >> X exists

Factive I regret having done that >> I did it
Non-factive He claimed to be a teacher >> He was not a teacher
Lexical She managed to escape >> She attempted to escape
Structural Who is coming? >> Someone is coming
Counter-factual If I were not ill. . . >> I am ill
in order to relate to a particular set of beliefs and a ‘‘discourse space’’—irrespective

of where the ‘‘roots’’ of this ‘‘discourse space’’ may lead.
There are many linguistic phenomena that have been related to presuppositions.
Here I shall follow the survey given in Yule (1996, chapter 4), which concentrates on
four types (see Table 1).
Finally, I would like to consider the term ‘‘word play’’. In his most famous remark
during the election campaign, Haider made a word play on ‘‘Ariel’’, Muzicant’s first
name. This was then relativized as a ‘‘joke’’, as ‘‘irony’’ and so on, in the sense of
‘‘why not have a bit of fun during the carnival [see above]’’?
Word-play (‘‘Play on words’’) means playful use of words, the humorous effect of
which depends particularly on the ambiguity of the words used or on the identical or
similar pronunciation of two related words with different meanings: a funny or silly
word. According to a survey carried out by the New York Times, only one in five
Americans believes that ‘‘Whitewatergate’’ — as the inevitable word has it — is a
matter of national importance [Spiegel, 1994(12), p. 148].
Now that we have presented a number of central terms (for further concepts from
rhetoric the reader is referred to the very substantial literature on the subject9), I will
apply them to examples from the political discourse in Austria since January 2001,
before and during the Vienna election campaign. Thus, the very complex relation-
ships between meanings, discourses and contexts should become transparent.
3. The Vienna Election 2001
In 2001, during the election campaign for the city of Vienna, the capital city of
Austria with a social democratic majority, the Freedom Party (a right extremist
party, similar to Le Pen’s party in France), with its former leader, Dr. Jörg Haider,
began a campaign, which again stimulated anti-Semitic beliefs and prejudices (see
Möhring, 2001; Rosenberger, 2001). Old stereotypes were used as political weapons.
Specifically, this campaign was characterized by vehement attacks on the president
of the Jewish Community, Dr. Ariel Muzicant. The campaign came as no surprise.
Restitution debates and negotiations had just come to an end, and the new
9
cf. footnote 1.
government had decided to pay back some of the aryanized monies and goods to
Jewish victims, after long years of negotiations and after a commission of historians
had started its work some time before this new government had been installed. This
time, the ‘‘play’’ with insinuations or allusions did not work as well as before. The
Freedom Party lost at this election, mostly because the city mayor of Vienna, Dr.
Michael Häupl, very explicitly opposed the anti-Semitic ideologies expressed. The
political debate was very revealing: it centred on the questions of ‘‘freedom of
opinion’’ and ‘‘possible criticism of Jews’’ (as if anyone had ever opposed a rational
criticism of individuals). These new strategies can be seen as part of the justification
discourse in post-war Austria.
In the ‘‘speech in Ried’’ that we have already mentioned, on Ash Wednesday, 28
February 2001, Dr. Jörg Haider made a speech in Ried im Innkreis, Upper Austria,
in which he insulted Dr. Ariel Muzicant, along with a number of other opposition
politicians (see above). The remarks that were broadcast many times on television,
ultimately world-wide, set off a new debate on anti-Semitism in Austria. But it also
led to many explanations, such as ‘‘surely one ought to be able to criticize Jews as
well’’ (see below). Were all of these utterances, then, ‘‘legitimate criticism’’ or
‘‘defamations, insults and prejudices’’? The idea which characterized the debate
from then on, that it was a matter of ‘‘freedom of opinion’’, was quite remarkable:
who can claim ‘‘freedom of opinion’’ and when? Who decides whether something is
subject to decree and when it falls under the basic human right of ‘‘freedom of
opinion’’? Who can accuse whom, and when and why? The functionalization of
‘‘freedom of opinion’’ in the above-mentioned case seems especially surprising and
curious if one considers the so-called ‘‘flood of complaints’’ of recent years in
Austria (Wodak and Pelinka, 2002).
In what follows, I would like to provide a survey of a number of characteristic
quotations from the Vienna election campaign, which illustrate, on the one hand,
the anti-Semitic discourse, and on the other hand, the debate about ‘‘freedom of
opinion’’ and ‘‘criticism’’ that grew out of it. I will not repeat the detailed analysis of
all of these quotations in the present article.10 What is of particular interest here, are
those sequences which are explicitly or implicitly related to the concepts of ‘‘criticism
and freedom of opinion’’ and which define and functionalize them in ways that we
must determine. What I am claiming is, that we are dealing here with ‘‘old and new’’
forms of an anti-Semitic justification discourse which we have been able to observe
in Austria since 1945 (Mitten, 1992) and which we have defined as follows:
Anti-Semitism in post-war Austria is to be seen in relation to the way in which
supposed or actual guilt, supposed or actual accusations are dealt with. Here, as for
as content is concerned, particular use is made of the broad traditional reservoir, of
a discourse of collective experience and attitudes; certain new topoi, however, are
also associated with this. The forms of utterances are very varied, manifest or latent,
explicit or very indirect. In general, however, they may be seen as legitimization
discourses (or as variants of justification and defence) (Wodak et al., 1990)
10
See footnote 3.
4. ‘‘Dreck am Steck’n’’ [‘‘Dirty Linen’’]
Jörg Haider verbatim (chronologically from 21 January to 22 March 2001), report

