wilkinson, mark

8/17/2019 Wilkinson, Mark

1/115

THE MARKETISATION OF ‘EQUALITY ’:

A CORPUS-BASED CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

CAMPAIGN’S ARGUMENT FOR SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, 2014

MARK JOSEPH WILKINSON

MASTER’S IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS

KING’S COLLEGE LONDON

SEPTEMBER 2015

SUPERVISOR: DR. CHRIS TRIBBLE


2/115

1360613 1


3/115

1360613 2

There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle

because we do not live single-issue lives.

-Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider, 1984


4/115

1360613 3

Acknowledgements

This thesis is dedicated to my father, Dr.Michael Wilkinson, without whose support,

insight, wisdom, guidance and editing expertise I could not have made it through this

master’s.

Thank you.

I would like to thank João for his unconditional support and tremendous patience while I

recounted every moment of my creative process. You also deserve a master’s in applied

linguistics.

I would like to thank my mom, Diane, for always thinking that everything I write is

brilliant and interesting.

I would like to thank Rachel for sharing all of her wisdom, experience and feedback.

Wyman and Wilkinson 2016!

And I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr.Chris Tribble, for his feedback, advice and

for opening up the wonderful world of corpus linguistics.


5/115

1360613 4

ABSTRACT

This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of how The Human Rights

Campaign (HRC) represents the goals, values and aspirations of America’s lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, gender non-conforming and queer (LGBTIQ*) population. As the

largest and most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy and lobbying organisation in the United

States, HRC occupies a unique position to influence government policy as well as media

representations of the LGBTIQ* campaign for social justice. Nevertheless, critics argue

that HRC pursue a single-issue politics that privileges the interests of the gay and lesbian

elite while neglecting crucial social issues that affect the most marginal and vulnerable

LGBTIQ* Americans.

A corpus analysis of HRC’s 2014 press releases revealed that critics’ accusations are

largely correct and that HRC primarily advocate for same-sex marriage at the expense of

all other issues. My conclusions are based on an analysis of keywords, collocations and a

corpora comparison using press release corpora from other LGBTIQ* organisations

during the same time period.

HRC make practical arguments for what actions should be taken to achieve equality for

LGBTIQ* Americans. A practical argumentation analysis was therefore conducted on a

typical HRC press release to identify how HRC represent the premises for action. This

analysis affirmed that HRC deliberately omit some major concerns of LGBTIQ*

Americans, such as racial and economic inequality, in favour of the premise that only

‘marriage equality’ can bring social justice to LGBTIQ* Americans.

Finally, an explanatory critique argues that ‘marriage equality’ serves only to bring

economic benefits to HRC, its corporate sponsors, and the LGBTIQ* elite, and not to a

sizeable population of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC successfully market ‘marriage

equality’ because it is good for the bottom line.


6/115

1360613 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

ABSTRACT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

LIST OF APPENDICES 8

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES 9

1.0. INTRODUCTION 10

1.1 Economic Inequality 11

1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS 12

1.3 Immigration 12

1.4 Homelessness 12

1.5 Criminalization 13

1.6 Racial Injustice 13

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW 15

2.1. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS 15

2.1.1. Discourse 15

2.1.2. Power 17

2.1.3. Ideology 18

2.2. DIALECTICAL-RELATIONAL APPROACH 20

2.2.1. Social events 21 2.2.2. Social practices 22 2.2.3. Social structures 23 2.2.4. Mediation 23

2.3. PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS 24

2.4. CRITIQUES OF CDA 28


7/115

1360613 6

3.0. CORPUS ANALYSIS 30

3.1. Overview 30 3.1.1. Research questions 30 3.1.2. Data 30 3.1.2. Corpus linguistics 31

3.1.3. Corpus tools 32

3.2. Corpus analysis 32 3.2.1. Keyness analysis 32 3.2.2. Collocation analysis 33 3.2.3. Corpora comparison 39 3.2.5. Corpus analysis summary 45

4.0. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

ANALYSIS 48

4.1. Text: 48

4.2. Outline of HRC argument 49

4.2.1. Circumstances 50

4.2.2. Values 53

4.2.3. A lternative 55

4.2.4 Means-goal 55

4.2.5 Summary 56

4.3. Explanatory Critique 58

5.0 CONCLUSION 62

REFERENCES 64

APPENDIX A 73

APPENDIX B 75

APPENDIX C 78

APPENDIX D 82

APPENDIX E 84


8/115

1360613 7

APPENDIX F 86

APPENDIX G 98

APPENDIX H 103

APPENDIX I 110


9/115

1360613 8

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A HRC Corpus: Keyness Analysis 70

APPENDIX B HRC Corpus: Collocations 72

APPENDIX C HRC Corpus: COUPLES + CAN MARRY concordance 75

APPENDIX D Lambda Legal Corpus: Keyness Analysis 79

APPENDIX E Williams Institute Corpus: Keyness Analysis 81

APPENDIX F HRC Corpus: MARRIAGE + EQUALITY concordance 83

APPENDIX G Williams Institute Corpus: EXTEND + MARRIAGE concordance

95

APPENDIX H HRC Corpus: INEQUALITY 100

APPENDIX I HRC Press Release #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs

Marriage Equality Now 109


10/115

1360613 9

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) 19

Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough

2012) 20

Figure 4.1 HRC argument: Why America needs ‘marriage equality’ now 43

Figure 3.1 MARRIAGE collocation 70

Figure 3.2 EQUALITY collocation 70

Figure 3.3 COUPLES collocation 71

Figure 3.4 GAY collocation 71

Figure 3.5 TRANSGENDER collocation 72

Table 3.1 Keyword comparison between HRC, Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute

corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus. 36

Table 3.2 HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams

Institute as reference corpora 37


11/115

1360613 10

1.0. INTRODUCTION

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claims to be ‘America’s largest civil rights

(HRC 2014). Founded in 1980, as ‘the first gay and lesbian political action committee

(PAC) in the United States’ (Cornell University 2006), the organisation now boasts 1.5

million members and its activities include lobbying, research and public policy as well as

running education and outreach programmes across the US (Cornell University 2006). In

the 2012 presidential campaign HRC’s political spending reached $4.2 million on

lobbying and campaign contributions. (opensecrets.org). In addition, HRC have also

pursued an aggressive strategy of branding, marketing and public relations activities that

have raised the profile of the organisation (Cornell University 2006). One notable

achievement in this campaign has been the HRC logo that is now claimed to be ‘asvisible at pride celebrations … as the iconic rainbow flag’ (HRC 2015a). The logo now

appears on countless bumper stickers and t-shirts, and is used by the media, politicians

and corporations to show support for HRC’s brand of LGBT equality (HRC 2015a).

