CROSSING SYMBOLIC DISTANCES IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE SPACE

Abstract

This paper shows how an apparently abstract, ideologically loaded, evaluative rhetoric can be applied, legitimization-wise, to compensate for diminishing effects of fear appeal rhetoric based on material premises. The paper draws on proximization theory, which accounts for the construal of relations between entities within the Discourse Space (DS), esp. the shifts whereby the peripheral elements of the DS get construed as the central ones. Proximization recognizes the fundamental role of spatial cognition in constructing discursive representations of processes, attitudes and values in relation to the deictic center of the speaker. It focuses on spatially and axiologically grounded rhetorical choices, defining their interplay in temporally extensive discourses. Proximization is thus ideally suited to explain complex phenomena of evaluative rhetoric in interventionist macro-discourse, especially the mechanism whereby axiological argument compensates for spatially grounded discourse patterns which over time lose their rhetorical force. The analysis of the US 2003-2004 rhetoric of the Iraq war demonstrates how ‘axiological proximization’ maintains legitimization after other legitimization strategies involving strong fear appeals have become ineffective. Specifically, it reveals how the US redefined the case for the war in ideological terms following loss of the original premise (the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).