Identity Discourse Analysis:the Case Of Crimean Crisis

This work examines the discourse of the Crimean crisis.It explores the development of national identities of Russia and Ukraine,from historical roots to modernity,in the context of political discursive encounters.This work is focused on the struggle for legitimization,the Other,and the states as actors that emerge in the discourse.The goal of the research is to explore the role of the Crimean crisis discourse for the state identity-building of Ukraine and Russia.This research will attempt to deconstruct and systematize the discourse tools employed by the respective parties.The events in Crimea,as well as the revolution that had taken place in Ukraine before,have been a subject of different interpretation from the very beginning.Like many revolutions,this one was not an isolated event relevant within the borders of one single country,and ultimately proved a triggering point for what could possibly become a change to the world order as we know it.It remains to be seen whether this new world will be constructed in terms of a zero-sum military-inspired realist standoff.or whether a new interpretation of the reality might be possible.The Research question of this thesis is What is the role of the Crimean crisis discourse for the state identity-building of Ukraine.Based on the historical background and theories,the following hypothetical relationship can be formulated:The Crimean crisis discourse contributes to the state identity transformation Ukraine.A.The discourse of political leaders of Ukraine and Russia representing the nation will be focused on national unity,strong state,and differentiating from the Other.B.The discourse produced by the diplomatic institutions will be focused on the common history and the need for cooperation.Discourse and identity are strongly linked,which could be seen every party's notably different discourse on the Crimean crisis.The EU's approach,reflecting its difficulties to balance the positions of the member states,as well as the stronger power language used by the US,are mirrored by the Russia's no-compromise rhetoric justifying their course of actions,while Ukraine employs appeals to international law and to emotions alike.In a discursive struggle,political actors are attempting to balance their right to speak with the vision of the future for their states.Critical Discourse analysis is used in this research.This analysis is based on Michel Foucault's Discourse theory,which is ocused on power relationships in society as expressed through language and practices.Critical discourse analysis(CDA)is arn initerdisciplinany approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice.Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally argue that(non-linguistie)social practice and linguistic practice consitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinfoced through language use.Studying any conflict requires knowledge of context,as well as cultural and historical background.In case of Crimea the commonplaces invoked in the media and official speeches contain references to the complicated history between Ukraine and Russia,the language issue,the specific linguistic code formerly utilized by the Soviet propaganda and Ukrainian nationalist moves,as well as the new ideologically-backed war rhetoric and technical legal speak.We are witnessing more than informational war;the discourse contributes to establishing and re-establishing of the actors and their identity,and possibly re-writing history in the most direct sense.The data for the research will come from the primary sources.The sources of the official discourse will include the speeches,statements and interviews of the Prime Ministers.Presidents,and other representatives of the authorities.In cases of interviews and press conferences,media with the wide audience reach will provide primary source information.Nevertheless it is important to keep in mind that "all news is biased".The thesis includes 5 chapters.The first chapter of this research is an introduction.The second chapter of the thesis will focus on the historical discursive background of Ukraine-Russia relations.The third chapter will contain theoretical background of the discourse and identity-building.The fourth chapter will be devoted to the analysis of the data collected from the speeches and interviews of the political actors,official sources,as well as Russian and Ukrainian media.In the end,the conclusions and ideas for further research will follow.The author started with the assumption that the discourse of political leaders representing the nation will be focused on national unity,strong state,and differentiating from the Other.The discourse of the President of Russia went beyond the construction of national body by including Ukraine into the domain of Russia.He employed the narration of the common political past and the common culture to promote(trans)national unity and strong state.The construction of the Other were likewise often present and well-developed.The acting Prime Minister of Ukraine paid considerably more attention to his internal political circumstances and the legitimation of his own power position.Taking into account Maidan-inspired patriotism.in order to promote unity he exploited the theme of the common past against the oppressive Russian Other.However.his narrative of the Other was one-dimensional and bleak compared to the complicated construction by the Russian President.The strong state narrative was mostly absent.Therefore.Hypothesis A was confirmed:national unity,strong state,and differentiating from the Other as the factors influencing state identity transformation were present in the discourse of political leaders.The official diplomatic discourse,while limited by the stylistic and other professional requirements.nevertheless usually manages to convey a clear message within the frames of the given discourse.It could be observed that diplomatic discourse of Russian institutions actively featured the formation of the Other and the strong state.The discourse of Ukraine largely remained within the professional limitations without prominently featuring any of the themes.Therefore it can be concluded that Hypothesis B was not confirmed:the discourse produced by the diplomatic institutions was not focused on the common history and the need for cooperation.Future research suggestion for this topic is a broader discourse analysis.including mainstream and marginal media,political opposition,as well as.perhaps.social media discourse.If the current renewed interest in European and world order and Russian civilizational mission is any indication,the small Crimean peninsula has been covering a sizeable can of geopolitical worms.