HRC’s resources, membership, and media presence make it the most influential LGBT

advocacy group in the US – a unique position that allows them to speak, in Washington

and in the mainstream media, on behalf of LGBT people (Cornell University 2006;

Meronek 2015). But does HRC adequately represent the interests of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ*)1 Americans?

As the media presence and political profile of HRC has grown, so too have those

critical voices that dispute HRC’s claim to represent the political, social and economic

interests of the LGBTIQ* community (Warner 2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al 2011;

Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014). Critics maintain that LGBTIQ* people are women, men,

transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from multiple ethnic, religious,

1 The use of LGBTIQ* is a political choice by the author in an attempt to illustrate the diversityof lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and gender non-conforming people. Thelatter group is represented by the asterisk and includes those who do not identify themselvesthrough binary gender categories (gender expansive), two-spirited native North Americans whodo not identify with the identity categories given by colonial Americans, asexuals, those livingwith HIV, those who are questioning their sexual identity and those who reject any reductiveidentities ascribed by labels.


12/115

1360613 11

regional, socioeconomic, and political backgrounds (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010;

D’Emilio 1993, 2006). Thus, any civil rights agenda representing this community would

need to be as diverse as the constituents it claims to represent (Warner 2000; Duggan

2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). Instead, HRC

are accused of employing a corporate-style decision making model that only serves the

interests of its largely white, upper-middle-class, cis-gender 2, gay and lesbian board of

directors (Duggan 2003). HRC, by ignoring people within the community who do not

have the resources and media-access to represent themselves, thereby obfuscates the

issues that affect most LGBTIQ* Americans (Warner 2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al

2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). Central to this critique is that HRC

are also pursuing a ‘single issue’ (Duggan 2003:47) political strategy that frames same-

sex marriage as the ultimate measure of equality and the primary goal of the movement

(Sullivan 1995; Warner 2000; Duggan 2001, 2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010;

Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). Conrad argues that HRC’s gay marriage campaign

hinges ‘upon … the gay subject as a … racialized figure embedded in a comfortable

upper-middle-class environment … untroubled by any … inequality other than …

“marriage rights”’ (2013:394). This essentially diverts attention away from the social

injustices actually affecting the LGBTIQ* population. Discussed below are six critical

issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans, most of which cannot be solved with an extension

of marriage rights (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006).

1.1 Economic Inequality

The LGBTIQ* community is disproportionately affected by economic inequality

(Albelda et al 2009). More lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) households live in poverty

than heterosexual households (Albelda et al 2009); children of same-sex couples are

twice as likely to live in poverty as children of different-sex couples (Albelda et al 2009);

and lesbians and LGB people of colour are most affected. The statistics for transgender

and gender non-conforming people are worse, being four times more likely to have a

2 A person whose gender identity corresponds with assigned sex at birth, ie. not transgender,gender non-conforming or gender expansive.


13/115

1360613 12

household income of < $10,000/ year compared to the general population (Grant et al

2011). The unemployment rate is also double, while the Black and Latino transgender

populations have an unemployment rate nearly four times that of the general population

(Grant et al 2011).

1.2 Healthcare and Support for people living with HIV/AIDS

Inadequate healthcare produces inferior health outcomes in the LGBTIQ*

population (Krehely 2009). 82% of the heterosexual population have health insurance,

compared to 77% for the LGB population, and 57% for the transgender and gender non-

conforming population (Krehely 2009). The LGBTIQ* community also has higher rates

of obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, and cancer (Krehely 2009). The Center for

Disease Control (CDC 2015) also reports that 56% of patients contract HIV through

same-sex activity (CDC 2015) and gay men have the fastest growing rate of infection

(CDC 2015).

1.3 Immigration

Of the nearly 1 million LGBTIQ* immigrants living in the US (Center for

American Progress 2014), 267,000 are undocumented (Burns et al 2013). Those held in

US immigration detention centres are often ‘subjected to solitary confinement, torture,

and ill-treatment, including sexual assault…. ‘ (Gruberg 2013). A UN Special Report

(Gruberg 2013) concluded that the placement of LGBTIQ* detainees within the

Department of Homeland Security was in violation of the Convention Against Torture.

1.4 Homelessness

LGBTIQ* teenagers comprise 40% of homeless youth in the US (Durso and

Gates 2012:3). The reasons are complex, though family rejection (68% of cases),

physical or sexual abuse (at over 54%), being aged out of the foster-care system, and

financial and emotional family neglect are major causes (Durso and Gates 2012:9).


14/115

1360613 13

1.5 Criminalization

LGBTIQ* teens represent only 5-7% of the US youth population but constitute

15% of those in the juvenile justice system (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012 2012:1).

Homelessness forces them into drug sales, theft and prostitution (Hunt and Moodie-Mills

2012:3). LGBTIQ* youth of colour are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement;

ie. of the 300,000 LGBTIQ* youth arrested each year, 60% of them are Black or Latino

(Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012: 1). Often detained according to their registered sex at

birth, they are exposed to the danger of sexual assault and violence (Hunt and Moodie-

Mills 2012:6). Though many remain unconvicted of crimes, detention centres place

transgender youth in solitary confinement (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6), a practice the

American Psychiatric Association maintains ‘is … a form of punishment … likely to produce lasting psychiatric symptoms’ (Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012:6).