in ‘‘Der Standard, 22 January 2001, on the FPÖ New Year’s Meeting of 21 January
2001.
‘‘We have other problems than constantly negotiating how we ought to carry
out the reparations’’, said Haider. ‘‘Some time there has to be an end.’’
(,,Wir haben andere Probleme, als ständig zu verhandeln, wie wir Wie-
dergutmachung zu leisten haben‘‘, sprach Haider, ,,einmal muss Schluss sein‘‘).
‘‘Mr. Muzicant will only be satisfied when he has also been paid the 600 Million
Schillings of debts that he has built up in Vienna.’’
(,,Der Herr Muzicant ist erst zufrieden, bis man ihm auch jene 600 Millionen
Schilling Schulden bezahlt, die von ihm in Wien angehäuft worden sind‘‘).
Haider on 21 February 2001 at the opening of the electoral campaign in Oberlaa:
‘‘Mr. Häupl has an election strategist: he’s called Greenberg (loud laughter in
the hall). He had him flown in from the East Coast. My friends, you have a
choice : you can vote for Spin Doctor Greenberg from the East Coast, or for
the Heart of Vienna!’’
(,,Der Häupl hat einen Wahlkampfstrategen, der heisst Greenberg (lautes Lachen
im Saal). Den hat er sich von der Ostküste einfliegen lassen! Liebe Freunde, ihr
habt die Wahl, zwischen Spindoctor Greenberg von der Ostküste, oder dem Wie-
nerherz zu entscheiden!‘‘)
‘‘We don’t need any proclamations from the East Coast. Now we’ve had
enough. Now we’re concerned with another part of our history, reparations to
those driven from their homes.’’
(,,Wir brauchen keine Zurufe von der Ostküste. Jetzt ist es einmal genug. Jetzt
geht es um einen anderen Teil der Geschichte, die Wiedergutmachung für die
Heimatvertriebenen‘‘.)
Haider on 28 February, in his Ash Wednesday Speech:
‘‘Mr. Muzicant: What I don’t understand is how someone called Ariel can have
so much dirty linen. . .’’
(,,Der Herr Muzicant: I versteh überhaupt net, wie ana, der Ariel haßt, so viel
Dreck am Steckn haben kann. . .des versteh i überhaupt net, aber i man. . .das wird
er schon morgen kommentieren, nicht. . . aber ich bin da nicht sehr schreckhaft, in
diesen Fragen. . ..‘‘)
Haider, in a campaign speech on 8 March 2001 in the Gösser brewery:
‘‘Someone [Muzicant] who, together with the Vienna City Council, and because
of his good contacts there as an estate agent and speculator, carries out
rebuilding projects in protected areas, where no-one else gets permission—that
is something that’s not right. . .’’
(,,Jemand [Muzicant], der im Verbund mit der Wiener Stadtregierung und auf-
grund seiner guten Kontakte dorthin als Immobilienmakler und-spekulant hier in
Schutzgebieten Sanierungen durchführt, wo kein anderer eine Bewilligung
bekommt, dann ist das etwas, was nicht in Ordnung ist. . .‘‘)11
Haider—interview in News 14 March 2001:
‘‘In my Ash Wednesday speech I referred to his [=Muzicant’s] role concerning

Austria during the EU sanctions. I have kept back a few more things.’’
(,,Ich habe bei meiner Aschermittwochsrede auf seine [Muzicants] Rolle gegen-
über Österreich während der EU-Sanktionen Bezug genommen. Da behalte ich
mir noch ein paar Dinge vor.‘‘)
‘‘In addition he has made explicit use of his political connections to cover his
business affairs.’’
(,,Dazu kommt, dass er seine politischen Beziehungen durchaus ausnützt, um

geschäftlich seine Dinge unter Dach und Fach zu bringen.‘‘)
‘‘And then he and the religious community have debts of around 600 million
Schillings and in Washington he stabbed Austria in the back.’’
(,,Und dann noch, dass er mit der Kultusgemeinde rund 600 Millionen Schilling
Schulden hat und Österreich in Washington in den Rücken gefallen ist.‘‘)
‘‘I really do not see why the tax-payer should cough up a single Schilling
because of Mr. Muzicant’s sloppy business-dealings.’’
11
To understand these insinuations better, it is necessary to know that Muzicant is an estate agent by
profession. Thus, this whole passage insinuates that Muzikant is doing ‘‘black’’ or non legal deals. And
this implies then, generalizing from Muzicant to the whole Jewish community, that the Jews are rich and
not honest. Moreover, if the main negotiator for the restitution is not an honest person, as Haider claims,
then the restitution itself comes into a bad light. . .. At the same time, the political debate in Austria was
and is characterized by blaming people who criticize some aspects of government policies as non-patriotic
or as fouling the nest.
(,,Ich sehe wirklich nicht ein, warum der Steuerzahler für die schlampige Wirt-
schaft des Herrn Muzicant nur einen Schilling berappen soll.‘‘)
‘‘And in the end his business connections will have to be exposed.’’
(,,Und schließlich wird man seine Geschäftsverbindungen durchleuchten müs-

sen.‘‘)
‘‘He [Muzicant] is a person who is the personification of irreconcilability and

