Discourse Manipulation And Security - A Comparative Study Of Clinton Administration And Bush Administration 's Climate Change Policy

The present study focuses on the mechanism of discourse in the process of securitization. In the political practice, some different problems or the same kind of problems in different periods with almost the same level of threat may show difference in their levels of securitization. According to Securitization Theory, the difference in the levels of securitization is the result of political actors’ subjective construction. The process is related to the securitizing actors’ “speech act” or “discursive practice” and discourse plays a core role in the securitization process. Although securitization theory, Copenhagen School securitization theory in particular, has pointed out the core role of discourse in the securitization process, there appears a lack of systematic and detailed exposition of the specific mechanism, that is, how discourse functions in the securitization process. In view of Copenhagen School’s inadequate exposition regarding this aspect and the fact that other schools or researchers have not done in-depth research about it either, this dissertation attempts to make a detailed and systematic exposition of the specific mechanism of discourse in the securitization process.With regard to the specific mechanism of discourse in the securitization process, this dissertation presents a theoretical framework based on the discursive manipulation, that is, the securitizing actor relies on discursive manipulative means—discursive salience, discursive framing, and discursive positioning—to achieve the purpose of controlling the level of securitization of a certain issue. In the first place, by means of discursive salience, the securitizing actor makes the issue to be discussed attract public attention and concern, which helps the issue to be included in the political or security agenda. Secondly, after attracting public attention, the securitizing actor should define and present the nature, seriousness, and solution of the issue in order to shape cognition schemata of the public and mobilize the enthusiasm of the public participation, which involves the use of the discursive framing. The final means is discursive positioning. Framing the issue successfully doesn’t mean the successful securitization. This dissertation adopts the view that the success of securitization is judged by the concrete behaviors and practices following framing something as a threat. The securitizing actor and the audience should define their respective rights and obligations on the issue, that is, it is a question of what and how each party should do in a certain context. The defining of the rights and obligations of the securitizing actor and the audience involves discursive positioning, through which the respective responsibilities of the related parties are defined and thus their acts are shaped. The logic relationship of the three variables in the framework is mainly a linear one, and these three independent variables work to have an impact on the level of securitization. To a certain extent, the three variables reflect the specific mechanism of “speech act” referred to by Copenhagen School.In this dissertation, the climate change policies of the Clinton Administration and the George W. Bush Administration are used to test the theoretical framework. Under the Clinton Administration, the issue of climate change had a relatively high level of securitization and the Clinton Administration took a security perspective to deal with climate change. In contrast, the issue of climate change under the George W. Bush Administration had a very low level of securitization, or even the issue of climate change was desecuritized. From the perspective of discourse, what are the differences between the two U.S. administrations in formulating and implementing their climate change policies? And why and how different results were generated? Based on the theoretical framework, this dissertation analyzes two cases from three aspects: discursive salience, discursive framing, and discursive positioning. Through the analysis of these two cases, this dissertation proves the theoretical hypothesis and the causal relationship between the variables.