1.6 Racial Injustice

African-American same-sex couples are twice as likely to be poor as African-

American different sex couples (Badget et al 2013). Compared to white gay male

couples, however, African-American gay men were six times more likely to be poor

(Badget et al 2013). African-American lesbians were also three times more likely to be poor than were white lesbians (Badget et al 2013). LGBTIQ* people of colour also

experienced higher rates of youth homelessness (Durso and Gates 2012), incarceration

(Hunt and Moodie-Mills 2012; Durso and Gates 2012; Grant et al 2011) and HIV

infection (CDC 2015). Transgender and gender non-conforming people of colour are

also primary victims of an increase in hate crimes and murders (Grant et al 2011;). Of

the 12 transgender women murdered in 2015, 9 were black or Hispanic (Kellaway and

Brydum 2015).

Critics claim that HRC have remained largely silent on these issues (Bassichis et

al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014; D’Emilio 2006). As these dissenting voices have

organized both independently and against HRC (Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez

et al 2014), so the HRC has adopted rhetoric that addresses its critics (Becker 2014). In


15/115

1360613 14

2014 the HRC President addressed Transgender critics and claimed that he was ‘sorry for

the times [they had] been underrepresented or unrepresented’ and that ‘HRC has a

responsibility to do the struggle justice, or else we are failing’ (Becker 2014).

This thesis will address the critiques made against HRC through a critical

investigation of how they represent both the issues affecting LGBTIQ* Americans and

the goals of their campaign for ‘equality’. HRC have established a strong media presence

to represent their values, goals and achievements. The study will therefore begin with a

corpus analysis of their press releases. A text chosen as representative of the corpus

findings will then be used for a critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough and

Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical argumentation. As an advocacy

organisation, HRC make arguments to the government and the public that certain actions

should be taken in order to reach ‘full equality’ for LGBTIQ* Americans. The main

research questions are:

To what extent does HRC represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ*

community in the US?

To what extent does HRC advocate on behalf of marginalised groups

within the LGBTIQ* community who do not have the resources to

represent themselves in the media and in Washington? To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the

accusations made against HRC?


16/115

1360613 15

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS & PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION ANALYSIS

2.1. Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a ‘trans-disciplinary’ approach (Fairclough

2015: 45) to the study of discourse, power, and ideology – incorporating methods from

the critical social sciences and linguistics (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk

1993, 2001, 2008; Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak

2011). CDA seeks to understand how discourse contributes to social, political and

economic inequality (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk 1993, 2001, 2008;

Wodak and Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak 2011). Its goal is not

simply to describe this relationship, but to provide a ‘critique of discourse and

explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a

basis for action’ (Fairclough 2015:5). CDA’s primary motivation is therefore

‘transformative action to change existing social reality for the better’ (Fairclough

2015:12; Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Van Dijk 1993, 2001, 2008; Wodak and

Van Leeuwen 1999; Wodak and Meyer 2009; Wodak 2011).

This chapter presents an overview of how discourse, power, and ideology are

conceptualised within the present study. Subsequent sections provide an overview of the

CDA theories adopted in this investigation: Section 2.2 outlines the basic theoretical

framework of the Dialectical-Relational Approach (Fairclough and Chouliaraki 1999;

Fairclough 2003, 2010); Section 2.3 provides a framework for analysing practical

argumentation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012) and Section 2.4 concludes with a

critique of CDA’s methods and a brief discussion of how corpus linguistics can be used

to strengthen analysis.

2.1.1. Discourse

Defining discourse is problematic as it is used in both ‘social and linguistic

research in …inter -related yet different ways’ (Baker 2006:3). Within CDA there is a

distinction between two separate but complimentary meanings (Fairclough 2015; Van


17/115

1360613 16

Dijk 2001, 2008; Wodak and Meyer 2009). The first refers to ‘naturally occurring

instances of language in use’ (Stubbs 1996:158). Traditional discourse analysts therefore

study the function of language above the sentence or clause level (Brown and Yule 1983;

Stubbs 1983) and how a ‘stretch of language … achieves meaning and coherence

…’(Cook 2011:431). When unequal power relations are exercised at this level, it is

referred to as power in discourse (PID) (Fairclough 2015:73). While PID can manifest

itself in face-to-face interaction, the concern in this thesis is with media texts. Thus when

discourse is produced and disseminated through the mass media, HRC control the

interaction by ‘determin[ing] what is included and excluded, how events are represented,

and … even the subject position of the audience’ (Fairclough 2015:79). HRC’s

significant media presence enables them to exercise their powerful position and represent

the LGBTIQ* equality movement according to their interests.

PID is related to Power behind discourse (PBD) – the idea that ‘the whole social

order of discourse is put together … as a hidden effect of power’ (Fairclough 2015:83).

This second concept derives primarily from Foucault (1972; 1982) who proposed that

social reality arises from a network of discursive practices that determine our speech,

behaviour and relationships. Discourse is therefore not just how we represent our world

through language, but actually constitutes how we perceive social reality, our identity,

and the power relations to which we are all subject (Foucault 1972). For example, the

LGBTIQ* rights movement is founded on discourses of shared identity and collective

history framed by a metaphor of ‘coming-out’ (D’Emilio 1993); ie. LGBTIQ* individuals

always existed, but suffered in isolation until they publicly asserted their sexual identity

and demanded equality. Foucault (1976 ) however, proposed that homosexual identity, as

understood today, is merely the product of discursive practices that emerged in a specific

historical era. While prior to the 19th century, same-sex sex was a forbidden act, the

‘perpetrator’ had no particular characteristics or identity traits associated with his

‘perversion’ (Foucault 1976:43). Westphal’s publication of ‘Contrary Sexual Sensations’

(1870) changed this, identifying homosexuality as a diagnosable condition (Foucault

1976). Thereafter, clinicians pathologised sexual behaviour by diagnosing mental

conditions based on sexual practice, and endowed the sexual act with mental and moral


18/115

1360613 17

characteristics (Foucault 1976, 1982). Thus homosexual identity did not exist outside of

discourse, but was born through discourse. As Foucault stated: ‘The sodomite had been a

temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species’ (Foucault, 1984:323).