who therefore has relatively little place in the spectrum of the forces of demo-
cracy’’.
(,,Das [Muzicant] ist ein Mensch, der die personifizierte Unversöhnlichkeit ist
und daher im Spektrum der demokratischen Kräfte relativ wenig Platz hat.‘‘)
Haider, 16 March 2001, Zeit im Bild 2.
Muzicant ‘‘in a difficult period for this country, when there was a new govern-
ment, behaved, as a Austrian abroad, in an absolutely negative way towards
this country.’’
(Muzicant ,,hat sich in einer schwierigen Phase nicht als guter Österreicher
erwiesen.‘‘ Er habe im Ausland so getan, als ob die jüdischen Mitbürger wieder
gefährdet seien und habe das Land schlecht gemacht.)
Standardization of a number of sequences from the transcribed interview:
‘‘It was a light-hearted word-play. That, I think, is absolutely acceptable in

politics. The deeper background, however, should not be hushed up. And that
is simply the criticism of Mr. Muzicant who has not behaved like an Austrian
during a difficult phase for the Republic.’’
(H: Es war ein scherzhaftes Wortspiel. Das glaube ich, ist in der Politik absolut
zulässig. Der tiefere Hintergrund soll aber nicht verheimlicht werden. Und der ist
einfach die Kritik am Herrn Muzicant, der in einer schwierigen Phase der
Republik sich nicht als guter Österreicher erwiesen hat. . ..)
‘‘So, you know, thank God that we live in a democracy where there are no
thought-police of politically correct people to prescribe for us what we are
allowed to formulate. The East Coast is a geographical expression, and that’s
where the political centre is in America. Everyone knows that, and that’s where
Greenberg comes from, and he is supposed to advise Mr. Häupl.’’
(H: Also, Sie wissen, dass wir Gott sei Dank in einer Demokratie leben, in der
es keine Gedankenpolizisten der politisch korrekten Gutmenschen gibt, die uns
vorschreiben, was wir noch formulieren dürfen. Die Ostküste ist eine geo-
graphische Bezeichnung, und dort liegt das politische Zentrum in Amerika. Das
weiß jedermann und von dort kommt der Greenberg, der den Herrn Häupl beraten
soll. . ..)
‘‘What I want to ensure in Austria is simply that people can express their opi-
nion freely. And that there is no ban on thinking. When the government was
being formed I also signed a preamble in which we recognize that we reject
every form of racism and anti-Semitism. And those people will have to look
very hard to find anything negative in what I said. Because I have already told
you: someone like Mr. Muzicant who, firstly, is always trying to get rid of the
FPÖ, and then has given this country a bad name, a really bad name,—he was
one of the ‘‘chief denouncers’’ of Austrians and Austria in the course of form-
ing the government. He will have to put up with criticism. That is simply the
most essential thing in a democracy, and if he can’t cope with that, he’s worth
nothing to a democracy.’’
(H: Was ich in Österreich gewährleisten will, ist einfach, dass die Menschen eine
freie Meinung äußern dürfen. Und dass es keine Denkverbote gibt. Ich habe
anlässlich der Regierungsbildung auch eine Präambel mitunterschrieben, in der
wir uns dazu bekennen, dass wir jede Form von Rassismus und Antisemitismus
ablehnen. Und es werden sich jene sehr anstrengen müssen, in der Äußerung von
mir jetzt wiederum etwas negatives zu finden. Denn ich habe es Ihnen schon vorhin
gesagt: jemand, wie der Herr Muzicant, der ständig den Versuch macht, erstens
amal die FPÖ herabzusetzen, dann dieses Land schlecht gemacht hat, nachweisbar
schlecht gemacht hat, er gehört zu den Obervernaderern12 der Österreicher/
Österreichs im Zuge der Regierungsbildung. Der muss sich eine Kritik gefallen
lassen. Das ist ja einfach in einer Demokratie das Notwendigste und wenn er das
nicht aushält, dann taugt er nicht für eine Demokratie.)
Haider comment in Presse, 17 March 2001:
‘‘I will not allow them to prevent me from criticising a representative of a reli-
gious community, when he declares war on a democratically elected govern-
ment.’’
(,,Ich lasse mir nicht verbieten, einen Repräsentanten einer Religionsgemeinschaft

zu kritisieren, wenn dieser einer demokratisch gewählten Regierung den Krieg
erklärt.‘‘)
‘‘Dr. Ariel Muzicant was one of those most responsible for the intolerable
witch-hunt against our country after the formation of the FPÖ/ÖVP coalition.
12
This is again an example of the blaming of critics of the government. ‘‘Obervernaderer’’ basically
implies an organized band of people who denounce the government.
(,,Dr. Ariel Muzicant war einer der Hauptverantwortlichen für die unerträgliche
Hetze gegen unser Land nach Bildung der FPÖ/ÖVP-Koalition.‘‘)
‘‘He has given interviews to foreign newspapers in which he passes judgement

on Austria with incomprehensible rage and anger.’’
(,,Er hat ausländischen Zeitungen Interviews gegeben, in denen er mit unver-

