Constructing collective identities and solidarity in premiers’ early speeches on COVID-19: a global perspective

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a unique global experience, arousing both exclusionary nationalistic and inclusionary responses of solidarity. This article aims to explore the discursive and linguistic means by which the COVID-19 pandemic, as a macro-event, has been translated into local micro-events. The analysis studies the global pandemic through the initial statements of 29 leading political actors across four continents. The aim is to examine discursive constructions of solidarity and nationalism through the social representation of inclusion/exclusion of in-, out-, and affiliated groups. The comparative analysis is based on the theoretical and methodological framework of the socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis and is informed by argumentation theory and nationalism studies. The results of our analysis suggest that leaders have constructed the virus as the main outgroup through the metaphors of the pandemic-as-war and the pandemic-as-movement which have entered the national space. Faced with this threat, these speeches have discursively constructed the nation-as-a-team as the main in-group and prioritized (1) a vertical type of solidarity based on nationhood and according to governmental plans; (2) exclusionary solidarity against rule-breakers; (3) horizontal solidarity that is both intergenerational and among family members, and (4) transnational solidarity. It is not by chance that the world stands as a relevant affiliated group that needs to forcibly collaborate in order to face the main outgroup, the virus itself. A major consensus has been found in constructing the out-group. In contrast, the linguistic and discursive constructions of in-groups and their affiliates display a greater variation, depending upon the prevalent discursive practices and social context within different countries.

The role of science in a crisis: Talks by political leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Strong science is seen as an element of national pride and reaffirmation of national strength amid strong criticism and isolation concerns. The emphasis on national scientific experts and institutions can be thus seen as "a way of openly stating support and power at the same time" [28]. This is in line with the analysis conducted by [69] on national leaders' political rhetoric during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that Johnson and relied on upon-and fueled-"national fervor", emphasizing national pride and reinforcing in-country identitiy and solidarity.…”

“…However, social media extensively criticized the government's incapacity to acknowledge and communicating uncertainty among scientists. According to [28]-who analyzed 29 political leaders' statements made during the early phase of the pandemic outbreak-despite the different communication strategies adopted by political actors in their speeches, most of them share a common characteristic, i.e., nationalism. Indeed, scientific experts are mainly presented in leaders' speeches from a national point of view and are often invited to institutional press conferences.…”

In it together?: Exploring solidarity with frontline workers in the United Kingdom and Ireland during COVID‐19

“…It appears, from the experiences of our participants, that they were able to identify very early on the need to act with solidarity themselves in order to carry out their ‘frontline worker’ role. This was likely helped by the rhetoric being used by leadership at the time, calling on support for key workers, and building narratives of support and solidarity with those on the frontline whilst the rest of society needed to stay home (Berrocal et al, 2021 ). Our participants spoke of needing to set aside ideological differences in order to focus on this emergent threat, and the comfort they found in the overt displays of solidaristic behaviour and sentiment from the public during those early days.…”

“…In COVID‐19, the emergence of societal solidarity was evident in many societies across the world (Berrocal et al, 2021 ; Prainsack, 2020 ; Tomasini, 2021 ), however this sentiment was arguably hard to sustain in more individualistic societies (Flynn, 2022 ), and gradually declined in the United Kingdom and Ireland as examples of rule breaking began to emerge through both government rhetoric and news media (Bouguettaya et al, 2022 ; Forester & McKibbon, 2020 ; West‐Oram, 2021 ; Williams, 2021 ). The initial appraisals of solidarity from the public and the government by frontline workers gave them much‐needed hope and served to maintain their resilience in the early phases of the pandemic (Kinsella et al, 2021 ), and workers themselves appear to understand the importance and significance of the solidarity they enact for society in carrying out their work and seeking to protect others around them.…”

Caring Ecologies of the New Right and Left: Populist Performances of Care During the Pandemic

“…However, could right-and left-wing populism have different ways of addressing people's inherent need for care? While all politicians performed as people's carers during the multiple crises prompted by the pandemic (Berrocal et al, 2021), this article is particularly interested in female populist leaders for their dual normative advantage: their (alleged) ability to represent the people as populists (Aiolfi, 2022), and their privileged attributes as female carers. The goal is to explore how female populist leaders performed as advantaged carers during a global pandemic, as some suggest (Taub, 2020), and whether their right-or left-wing inclinations matter in this respect.…”