The discursive construction of LGBTIQ* identity is but one example of how

discourse constructs our social reality. Identity however, is not a benign category. It has

profound effects on our life and freedom of movement. While psychiatric discourses

influence how we think and speak about mental illness, they are also connected to mental

health facilities and the law, both of which have power over human subjects and their

bodies (Foucault 1972). Thus, these dividing practices (Foucault 1982) – sane/insane,

legal/illegal, homosexual/heterosexual – actually function as a form of social control.

Inasmuch as prisons separate the law-abiding from the criminals, so the creation of ahomosexual identity separates the ‘pure’ from the now recognizable ‘deviant’ (McIntosh

1968:183). That is, a discrete identity associated with a deviant behaviour demarcated a

threshold that, if crossed, marked a transition into criminality ( Ibid ).

2.1.2. Power

Power only exists when it is put into action (Foucault (1982) and is ‘rooted in the

system of social networks’ that constitute society (Foucault 1982:224). Through physical

force, coercion or consent (Fairclough 2015), one group comes to dominate another.

However, domination is not won and maintained indefinitely and the possibility of

resistance is ever-present as power relationships continually shift over time (Van Dijk

2001). For one group to maintain dominance over another, their claims to power must be

‘legitimized…in discourses’ (Wodak and Meyer 2009:89). Legitimation is contingent on

access to discourse – that ‘the more discourse genres, contexts, participants, audience,

scope and text characteristics they actively control or influence, the more powerful social

groups…and elites are’ (Van Dijk 1993:256, 2008). These include governments, the

media and those who influence these institutions through their economic, social and

cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986). Discourse is then controlled using ‘discursive

strategies’ that represent social actors, events, or objects in a way that is beneficial to

those in power (Wodak and Meyer 2009:93).


19/115

1360613 18

HRC’s powerful media presence provides them with control of discourses

surrounding the LGBTIQ* community (Cornell 2006; Meronek 2015). Such power

established their ‘marriage equality’ agenda as the social issue most frequently

represented in the media. Indeed, to read contemporary media surrounding LGBTIQ*

people ‘is to receive the impression that gay people hardly care about anything else’

(Warner 2000:84). This is an incredibly powerful position. As noted, other crucial issues

affecting the community are then ignored and the people who are affected by them

effectively disappear, unrepresented as part of the LGBTIQ* rights campaign in the mass

media or in Washington. As HRC’s values have become embedded across many genres

and many locations, their interests and goals have begun to appear routine appear as the

accepted values of all LGBTIQ* Americans. Gramsci (1971) labelled this process

hegemony, proposing that to maintain power, the ruling classes must win the hegemonic

struggle for the hearts and minds of the people. The hegemony of HRC’s values allow it

to shape the scope of an LGBTIQ* equality movement. Many (if not most) LGBTIQ*

Americans favour inclusion in existing institutions like same-sex marriage because it has

been represented as the only way to achieve full equality.

2.1.3. I deology

Discourse and power function together to serve the interests of the elite. Though

these interests yield material wealth, the desire for wealth and power is actually rooted in

beliefs and ideas that view them as desirable in the first place. This system of beliefs and

ideas is referred to as ideology (Althusser [1971] 2006; Van Dijk 2008; Fairclough 2015).

While discourse, power, hegemony, and ideology are deeply imbricated, a specific

discussion of the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement will

provide context for the current study and indicate how ideology can have profound

effects on people’s lives.

The fight for LGBTIQ* equality effectively began with the Stonewall Uprising of

1969. At that time, criminalization of homosexuality was often achieved through raids of

LGBTIQ* social spaces. These ended in arrests, incarceration and police violence

(D’Emilio 1992, Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006). On the night of June 27th


20/115

1360613 19

1969, however, the patrons, staff, and local residents that frequented the Stonewall Inn

bar resisted arrest, barricaded the street and trapped police inside the bar (ibid ). In 1969

the civil rights movement and the mass demonstrations against America’s war in Vietnam

had created a political climate of radicalization, constituency mobilisation, and grassroots

activism. The Stonewall Uprising coincided with this ideological shift (D’Emilio 1992,

Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006). Modeling itself on the civil rights movement

(D’Emilio 1992, 2002), the uprising galvanized popular support for a ‘gay liberation

movement’ (D’Emilio 1992, Carter 2004, Armstrong and Crage 2006) that demonstrated

for an end to discrimination against LGBTIQ* people, but also against institutional and

cultural racism, gender inequality, police violence, poverty, housing discrimination and

the military industrial complex (Warner 2000; Bassichis, Lee and Spade 2011). They did

not seek to assimilate into the mainstream, but rather to radically transform it and create a

society based on economic equality and inclusiveness (Warner 2000; Bassichis, Lee and

Spade 2011).

Forty years later, the radical politics of the post-Stonewall era have been

abandoned and the LGBTIQ* movement is focused on an agenda of acceptance into

existing institutions; eg. serving openly in the military and the right to marry (Warner

2000; Duggan 2003; Puar 2007). Duggan (2003) argues that the ideological shift in

LGBTIQ* advocacy reflects the broader sociocultural and political turn towards a

neoliberal political economy. The ideological force of neoliberalism has resulted in HRC

adopting ‘neoliberal rhetoric and corporate decision-making models’ (Duggan 2003:45).

By abandoning the transformational politics of the past, HRC have gained greater

acceptance into corporate America and the political mainstream (Duggan 2003; Puar

2007; Warner 2000).