ständlicher Wut und Zorn über Österreich urteilte.‘‘)
‘‘He is cited as a witness in hate-mail against Austria from the World Jewish
Congress,. . .’’
(,,Er wird in Hassbriefen des World Jewish Congress gegen Österreich als Zeuge
zitiert, . . .‘‘)
‘‘He refuses to give his signature to an agreement which would finally make it
possible to reach a just settlement with the victims of the Nazi period.’’
(,,Er verweigerte seine Unterschrift auf einer Vereinbarung, die endlich den
Opfern der NS-Zeit eine gerechte Entschädigung ermöglicht.‘‘)
‘‘. . .[Dr. Muzicant] is not ashamed of writing off as ‘indecent’ and insulting the
majority of the people who gave him and his family a home when they were
immigrants.’’
(,,. . . [Herr Dr. Muzicant] schämt sich nicht, die Mehrheit eines Volkes, das ihm
und seiner Familie als Einwanderer eine Heimat gab, als ‘‘unanständig‘‘ abzu-
qualifizieren und zu beleidigen.‘‘)
‘‘For Mr. Muzicant the applause of the enemies of Austria was more impor-
tant.’’
(,,Herrn Muzicant war der Applaus der Österreich-Feinde wichtiger.‘‘)
Haider, 22 March 2001 (reported in Der Standard, 23 March 2001):
It is ‘‘unacceptable to denigrate one’s own country’’. It is just this, according to

Haider, that Ariel Muzicant, the president of the Jewish religious community,
has done, thereby showing an ‘‘attitude hostile to Austria’’.
(Es sei ,,unstatthaft, das eigene Land schlecht zu machen‘‘. [. . .] Ebendies, so

Haider, habe der Präsident der israelitischen Kultusgemeinde, Ariel Muzicant,
getan und so ,,österreichfeindliche Gesinnung‘‘ demonstriert.)
In this article it is unnecessary to analyze all the other utterances in detail. In what
follows we shall highlight the essential recurrent anti-Semitic topics and stereotypes
and the linguistic devices used in which the utterances of the speech in Ried on 1
March 2001 are embedded. This will allow us to establish the complex relationships
between text and context. Moreover, it should become clear that the analysis of the
context is of absolute necessity when analyzing this type of discourse. Hence, it
should become feasible that an anti-Semitic discourse has been conducted by Jörg
Haider since the New Year meeting of 2001 and that this has been introduced into
the media and the Vienna election campaign in a conscious and planned way. The
justifications, which began when criticism and disgust at Jörg Haider’s utterances
were being voiced, frequently present the attacks on Ariel Muzicant as ‘‘criticism’’.
These quotes are of particular interest to us.
5. Friend and foe images? Abuse, criticism, freedom of opinion?
5.1. The immediate co-text of the incriminated utterance on 28 February 2001 in

Ried: the ‘‘chain of abuse’’
These are some of the topics Jörg Haider dealt with in the Ried speech:
The topics of the sacking of Hans Sallmutter as president of the Austrian

Social Insurance Organization by the FPÖ minister Herbert Haupt (in this
context he talked of the ‘‘idiots’’ in social insurance).
The topics of the BSE crisis and EU agricultural policy (in this context he
was abusive about the ‘‘political oxen’’ responsible for the crisis, and
characterized the Austrian EU commissioner Franz Fischler as a political
‘‘Rübezahl’’13 suffering from an outburst of rage in the European agricultural
policy.
The topic of the introduction and stability of the Euro.
The topic of child allowances that were introduced in Carinthia and are now
demanded by the Bavarian Prime Minister Edmund Stoiber (and he is
described as the ‘‘Bavarian Mundl14’’).
The topic of the presumed high salaries of SPÖ politicians (in this context he
refers on one occasion to Alfred Gusenbauer rather as ‘‘Gruselbauer’’,15 who,
in the opinion of the leader of the SPÖ parliamentary, is the best horse in the
SPÖ stable because he still produces the highest quantity of manure).
And then he moved to the matter of the ‘‘EU-14 sanctions against Austria’’
and the national shrug of the shoulders that the Austrian government was
trying to give in this context.
13
‘‘Rübezahl’’ is the name of a destructive turnip-counting giant-figure in German folklore!
14
Mundl was a Viennese working class anti-hero character from an Austrian TV series in the 1970s.
15
This play on words implies ‘‘mess-maker’’.
Dr. Ariel Muzicant is attacked by Dr. Jörg Haider in the course of discussing
the ‘‘sanctions’’, of which the speaker claims that they had their origin in
Austria. Haider claimed, that the ‘‘Austrian socialists’’ and ‘‘the left’’ has
asked their friends abroad for the sanctions and that Dr. Ariel Muzicant had
made a contribution to this.
After his verbal attack, in which Dr. Jörg Haider accuses Dr. Ariel Muzicant of
being a Jew hostile to Austria, and with a lot of ‘‘dirty linen’’, the governor of Car-
inthia, in the remainder of his speech, moved on to abusing other political oppo-
nents from Austria, France and Germany, including
The French president Chirac (who had behaved like a courtesan wanted to
give a lecture on morality and decency when he thought he could give Austria
a lecture on democracy),
The Austria president Thomas Klestil (who Dr. Jörg Haider called ‘‘doubting
Thomas’’ who outset had initially refused to believe in the FPÖ-OVP coali-
tion),
The ‘‘three wise men’’ (whom he called the ‘‘three sages from Euroland’’),
The leader of the Green Party Alexander van der Bellen (whom he called the
nations sleeping pill, a valium for all Austrians who, in respect of the rela-
tionship between ‘‘the left wing and violence’’, is actually clouding the fact
‘‘behind it all there might be some pretty powerful figures’’,
The German Green Party foreign minister Joschka Fischer (whom he
describes as a terrorist and a crook), and
Former federal chancellor Viktor Klima and the SPÖ member and former
minister for home affairs Caspar Einem (whom Dr. Jörg Haider calls the
biggest bottles to come out of the ÖMV,16 because this is not actually a
mineral oil company but a brewery).17
The abuse of Dr. Ariel Muzicant therefore fits into a series of other abusive
remarks some of which Dr. Jörg Haider made before and others later. If one looks
at this series of insults one is struck by the fact that Dr. Ariel Muzicant—apart from
the ‘‘idiots in the Social Insurance Organization’’—is the only non-politician (in the
narrower sense of professional politician) among those subjected to verbal attack.
So whereas Dr. Jörg Haider attacks practically all those he abuses in their roles as
political opponents inside and outside Austria, he insults Dr. Ariel Muzicant as the
Jewish president of the Israelite community in Vienna.
16
ÖMV is the Austrian national oil company.
17
Viktor Klima, moreover, is described by Haider as ‘‘so to speak the most expensive jobless person in
the Republic of Austria’’.
5.2. Discourse strands
The topic of compensation in relation to the criminalization of Muzicant began at

