Technologizing inhumanity

Abstract

A political interview intended to justify refugee detention in Australia is analysed using an interdisciplinary critical discourse method. Barthesian semiotic theory in which the ‘Other’ is the foundation of national myth provides a context for a close textual analysis using Hallidayan linguistics. The lexico-grammatical analysis identifies features associated with processes (verbs), grammatical metaphors, and nominals. Essentially, the effect is to blunt agency and distance the speaker, but, more importantly, create a classificatory system that allows humans to be treated in certain ways according to bureaucratic procedures. The discursive strategy is labelled technologizing the inhumane because it objectifies the subjective, turning profound human issues into technical issues. Analysed discursively, the interview reveals how discursive control is established and how democracy is represented as impeding the orderly procedure of ‘objective’ procedures.

Keywords:

• technologizing discourse
• Other
• semiotic
• refugees
• discourse
• processes
• grammatical metaphor
• nominals
• normalize
• critical discourse

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bernard Mckenna

Bernard McKenna is a Senior Lecturer in the University of Queensland Business School. As a critical discourse theorist, he researches technical, political, and managerialist discourse. He also researches in the areas of wisdom and knowledge, as well as corporate-community relations.

Neal Waddell

Neal Waddell is an Associate Lecturer in the University of Queensland Business School. Formerly a manager and broadcaster with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and a government media adviser, he is currently completing his doctoral thesis on the discourses of excessive work practices.