Unlike the ‘liberationists’ who challenged hierarchical gender roles and the

neoliberal capitalist state, this new ‘gay politics’ espouses conservative ideologies like

traditional family values, individual liberty, limited government and the free market

(Sullivan 1995; Duggan 2003). According to champions of this ideological shift, this new

direction opposes ‘a radical gay rights movement aligned with workers and…victim

groups against the capitalist oppressor’ (Bawer 1996:21). Equality is contingent on the


21/115

1360613 20

opposite of a ‘working-class revolt … a trickling down of gay-positive sentiments from

elite corporate boardrooms into shops…and factories’ (Bawer 1996:21).

By virtue of this ideological paradigm, HRC assumes that equality is achieved

merely by inclusion in the market and representation in the boardroom, ie. equality is

attainable through consumer practices (Duggan 2003). To ensure that LGBTIQ* voices

are heard and represented, HRC publish a ‘Buying for Workplace Equality’ guide (HRC

2015b) at the ‘start of the winter holiday and shopping season’ (HRC2015c:1). It urges

‘thousands of LGBT consumers - estimated to have spending power of $830 billion’

(ibid : 1) - to ‘send a … message that LGBT inclusion is good for the bottom line’

(ibid :1). HRC even surveys corporations for ‘any consumer … products to include in

HRC’s … Guide’ (HRC 2015d). Corporations can then brand themselves as ‘LGBTfriendly’, thereby marketizing equality in the name of corporate profit. HRC’s strategy

reflects the ideological shift that has occurred in the LGBTIQ* movement, one that is

unrecognisable compared with the post-Stonewall era of grassroots activism (Warner

2000; Duggan 2003; Bassichis et al 2011; Nair 2010; Chávez et al 2014).

The following section provides a framework for how discourse, power and

ideology can be analysed in the social world through linguistic analysis. By looking at

social events, practices, structures and how these are mediated throughout society

through orders of discourse, we can begin to examine the analysis of individual HRC

texts.

2.2. Dialectical-relational approach

This study will adopt the Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA) as the primary

CDA framework (Fairclough 1992, 2003, 2010, 2015; Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).

DRA possesses three stages: Normative critique, Explanatory critique, and Action.

Normative critique compares certain behaviours, actions and social practices against a

moral standard of what constitutes a good society (Fairclough 2003; Fairclough and

Fairclough 2012). Normative critique of discourse therefore examines whether texts are

true or false, manipulative, or deliberately omit critical information in efforts to maintain


22/115

1360613 21

unequal power relationships in the social world. In the case of HRC’s press releases, I

will investigate how the HRC represent their claims for action and their goals against the

reality of social issues facing LGBTIQ* Americans. Explanatory critique asks why

unequal power relationships exist, and for whose benefit. It seeks to understand how

inequality is held together by discourse. In the case of the HRC, I will assess why the

goals of the LGBTIQ* social justice movement are represented in a certain way and for

whose benefit. The first two stages allow for transformative action to be planned and

then undertaken in order to address these issues and effect social justice for LGBTIQ*

Americans.

DRA also emphasises the dialectical relationships existing between social events,

structures, and practices as well as between their semiotic aspects (texts, discourses,genres, and styles; Barthes 1967). By including semiotic aspects, Fairclough (1992,

2003, 2006, 2010) extended the study beyond spoken and written language to examine

how any system of signification (images, gestures, objects, music, etc) contributes to the

construction of discourse. Relationships between semiotic elements and social reality are

dialectical because they are separate, but not discrete (Fairclough 2003, 2010). For

example, while discursive strategies can legitimate dominance of one group over another,

the ability to exercise discursive strategies is a result of existing dominance in the first

place (Fairclough, 2010:4). Similarly, while social events are a product of established

social practices, individual agency can shape social events and transform social practice.

The following section will explore these concepts in more detail.

2.2.1. Social events

Social events, in their semiotic dimension, are enacted through written, spoken,

visual or multimodal texts (Fairclough 2003, 2010). Their purpose is to simultaneously

‘represent aspects of the world…enact social relations…in social events…and coherently

and cohesively connect texts with their situational contexts’ (Fairclough 2003:27). They

consist of social actors whose agency is neither completely unregulated nor ‘totally

socially determined’ (Fairclough 2003:23). For example, HRC’s press team must abide

by grammatical conventions and by the style and genre of a press release. But they may


23/115

1360613 22

also ‘texture the text’ to convey the values and goals of their organisation (Fairclough

2003:22). The text is therefore a product of the dialectical relationship between social

events and structures as mediated by social practice. Much CDA analysis begins with

texts as an entry level for normative critique.

2.2.2. Social practices

Social practices ‘mediate the relationship between social structures at the most

general and abstract level and … concrete social events’ (Fairclough 2010:232).

Marriage, for example, is an ancient social structure that has endured as a fundamental

component of the social world. In order for this institution to have survived, it required a

network of repeated social practices that maintained the social structure. The semiotic

dimensions of these social practices are enacted through orders of discourse, constituted

by genre, discourses, and style (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999; Fairclough 1992, 2003,

2010).

Genres are ‘semiotic ways of acting and interacting’ (Fairclough 2010: 232 ) and

include the wedding ceremony, the vows spoken between two people, and the legal

marriage contract. Genres thus shape specific social events and how the social structure

of marriage is enacted in reality.

Discourses are ‘semiotic ways of construing [or representing] aspects of the world

(physical, social or mental) which can … be identified with ... different groups of social

actors’ (Fairclough 2003:232). For instance, same-sex marriage is represented through

discourses associated with the politics or moral stance of specific groups. Right-wing

Christian groups in the US construe same-sex marriage as an attack on tradition or a

perversion of a union ordained by god (Allon 2015). These discourses contrast with

those of HRC who construe same-sex marriage as an issue of inclusion or freedom (HRC

2014a).