the New Year meeting on 22 January 2001. In what was expressed there it was said
of Muzicant that he had himself piled up debts and that the compensation would
partly serve his own interests (those of paying off debts). These first utterances imply
many presuppositions: first, that Muzicant actually makes criminal moves, because
he exploits the interests of the survivors for himself and his business. Secondly, a
chain of anti-Semitic insinuations and associations are triggered of by other pre-
suppositions: Jews are rich, are businessmen, etc. At the same time the compensa-
tion is, in general terms, devalued as a not very important ‘‘problem’’. This topic is
pursued at the start of the election campaign, when there is an onslaught on the
‘‘East Coast’’, and the apparent influence of the ‘‘East Coast’’ (and this is related
both to the Mayor of Vienna, Dr. Michael Häupl, and to the SPÖ, as well as to the
compensation negotiations). The use of the insinuation ‘‘East Coast’’ goes back at
least as far as the ‘‘Waldheim Affair’’ in 1986, where already ‘‘the Jewish Lobbies in
New York’’ where alluded at through this topos. The latent meaning implies that the
Socialist Party is dependent of these ‘‘powerful Jews’’, thus the ‘‘World Conspiracy
theme’’ is presupposed. Moreover, in this speech the extermination of the Jews and
the matter of compensation is explicitly set against the expelled Sudeten Germans (a
well-known topos of both the FPÖ and Haider). In the Ried statement that has been
closely analyzed elsewhere18 the criminalization of Muzicant is pursued in the form
of an allusion (‘‘dirty linen’’) which is, however, removed from its vagueness and
clarified in the following quotations. On 8 March 2001 there are further suggestions
of Muzicant’s criminal activity, and this is continued in the News Interview of 14
March 2001.
The whole of this first discourse strand serves to present Dr. Ariel Muzicant as a
criminal, in order to focus sharply on his role in the compensation negotiations.
Ultimately, however, what is also important is to devalue compensation of Jewish
victims of the Holocaust and to set it against the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans.
The second discourse strand concerns the sub-division of Austrian citizens: into
those with a ‘‘true Viennese heart’’ and those who allow themselves to be influenced
by the ‘‘East Coast’’ (i.e. the apparently powerful Jewish lobbies in New York; see
above). In the profil of 2 April 2001 Peter Sichrovsky himself, general secretary of
the FPÖ, provides this interpretation of the allusion used and thereby contradicts
Haider’s defence of 16 March 2001 that ‘‘East Coast’’ is a ‘‘purely geographical
description’’.
This sub-division concerns, on the one hand, the electoral debate in Vienna;
Stanley Greenberg, the adviser to the mayor of Vienna, Dr. Michael Häupl, is pre-
sented as, among other things, a Jew who is now working for the SPÖ as a ‘‘spin
doctor’’. The characterization of a person in his quality as a ‘‘Jew’’ serves exclusively
to arouse anti-Semitic attitudes, because this characteristic was totally unimportant
for Greenberg’s work. Jews are therefore contrasted with ‘‘real’’ Austrians. The
18
See footnote 3.
topos of the ‘‘real Austrian’’ again is not new. This adjective was already used in the
1970’s when Bruno Kreisky, later chancellor of Austria, a social democrat and of
Jewish origin, campaigned against the Peoples Party. The use of ‘‘real Austrians’’
appeared again in the election campaign 1999 (Haider was and is a ‘‘real’’ Austrian)
and alludes to the belief that Jews or other Austrians from other ethnic origin are
not ‘‘on the same level’’, even if they have Austrian citizenship. The Austrian-ness
(or citizenship) of Austrian Jews is thereby also implicitly denied. This exclusions
and opposition is then also extended in respect of Muzicant who is described as
having been an ‘‘immigrant’’; and on the basis of his role as a ‘‘guest’’ in a host
country he ought to be a ‘‘good boy’’ (ZIB2, 16 March 2001). In this way Haider is
introducing a racial term and a racial concept: Citizenship is not enough to be a
citizen. . . These utterances, thus, presuppose racist attitudes. At the same time he
implies a concealment and a playing-down of the Nazi era, in that emigration,
immigration and re-immigration of Jews are apparently viewed as a ‘‘voluntary’’
decision and not conditioned by the Holocaust and the extermination of Jews.
Finally—and here the absurdity of this utterance and this discourse strand becomes
clear—Jews should actually be grateful to Austria, the country from which they had
to flee so as not to be deported and exterminated (and where their entire property
was stolen and aryanized).
On the basis of the criticism by opposition politicians, the media and politicians
and scholars from abroad, there now began a discourse of justification and legit-
imization.19 The successful attacks on Jews, like Greenberg and Muzicant, now had
to be given a ‘‘real’’ foundation in Haider’s perception and discourse or they had to
be simultaneously played down:
On the one hand the insinuations made are therefore described as ‘‘criticism’’ and
thereby converted into a rationally factual level. And the relevant topos is then ‘‘why
can’t one criticize Jews?’’ (That abuse and stereotyping have nothing to do with
criticism has already been argued above). The reasons for the ‘‘criticism’’ are as
follows: Muzicant has degraded Austria, is a ‘‘denouncer’’’’ who has ‘‘declared war
on a democratically elected government’’. Muzicant, therefore is ‘‘not a good Aus-
trian’’. And so, on the other hand, the anti-Semitic stereotype of the ‘‘traitor’’ is
addressed and alluded to, the ‘‘betrayer of the fatherland’’. The presupposition runs:
anyone who is not satisfied with the government and who voices criticism is a
‘‘traitor’’ and ‘‘not a good Austrian’’. This means that the government is equated
with the state and that there is no longer room in Austria for freedom and plurality
of opinion. Unless, of course, one criticizes such ‘‘traitors’’, for Haider does lay
claim to this freedom of opinion for himself and defends himself against the ‘‘left-
wing thought-police’’ (ZIB, 16 March 2001; Presse Kommentar, 17 March 2001).
The topos of ‘‘traitor’’, which currently embraces all critics of the government in
Austria, takes on and presupposes, in the case of Muzicant—and in the context of
an anti-Semitic discourse—the additional meaning of the familiar Christian-anti-
Semitic stereotype of ‘‘traitor’’ (it is ‘‘not acceptable to denigrate one’s own
country’’ Muzicant shows an ‘‘anti-Austrian mentality’’, 22 March 2001).
19
See footnote 12.
The fourth discourse strand used by in the above-mentioned justification discourse

