(image from http://www.stonewall.org.uk)
On Wednesday 17th July 2013, the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was officially made law when it received Royal Assent from the Queen. We're delighted to be able to carry out our discourse analysis of the equal marriage debate from this perspective, though remain as motivated as ever to reveal the linguistic strategies of homophobia used by many opponents of the Bill during their discussions in the media.
- How is indirectness used as a strategy to produce 'disembodied' arguments? Opponents of the Bill are often reluctant to speak directly about the nature of same-sex relationships or why same-sex couples shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, and so make quite significant use of imaginaries and imagery in order to produce what appears to be a more objective stance. In doing so, explicitly anti-gay statements can be avoided, though the implicit message remains clearly homophobic. For example, the likening of same-sex relationships to incest or bestiality.
- How is metaphor used to define marriage as fundamentally heterosexual, thus 'simply not an option for gay couples'? Marriage is represented as a frail, vulnerable object which is at risk of being 'unravelled' or 'eroded'; what weight does this offer to the argument that straight marriage should be 'protected' from homosexuals?
- What argumentation structures and tactics are employed by those who are anti-marriage equality? We believe stance-taking to be central to this, and that indirectly homophobic stances in particular are enabled by the use of imaginaries and metaphor. By investigating these stances via discourse analysis, we hope to show the means by which implicitly homophobic messages are presented as logical, moral, and normal. In turn, we hope to examine how such messages continue to carry weight in our society.
Presumably, you could reverse this analysis by looking at the rhetorical strategies of those arguing in favour of same-sex marriage, particularly the 'marriage equality' construction. This newly coined concept locates the argument on ground other than that which opponents of the Bill (now Act) regard as relevant, i.e. on that of civic equality.
ReplyDeleteBy so doing, pro-SSM advocates obviate the need to engage in dialogue about the intrinsic nature of marriage - or, indeed, whether it has one - even though the net effect of introducing same-sex marriage, such as it is defined by the Act, is to force a redefinition of marriage per se that does deny and subvert that intrinsic character of traditional marriage which its defenders hold dear.
Thanks for your comment, which I'm afraid I've only just stumbled across whilst updating this blog for the first time since the summer.
ReplyDeleteAs it happens, your comment usefully highlights some of the key themes that we've identified in anti-same-sex marriage discourse within the Moral Maze broadcasts; two of the most prevalent themes that we've found to be used here are the framing of the Bill as the redefinition (rather than as an extension) of marriage, and the idea that marriage (which is in itself a social construct) has its own fundamental characteristics or nature which shouldn't be tampered with. In answer to your question, though, our focus up until this point has been on anti-same-sex marriage rhetoric; this is because the set-up of the Moral Maze broadcasts (which is what our analysis is based on) constrains that which those who are pro-same-sex marriage can actually say. To some extent, the show sets up the dialogue as being between those with religious views and those who oppose those religious views - there's not as much going on in the broadcasts in terms of equal rights. As you say, though, the issue of equal rights is fundamental to those who are in favour of same-sex marriage, and has much more prominence in other contexts.