Style refers to ‘identities – or “ways of being” – in their semiotic aspect’

(Fairclough 2003:232); ie. how we construct our identities through the texts we create.

For instance, HRC and many advocates for same-sex marriage emphasize the traditional


24/115

1360613 23

values inherent in marriage and the dignity it bestows couples. In so doing, they position

themselves and their social justice campaign as deeply moral and inline with traditional

family values.

Genres, discourse and styles combine to create orders of discourse and social

practices associated with certain institutions or social structures. Nonetheless, ‘social

practice does not merely “reflect” a reality that is independent of it; social practice is in

an active relationship to reality and it changes reality’ (Fairclough 2015:68). Over time,

social agents alter social practices, thereby altering the nature of both the social structure

and the social events. So, while marriage has survived for centuries, the social practices

that define how it is performed have changed and will continue to change.

2.2.3. Social structur es

Social structures define ‘a potential, a set of possibilities’ (Fairclough 2003:23).

Marriage is such a social structure and serves different functions for various groups

across time and history; however, the structure has traditionally involved the union of two

persons, their family ties and has included economic benefits. It is upheld by the social

practices and events.

2.2.4. Mediation

The relationship between texts and the social world must be understood through

the concept of mediation (Fairclough 2003) – the “movement of meaning’ – from one

social practice to another, from one event to another, and from one text type to another’

(Fairclough 2003:30). The modern era has seen a proliferation of mass media through

radio, television and the Internet. The ability to connect many people across space and

time permitted an acceleration in the movement of text. The result is a networking of

texts, or genre chains (Fairclough 2003:31), which allow information to be

recontextualized from one genre to another. For example, an HRC press release is

recontextualized into print and visual media, and then shared through social media or

verbal communication. In our world, ‘the capacity to control processes of mediation is

an important aspect of power’ (Fairclough 2003:31).


25/115

1360613 24

In the next section, Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for practical

argumentation will be discussed. As HRC are an advocacy and political lobbying

organisation, the nature of their work is concerned with making arguments for certain

actions to be taken over others. While the overall method and theoretical framework of

DRA is effective for this study, practical argumentation analysis is an ideal framework

for analysing specific texts (events).

2.3. Practical argumentation analysis

DRA provides a framework for analysing the dialectical relationships between

social events, structures, practices and their semiotic elements (texts and orders of

discourse). Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) argue, however, that DRA’s textualanalysis is incomplete as it is limited to representation and does not extend the analysis

to how representations function as a premise for action. They argue that ‘ways of

representing the world enter as premises into reasoning about what we should do. Unless

we look at arguments, and not just at isolated representations, there is no way of

understanding how our beliefs feed into what we do’ (2012: 87). This omission of

argumentation analysis is problematic for CDA, inasmuch as CDA is a critique of

political discourse that, by its very nature, is primarily ‘about making choices about how

to act in response to circumstances and goals’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:1). An

analysis of how arguments are constructed can therefore make a ‘major contribution to

strengthening textual analysis in CDA’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:86). Since

political lobbying and advocacy fall within the genre of political discourse, their

framework is an appropriate model for analysing HRC’s claims about what actions are

required to achieve the goal of full equality for the LGBTIQ* community. With that in

mind, the following section provides a brief overview of Fairclough and Fairclough’s

(2012) framework for practical argumentation analysis.

Practical argumentation involves advocating for what should or ought to be done

regarding a particular problem or situation (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). The

structure of the argument begins with a claim for action based on a particular set of goals

and circumstantial premises (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). These goals and


26/115

1360613 25

circumstances are determined against a normative background of values usually informed

by ‘a moral order (informed by shared moral values or by universalizable rules of

conduct), an institutional order (generated by laws or rules), against a background of

various other values (kindness, generosity)…simply in view of what your actual desires

and preferences are’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). A means-goal is then proposed

as the best possible way of achieving the goal proposed. Figure 2.1 shows the structure

of a practical argument.

Figure 2.1 Structure of practical argument (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012).


27/115

1360613 26

Practical reasoning is incomplete, however, if it does not involve deliberation

over other possible courses of action (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012); eg. ‘considering

what reasons would support not doing the action (i.e. a counter-claim), but may also

involve alternatives (doing something else, not just refraining from action)’ (Fairclough

and Fairclough 2012:89). This process is illustrated in figure 2.0. Ideally, deliberation

occurs when multiple agents arrive ‘at a common course of action by examining various

proposals…in light of reasons for and against each proposal’ (Fairclough and Fairclough

2012). These ‘alternative arguments and counter arguments [are] formulated in terms that

advance the rhetorical goals of the participants that advocate them’ (Fairclough and

Fairclough 2012:92). In much political discourse this is often not the case (Fairclough

and Fairclough 2012; Wyman 2012). In a political speech, where a claim for action is

being advocated, monological or false deliberation is often used as a rhetorical device to

give the illusion that other options are being considered or that no other option is

available. Alternative options ‘are formulated in ways which favour his own conclusion’

and ‘actual deliberation is avoided by representing alternatives in rhetorically convenient

ways’ (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:92).


28/115

1360613 27

Figure 2.2 Deliberation: argument and counter-argument (Fairclough and Fairclough

2012).

Deliberation (and false deliberation) can be persuasion towards one action in light

of alternative actions being available. Persuasion is a legitimate form of argumentation,

though when persuasion takes the form of ‘re-describing or re-framing reality inrhetorically convenient ways’ (Fairclough and Fairlcough 2012), it becomes

manipulation. This occurs when representations ‘are put forward or accepted as the one

and only possible way of understanding the matters in question, as uncontroversial truth’

(Fairclough and Fairclough 2012:93). A critical analysis of representation then becomes

paramount as it is only through value-laden representations of the world that actions can


29/115

1360613 28

become a reality. Manipulation of premises also occurs when emotive language or loaded

terms are used. Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) distinguish ‘between those cases in

which loaded terms are used legitimately to defend a particular standpoint, when it is

clear that there is also a contrary standpoint in play, and both are open to critical

questioning, and those cases in which loaded terms and definitions are used deceptively,

as if no other possible viewpoint is possible, as if they were neutral fact-stating

propositions beyond any conceivable doubt’ (2012:93). This is true also of presenting the

means-goal as the only possible solution.