is concerned with Muzicant’s ‘‘motives’’. On the one hand to pay off the debts that
he has accumulated in an apparently criminal fashion; on the other hand he is ‘‘filled
with hatred’’, ‘‘vengeful’’ (‘‘he refuses to give his signature’’) and greedy for recog-
nition (‘‘the applause of the enemies of Austria [was] apparently more important’’).
This again proclaims and alludes to a familiar anti-Semitic stereotype: the vengeful
Jew (where the Old Testament is often—inaccurately—quoted: ‘‘an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth’’).
6. Final remarks
These discourse strands demonstrate the extent to which Jörg Haider has used and
spread around the world anti-Jewish stereotypes since the FPÖ New Year’s meeting
in 2001. The linking of the Vienna election campaign with the restitution become
equally clear. The devaluation of the compensation by ‘counter-balancing’ on the
one hand and by criminalization of the Jewish Community in Vienna on the other
hand may be shown in an analysis of the discourse. The defamation and ultimately
racist exclusion of Ariel Muzicant and thereby the whole Jewish Community and the
Austrian Jews did not, in fact, bring any electoral gain in the Vienna election; but
discourses take on a life of their own. A polarization and an anti-Jewish attitude
have, whatever the case, been engendered.
The justification discourse has also taken on new dimensions: through the redefi-
nition of ‘‘abuse’’ and ‘‘insult’’ as ‘‘legimitate criticism’’, anti-Semitic clichés and
topoi have become acceptable. Many people reiterate Haider’s explanations and
legitimizations (cf. Rosenberger, 2001). This carries an implication that someone has
forbidden the factual criticism of Jews in appropriate circumstances and for a given
reason. Against this kind of fictitious ban arguments—apparently naive—are now
precipitately being raised, to the effect that criticism must be possible, even of Jews.
The argumentation, therefore, breaks down in at least two places: firstly through
the claim that it is to do with criticism. According to the definition and the entire
literature on the subject, however, this is not to do with criticism but with instances
of abuse and defamation. Secondly, the fact that anyone, particularly the ‘‘left-wing
thought-police’’ would not tolerate the free expression of criticism. On the basis of
the ‘‘flood of complaints’’ of the past year and the many related utterances on the
part of the government parties, it has become abundantly clear that freedom of
opinion is evidently only available for those who belong to the government, but not
for those who ‘‘dare’’ to criticize the government. This implies that two different
measures are being used: there are apparently first and second class citizens, namely
those who are allowed to criticize and those who, because of some criticism, may be
called ‘‘denouncers’’ and ‘‘traitors’’. But it should be noted: this second strand of
argumentation also presupposes that it actually was a matter of criticism. On the
basis of our analysis, however, this can be unambiguously refuted.
In the debate concerning restitution anti-Semitic prejudices and stereotypes were
mobilized; generalizations were made, and also devaluing attributions that were
brought into play without proof or evidence. There were no factual discussions, no
criticism, but rather an anti-Semitic defamation of disagreeable opponents, with the
aim of scoring points in the Vienna election campaign. As in 1986, during the
Waldheim affair,20 the familiar ‘‘Iudeus ex machina’’ strategy was again intro-
duced:21 scapegoats are ideal for constructing foe-images and thereby reinforcing the
ego of the in-group. Jews have a long tradition as scapegoats (Adorno, 1973 [1950])
and are apparently still suited to this: An anti-Semitism without Jews and without
anti-Semites. Bunzl and Marin (1983) were able to identify this tendency 20 years
ago. The creativity and the choice of possible new discursive strategies is, however,
bewildering. What is still more bewildering is the fact that political calculation can
still clearly find a wide measure of support for illogical, irrational and untrue claims
and prejudices under the cloak of ‘‘criticism’’.
What is relevant for our theoretical debate, moreover, is the evidence that such
discourses need a very precise definition of differing layers of context. Moreover, I
hope to have made clear, that we can only understand insinuations and
presuppositions, thus the ‘‘discourses of silence and justification’’, through constant
relation with the extra-linguistic contexts and other non-linguistic theories.
References
Adorno, T.W., 1973. [1950]. Studien zum Autoritären Charakter. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.
Adorno, T.W., Fränkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., Stanford, P.N., 1950. The Authoritarian Person-
ality. The American Jewish Committee, New York.
Allport, G.W., 1993. Vorwort. In: Simmel, E. (Ed.), Antisemitismus. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag,
Frankfurt am Main, pp. 9–11.
Bunzl, J. Marin, B. 1983. Antisemitismus in Österreich, Innsbruck.
Fairclough, N., 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Longman, London.
Fairclough, N., Wodak, R., 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Introduction to
Discourse Analysis. Longman, London, pp. 258–284.
Iedema, R., 1999. Formalizing organisational meaning. Discourse and Society 10 (1), 49–66.
Januschek, F., 1994. J.Haider und der Rechtspopulistische Diskurs in Österreich. In: Tributsch, G. (Ed.),
Schlagwort Haider. Ein Politisches Lexikon seiner Aussprüche von 1986 bis Heute. Falter Verlag,
Wien, pp. 298–301.
