Search

This study explores the discursive constructions of a right-wing populist politician, especially examining the discursive constructions of immigrants. The study focuses on Sverigedemokraterna, examining the party leader Jimmie Åkesson, during a speech in Almedalsveckan 2022. Åkessons discursive constructions are examined, targeting the construction of The Other. The discursive constructions are discovered with the critical discourse methodology Discourse Historical Approach (DHA), utilizing the analytical tools; lexical choices, overlexicalisation, lexical absence, nomination, predication, and selected argumentative strategies. The retrieved information is subsequently analyzed with the theoretical framework, consisting of right-wing populistic ideology, right-wing populistic discourse, the exclusion of right-wing populistic discourse, and othering. The methodology and theoretical framework aims to establish tendencies in the discursive constructions of the immigrant, as The Other. The outcome reveals that Åkesson actively constructs The Other with negative attributes, which eventually results in further stereotypization of the immigrant. The argumentative strategies legitimizes the constant othering, and the discursive strategies constructs the immigrant as an enemy, for the entirety of Sweden. The rhetorical skillfulness of Åkesson hides the applied racist discourses, resulting in general difficulty discovering the othering. Följande studie ämnar belysa hur en framgångsrik högerpopulistisk aktör konstruerar invandrare. Studien undersöker specifikt Sverigedemokraternas partiledare Jimmie Åkessons diskursiva konstruktioner av Den Andre i sommartalet under Almedalsveckan 2022. Det empiriska materialet analyseras med kritisk diskursanalys, specifikt det historiska angreppssättet Discourse Historical Approach (DHA), och tillämpar analytiska verktygen; lexikala ordval, överlexikalisering, lexikal avsaknad, nomination, prediktion, och utvalda argumentativa strategier. Därefter analyseras den upptäckta informationen med det teoretiska ramverket, bestående av högerpopulistisk ideologi, högerpopulistisk diskurs, exkludering i högerpopulistisk diskurs, och andrafiering. Metodologin och det teoretiska ramverket tillämpas i syfte att påträffa tendenser i Åkessons diskursiva konstruktioner av invandraren, som Den Andre. Studiens resultat avslöjar att Åkesson genomgående tillskriver Den Andre negativa attribut, vilket slutligen resulterar i vidare stereotypisering av invandraren. Åkessons tillämpade argumentativa strategier legitimerar andrafieringen, och tillämpade diskursiva strategier konstruerar invandraren likt Sveriges gemensamma fiende. Slutligen konstateras att Åkessons retoriska skicklighet döljer den rasistiska diskursen, vilket resulterar i att andrafieringen blir svårläst.

The purpose of this study is to examine the party leader of the Swedish democrats, Jimmie Åkesson. The aspects that we look into is if there are any rhetorical differences in his speeches at Almedalen the year of 2011 and 2018. Along with the rhetorical side the other aspect that will be examined is the differences in ideas and ideological roots that shines through at the two different speeches at Almedalen. In order to point out differences we used two different methods. The method used in the rhetorical spectrum is based on Bo Rhenbergs steps to analyse political speeches. For the part that focuses on what ideas that mediates and which types of ideological roots his speech derives to, we used Mats Lindbergs analysis to identify values and an own constructed model based on literature regarding ideologies for the ideological analysis. What we find in the rhetorical analysis is that Åkesson's rhetoric has changed marginally. It appears that he uses more of ethos' argumentation at the number 2018 than at 2011. Åkesson thus uses much of all the three rhetorical aspects. It also appears that the shift between the different styles Åkesson uses to convey the speech to the audience changes something between them both years. ​In the idea and ideological analysis, here too, the differences are relatively small. The actual differences in which values ​​the speech contains are few, but they exist. Differences are not based on the fact that the party or Jimmie Åkesson has changed values ​​and started to lean more to the right or to the left, instead the differences lie on which topics are in focus.

This paper deconstructs twelve contemporary political speeches from leaders of the Swedish parliament, using Julia Kristeva’s interpretation of the abject. Focusing mainly on Annie Lööf (C) and Jimmie Åkesson (SD), it examines speeches made at Almedalsveckan, spanning the years 2014–2019. In addition to these speakers, but to a lesser extent, it references Ebba Busch Thor (KD) and Jonas Sjöstedt (V) from the same time period and event. Rather than looking at these narratives from a rhetoric point-of-view, this paper analyses the reader’s/listener’s affective relationship to the text. Are the speakers attempting to arouse feelings of horror, disgust, repulsion, or anxiety in their audience with their choices of words and images? When, how… and why? To answer these questions some sociological and political theories are utilised alongside Kristeva’s, namely those of Randall Collins and Murray Edelman. In applying Collins explanation for how group solidarity is generated – by extension, how group identity is created – this paper suggests that abjection serves a vital role in these speeches as part of the political strategy to gain and maintain support. Through separation and exclusion, delineating what the speaker and their sympathisers are and are not, as well as designating enemies on whom they can project their fears and frustrations, the speaker effectively forges group cohesion. This process can provide members of said group (i.e. readers and listeners) with a release of tension, or feelings of reassurance or excitement. The result of these political narratives, whether intended or not, is an imagined, idealised Swedish subject, who affirms the “necessity” of the political leader that imagines them.

Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka och jämföra hur Jonas Sjöstedt och Jimmie Åkesson bygger sitt ethos under sina respektive tal i Almedalen år 2016. För att undersöka hur Sjöstedt och Åkesson bygger sitt ethos har vi gjort en hermeneutisk närläsning av materialet, för att sedan kunna göra en komparativ analys av de likheter och skillnader i hur de bygger sitt ethos. Materialet som uppsatsen grundar sig i är talmanus av de båda talen som publicerats av respektive parti. Resultatet av studien visar att de båda talarna bygger sitt ethos med hjälp av pathos och logos. Vidare skapar de båda talarna en “vi mot dem” -känsla för att bygga sitt ethos, och slutligen ser vi att de båda talarna tenderar att normalisera sin politik, men detta i olika hög grad.