The credibility of argumentation is established by holding up the claim, and the

proposed course of action, against a measure of validity and truth in accordance with the

norms of rational action (Habermas, quoted in Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). In otherwords, an argument should provide for genuine deliberation and that, if this is not the

case, intentional manipulation is occurring. The HRC are a financially powerful and

influential political lobbying and advocacy group that makes claims about how the

federal government should address inequality in the LGBTIQ* community. Successful

political lobbying leads to changes in policy. Changes in policy have effects on people’s

lived experiences. Unless a critical understanding of how their arguments are constructed

is gained, then genuine social justice cannot be achieved. This thesis will use practical

argumentation to establish if HRC’s arguments are credible when measured against

validity and truth.

2.4. Critiques of CDA

A principal tenet of CDA is the adoption of an explicit political stance on social

injustice. Through the analysis of discourse, an understanding of how inequality is

reproduced can be gained as a starting point to effect positive social change in solidaritywith those most affected. However, this political commitment is also the starting point of

much criticism. CDA is accused of circularity in that it identifies social injustice and

then goes looking for it in text (Stubbs 1997; Widdowson 2004). Critics argue that this is

not so much rigorous linguistic analysis as it is a way of selecting ‘those features of the

text which support its preferred interpretation’ (Widdowson 2004:142). Stubbs (1997)


30/115

1360613 29

proposed that applying quantitative methods could address the criticisms that CDA’s

‘methods of data collection and text analysis are inexplicit [and] that the data are often

restricted to text fragments’ (Stubbs 1997:102). In recent years, the integration of corpus-

linguistic methods into CDA has begun to bridge the gap between overly subjective

interpretations of text and the quantitative turn advocated for by Stubbs (Stubbs 1997;

O’Halloran and Coffin 2004; O’Halloran 2009, 2013, 2014; Baker et al 2009; Baker

2012). Specifically, the use of reference corpora can guard against the ‘over - and under-

interpretation’ of findings or conclusions when working with single texts (O’Halloran

and Coffin 2004). Large corpora can also direct analysis towards patterns of language

use not evident in smaller samples of data (Mautner 2009).

The current study adopts a method used by Wyman (2012) who combined corpus-analysis with Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical

arguments. This method grounds the analysis in quantitative data while strengthening a

traditional CDA approach with argument deconstruction.


31/115

1360613 30

3.0. CORPUS ANALYSIS

3.1. Overview

3.1.1. Research questions

This study is a corpus-based critical discourse analysis of the HRC. It investigates

how this organisation represents its goals and values as well as those of the overall

LGBTIQ* social justice movement. As the most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group in

the US, the repercussions of their advocacy and campaigns are twofold. HRC influences

legislation passed in Washington that affects the lives of LGBTIQ* Americans. HRC also

impacts how the media represent the goals and values of the LGBTIQ* movement. To

what extent, then, does the HRC:

Represent the interests of a diverse LGBTIQ* community in the US?

Advocate on behalf of marginalised groups within the LGBTIQ* community who

do not have the resources to represent themselves in the media and in

Washington?

Because many critics have argued that HRC focuses exclusively on issues that benefit

white, upper-middle-class, cis-gender gays and lesbians, this study also asks:

To what extent does linguistic evidence support or challenge the accusations

made against HRC?

3.1.2. Data

To answer these questions, I performed a corpus analysis of HRC’s press releases

(PR) from 2014. PRs are a public relations tool used by an organization’s media team toconvey specific information to the press. This genre allows organizations, like HRC, to

represent itself in a calculated, premeditated way (Belch and Belch 2012). A corpus

analysis of PRs should therefore provide an overview of how HRC represents itself and

the LGBTIQ* movement in the media. Beginning my research with a corpus analysis

also addresses potential researcher bias within CDA by providing ‘a quantitative, and


32/115

1360613 31

thus robust, basis for confirming or falsifying intuitions about language use’ (O’Halloran

2013:140).

The PR corpus was created using the HRC.org ‘Press Room’ feature that provides

a database of PRs (HRC 2015e). It is equipped with a search option for sorting by Issue

( e.g. marriage, HIV/AIDS, immigration) , Year , or State. However, selecting for an issue

or state would likely limit the data. I elected instead to use all press releases from 2014,

producing a corpus of 396 PRs and 184,240 words; a sizeable corpus that provided

insight into how HRC portrays their organization and the movement.

Nevertheless, Stubbs claims that ‘the most powerful interpretation emerges if

comparisons of texts across corpora are combined with analysis of the organization of

individual texts’ (Stubbs 1996:34). A specific PR was therefore chosen that reflected the

data from the corpus analysis as well as the discourse style of political lobbying, ie.

advocating for political action. An analysis of the argument presented in this PR was then

conducted using the framework for analysing practical arguments designed by Fairclough

and Fairclough (2012).

3.1.2. Corpus linguistics

Corpus linguistics analyses corpora, or ‘large bodies of naturally occurring

language stored in computers’ (Baker 2006:1). Using computational methods to uncover

linguistic patterns, ‘corpus linguists … discover things about language use which may

otherwise remain invisible’ (O’Halloran 2013:139). Though subjective choices about

which features to study are still involved, corpus analysis ‘means that exhaustive and

objective searches may be possible for all examples of a feature’ (Stubbs 1996:131). I

began the analysis by looking at KEYWORDS and COLLOCATIONS. Based on these

data, I then compared the HRC corpus against PR corpora from other LGBTIQ*

organizations to determine if HRC’s media strategy was unique. Finally, the HRC corpus

was searched for key terms related to the social issues discussed in Section 1.0

(economic inequality, racial injustice, etc) to establish whether the HRC discussed these

issues in a significant way.