Kienpointner, M., 1992. Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommann-
holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt.
Kopeinig, M., Kotanko, Ch., 2000. Eine Europäische Affaire. Czernin Verlag, Wien.
Marin, B., 2000. Antisemitismus ohne Antisemiten. Campus Verlag, Wien.
Mitten, R., 1992. The Politics of Antisemitic Prejudice. The Waldheim Phenomenon in Austria, Westview
Press, Boulder, CO.
Mitten, R., 1997. Das Antisemitische Vermächtnis: Zur Geschichte Antisemitischer Vorurteile in Öster-
reich. In: Mitten, R. (Ed.), Zur ‘‘Judenfrage’’ im Nachkriegsösterreich. Die Last der Vergangenheit und
die Aktualisierung der Erinnerung. Projektbericht: BMWV, pp. 77–165.
Mitten, R., 2000. Guilt and Responsibility in Germany and Austria. Paper presented to the conference
20
This was to do with the war-time record of Kurt Waldheim, former secretary-general of the United
Nations, and subsequently president of Austria.
21
See footnote 12.
‘‘Dilemmas of East Central Europe: Nationalism, Totalitarianism, and the Search for Identity. A
Symposium Honouring István Déak, Columbia University, 24–25 March, 2000.
Möhring, R., 2001. Österreich Allein Zuhause’’. Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der Politischen Wende.
JKO-Verlag für interkulturelle Kommunikation, Frankfurt/Main.
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., 1994. Analyzing discourse. In: Brymna, A., Burgess, R.G. (Eds.), Analyzing
Quantitative Data. Routledge, London.
Reisigl, M., Wodak, R., 2001a. ‘‘Austria first’’. A discourse-historical analysis of the Austrian ‘‘Anti-
Foreigner-Petition’’ in 1992 and 1993. In: Reisigl, M., Wodak, R. (Eds.), The Semiotics of Racism.
Passagen Verlag, Wien, pp. 269–303.
Reisigl, M., Wodak, R., 2001b. Discourse and Discrimination. Routledge, London.
Rosenberger, S., 2001. Kritik und Meinungsfreiheit als Regierungsprivilegien. In: Möhring, R. (Ed.),
‘‘Österreich Allein Zuhause’’. Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der politischen Wende. IKO-Verlag für
interkulturelle Kommunikation, Frankfurt/Main.
Schiffrin, D., 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Blackwell, Oxford.
Van Dijk, T.A., 1984. Prejudice in Discourse. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Van Dijk, T.A., 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Wodak, R., 2000a. ‘‘Echt, anständig und ordentlich’’—Wie Jörg Haider und die FPÖ, die Österreichische
Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft beurteilen. In: Scharsach, H.-H. (Ed.), Haider. Österreich und
die Rechte Versuchung. Rororo, Hamburg, pp. 180–187.
Wodak, R., 2000b. La sociolingüı́stica necesita una teorı́a social? Nuevas perspectivas en el análisis crı́tico
del discurso. Sociolinguistics: Does it need a social theory? New perspectives in critical discourse ana-
lysis. Discurso y Sociedad 2 (3), 123–147.
Wodak, R., 2000c. Recontextualization and the transformation of meanings: a critical discourse analysis
of decision making in EU-meetings about employment policies. In: Sarangi, D., Coulthard, M. (Eds.),
Discourse and Social Life. Pearson Education, Harlow, pp. 185–206.
Wodak, R., 2000d. The rise of racism — an Austrian or a European phenomenon? Discourse and Society
11 (1), 5–6.
Wodak, R., 2001a. Freund- und Feindbilder: Diffamierung Politischer Gegner oder berechtigte und not-
wendige Kritik? In: Möhring, R. (Ed.), Österreich Allein Zuhause. Politik, Medien und Justiz nach der
Politischen Wende. IKO-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 124–144.
Wodak, R., 2001b. The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak, R., Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, London, pp. 63–95.
Wodak, R. Discourses of Silence: Anti-Semitic Discourse in Post-War Austria. Berjamins, Amsterdam (in
press).
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., 1988. Sprache und Antisemitismus. Institut für Wissenschaft und Kunst Mit-
teilungen 4, Wien.
Wodak, R., Meyer, M. (Eds.), 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Sage, London.
Wodak, R., Pelinka, A., 2002. The Haider Phenomenon. Transaction Press, New Brunswick.
Wodak, R., Reisigl, M., 1999. Discourse and racism: European perspectives. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 28, 175–199.
Wodak, R., Reisigl, M., 2001. Linguistisches Sachverständigen-Gutachten. Wien (unpublished).
Wodak, R., Pelikan, J., Nowak, P., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., Mitten, R., 1990. ‘‘Wir sind Alle Unschul-
dige Täter!‘‘. Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Yule, G., 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ruth Wodak is Professor and Head of the Department of Applied Linguistics at the University of Vienna.
Beside various other prizes, she was lately awarded with the Wittgenstein-Prize for Elite Researchers
(1996). Director of the Wittgenstein Research Centre Discourse, Politics, Identity (at the Austrian Acad-
emy of Sciences). Her publications are mainly in the areas of Discourse and Racism, Discourse and Dis-
crimination, Discourse Analysis, Gender Studies and Organizational Research. Her research investigates
also studies in public and private discourse in Austria since 1945, with special focus on manifestations of
antisemitism and racism towards foreigners. Most recently, she focuses on the deconstruction of a taboo.
The Wehrmacht in World War II, narratives of perpetrators. Another main aim is the investigation of
Political language, political discourse: the study of media (printed and electronic) in 1988 in Austria and
the impact of the ‘‘Waldheim Affair’’; the construction of Austrian Identity and European Identity (EU
policy making).

