Humanities and Arts
Legitimation Strategies to Enchant the New American “War On Terror”: Implications in Ben Affleck’s Testimony
Hana Riani
Hana Riani
Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Department of English, Sousse, Tunisia
Peer Reviewed
Abstract
This article accounts for the process of legitimization as a mere instrument of control in society where symbolic power is manifested. By conducting a critical discourse analysis in combination with frameworks for analyzing legitimating devices in discourse as developed by Theo van Leeuwen (2007) and Antonio Reyes (2011), this study scrutinizes the legitimation strategies used in Ben Affleck’s speech before the American House Foreign Affairs Committee on Congo crisis (2011). The paper also investigates the linguistic devices leaned on by this social actor to advance particular political ends. The results from the qualitative analysis have shown that this activist establishes links with his audience outlining common values firmly grounded on US history, cultural tradition and political ideologies. His reasoning constructs specific understandings of US involvement in the new “war on terror” legitimized through (1) hypothetical future, (2) rationality, (3) voices of expertise and (4) altruism.
Key Questions
What is the main focus of the article on Ben Affleck’s testimony?
The article analyzes the legitimation strategies used by Ben Affleck in his 2011 testimony before the American House Foreign Affairs Committee on the Congo crisis. It examines how Affleck employed linguistic and rhetorical devices to legitimize US involvement in the new “war on terror” and advance specific political goals.
What frameworks are used to analyze Ben Affleck’s speech?
The study uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) combined with frameworks developed by Theo van Leeuwen (2007) and Antonio Reyes (2011) to identify and analyze the legitimation strategies and linguistic devices in Affleck’s testimony.
What are the key legitimation strategies identified in Affleck’s testimony?
The study identifies four key legitimation strategies: (1) hypothetical future, (2) rationality, (3) voices of expertise, and (4) altruism. These strategies are used to construct specific understandings of US involvement in the “war on terror” and to align with the audience’s values and beliefs.
How does Ben Affleck establish a connection with his audience?
Affleck establishes a connection with his audience by referencing shared values rooted in US history, cultural traditions, and political ideologies. This helps him build credibility and persuade his audience to support his arguments.
What role does the “hypothetical future” play in Affleck’s legitimation strategy?
The “hypothetical future” is used to present potential outcomes of US involvement in the Congo crisis. Affleck frames these outcomes as beneficial, emphasizing the need for proactive measures to prevent negative scenarios, thereby legitimizing US intervention.
How does rationality function as a legitimation device in the testimony?
Rationality is used to present Affleck’s arguments as logical and well-reasoned. By appealing to facts, data, and reasoned analysis, he positions his stance as objective and credible, reinforcing the legitimacy of his call for US involvement.
What is the significance of “voices of expertise” in the analysis?
“Voices of expertise” refers to Affleck’s use of authoritative sources and expert opinions to support his arguments. This strategy enhances his credibility and persuades the audience by aligning his testimony with established knowledge and authority.
How does altruism function in Affleck’s legitimation strategy?
Altruism is used to frame US involvement as a moral obligation to help others. Affleck emphasizes the humanitarian aspects of the Congo crisis, portraying US intervention as a selfless act aimed at promoting global justice and stability.
What are the broader implications of the study?
The study highlights how legitimation strategies are used to shape public opinion and policy. It demonstrates how social actors like Ben Affleck can leverage language and rhetoric to advance political agendas, particularly in the context of the “war on terror.”