Wodak - Friend or Foe - The Defamation or Legitimate and Necessary Criticism - Reflections On R PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Wodak - Friend or Foe - The Defamation or Legitimate and Necessary Criticism - Reflections On R PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Language & Communication 22 (2002) 495–517

This paper considers the expression of anti-Semitic prejudices in post-war Austria

deals with the most recent manifestation of anti-Semitic prejudice in political

2. What are we talking about?

2.1. Defamation, criticism, stereotype, prejudice

Since ancient times political discourse has employed particular rhetorical

2.2. Theorizing context

Fig. 1. Levels of theories and linguistic analysis.

In accordance to other approaches devoted to Critical Discourse Analysis the

1. the immediate, language or text internal co-text;

2.3. Some linguistic terms

[. . .] In contrast to slogans, allusions require active, thinking and discriminating

 Understanding that there is an allusion

Type Example Presupposition

Existential The X >> X exists

in order to relate to a particular set of beliefs and a ‘‘discourse space’’—irrespective

3. The Vienna Election 2001

4. ‘‘Dreck am Steck’n’’ [‘‘Dirty Linen’’]

Jörg Haider verbatim (chronologically from 21 January to 22 March 2001), report

Haider on 21 February 2001 at the opening of the electoral campaign in Oberlaa:

Haider on 28 February, in his Ash Wednesday Speech:

Haider, in a campaign speech on 8 March 2001 in the Gösser brewery:

Haider—interview in News 14 March 2001:

‘‘In my Ash Wednesday speech I referred to his [=Muzicant’s] role concerning

(,,Dazu kommt, dass er seine politischen Beziehungen durchaus ausnützt, um

‘‘And in the end his business connections will have to be exposed.’’

(,,Und schließlich wird man seine Geschäftsverbindungen durchleuchten müs-

‘‘He [Muzicant] is a person who is the personiﬁcation of irreconcilability and

Haider, 16 March 2001, Zeit im Bild 2.

Standardization of a number of sequences from the transcribed interview:

‘‘It was a light-hearted word-play. That, I think, is absolutely acceptable in

Haider comment in Presse, 17 March 2001:

(,,Ich lasse mir nicht verbieten, einen Repräsentanten einer Religionsgemeinschaft

‘‘He has given interviews to foreign newspapers in which he passes judgement

(,,Er hat ausländischen Zeitungen Interviews gegeben, in denen er mit unver-

(,,Herrn Muzicant war der Applaus der Österreich-Feinde wichtiger.‘‘)

Haider, 22 March 2001 (reported in Der Standard, 23 March 2001):

It is ‘‘unacceptable to denigrate one’s own country’’. It is just this, according to

(Es sei ,,unstatthaft, das eigene Land schlecht zu machen‘‘. [. . .] Ebendies, so

5. Friend and foe images? Abuse, criticism, freedom of opinion?

5.1. The immediate co-text of the incriminated utterance on 28 February 2001 in

 The topics of the sacking of Hans Sallmutter as president of the Austrian

5.2. Discourse strands

The topic of compensation in relation to the criminalization of Muzicant began at

The fourth discourse strand used by in the above-mentioned justiﬁcation discourse

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

Understanding that there is an allusion

The topics of the sacking of Hans Sallmutter as president of the Austrian