33/115

1360613 32

3.1.3. Corpus tools

WMATRIX3 (Rayson 2008) was the primary corpus analysis tool. The main

reasons for this choice are:

WMATRIX employs the American English 2006 (AmE06) reference corpus.

Because I used a corpus of American written English, AmE06 was likely to

improve the keyness analysis and control for any variation between American and

British written English

WMATRIX3 is a web-based platform that made it easier to access from multiple

locations.

Antconc (Anthony 2014) was also used to cross-check results.

3.2. Corpus analysis

3.2.1. Keyness analysis

I began the analysis by looking at ‘Keyness’ (Baker 2006:121), a method that

compares wordlist from the corpus in question against the wordlist frequency of a

reference corpus. I compared the 2014 HRC PR corpus against the AmE06 reference

corpus and recorded the top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus (Appendix A). The top 10

keywords are shown:

Frequency Rank

Keyword

1 LGBT

2 MARRIAGE

3 EQUALITY

4 HRC

5 RIGHTS

6 SAME-SEX

7 COUPLES

8 GAY

9 CAMPAIGN

10 TRANSGENDER


34/115

1360613 33

Keywords were then sorted by relevance. LGBT, HRC, RIGHTS, and

CAMPAIGN were considered irrelevant because LGBT would have a high frequency in

any LGBT rights campaign and HRC, RIGHTS, and CAMPAIGN were most likely only

representative of the phrase:

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

(LGBT) civil rights organization.

This phrase occurs 396 times in every press release in 2014. The keywords relevant to an

analysis of how HRC represent their values and goals were therefore: MARRIAGE,

EQUALITY, SAME-SEX, COUPLES, GAY and TRANSGENDER. To gain a better

idea of how they are used across the corpus, the next step in the analysis examined

frequent collocations.

3.2.2. Collocation analysis

Collocation occurs when ‘a word frequently appears near another word, and the

relationship is statistically significant in some way’ (Baker 2006:95-96). Stubbs (1996)

claims that by looking at the frequency of certain collocations, we acquire a sense of the

encoded cultural concepts in the text. The following section looks at the 10 most

frequent collocations and what this might suggest about the goals and values of HRC’s

campaign for social justice. Lists were generated using the WMATRIX3 collocation tool.

Results were then sorted according to Log-Likelihood and T-Score (Appendix B).

3.2.2.1. Marriage

Collocations

marriage equality

Marriage Equality

state marriage

marriage bans

marriage cases

support marriage


35/115

1360613 34

constitutional marriage

marriage unconstitutional

challenging marriage

marriage ban

MARRIAGE is a frequently discussed social justice issue.

MARRIAGE mostly collocates with EQUALITY, suggesting that HRC

represents EQUALITY as primarily constituted by the right to marry or that

EQUALITY is measured against this right.

MARRIAGE is discussed in terms of law and government (BANS, BAN, CASES

and UNCONSTITUTIONAL)

3.2.2.2. Equality

Collocations

marriage equality

Marriage Equality

Equality Index

support equality

equality cases

LGBT equality

Corporate Equality

ban equality

full equality

bans equality


36/115

1360613 35

EQUALITY most strongly collocates with MARRIAGE. This reinforces the idea

suggested above that that EQUALITY is overwhelmingly measured against the

right to marry.

EQUALITY is discussed in terms of law (CASES, BAN, BANS). These are the

same frequent collocates for MARRIAGE which suggests that CASES, BAN, and

BANS are collocating with MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

3.2.2.3. CouplesCollocations

sex couples

lesbian couplescouples marry

gay couples

couples legally

couples can

loving couples

committed couples

couples states

couples nineteen

SEX is part of ‘SAME-SEX’ suggesting that the most frequent collocate is

actually SAME-SEX COUPLES

Couples are discussed as LOVING and COMMITTED. Such language suggests

that LGBTIQ* couples are being positioned within discourses of domesticity.

Discourses of domesticity are primarily used within same-sex marriage

campaigns in an attempt to bring LGBTIQ* couples within the fold of

heteronormative kinship systems (Chávez et al 2014).


37/115

1360613 36

Couples are discussed in terms of ability: ‘COUPLES CAN…’ Referring to a

concordance list shows that this is primarily the start of the phrase, ‘COUPLES

CAN MARRY’:

American society. Yet today, as same-sex couples can legally marry in 32 states an

, the number of states where same-sex couples can legally marry has jumped fro

up the issue of marriage. Same-sex couples can legally marry in thirty-four

that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in 35 states an

the U.S. Supreme Court. Same-sex couples can legally marry in thirty-five

(Appendix C)

Couples are also discussed in terms of the geography of same-sex marriage.

‘NINETEEN’ and ‘STATES’ both refer to the number of states in which gay and

lesbian couples could legally marry in 2014:

that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states

down marriage ban June 25] Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states

to support marriage equality. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states

that support will slow down. Same-sex couples can legally marry in nineteen states

down marriage ban July 28] Same-sex couples can legally marry in 19 states and the

(Appendix C)

3.2.2.4. GayCollocations

gay lesbian

gay couples

loving gay

committed gay

gays lesbians

openly gay

marriage gaynow gay

years gay

support gay

gay men


38/115

1360613 37

GAY (S) most frequently collocates with LESBIAN (S) as in ‘gay and lesbian’ or

‘gays and lesbians’ when referring to issues like ‘gay and lesbian couples’ or

‘discrimination against gays and lesbians’

As part of the phrase ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender’

GAY collocates with COUPLES, COMMITTED, MARRIAGE and LOVING.

Again, gay people are primarily being discussed through discourses of

heteronormative domesticity.

3.2.2.5. Transgender

Collocations

bisexual transgender

transgender people

transgender women

Transgender Remembrance

transgender employees

transgender color

transgender community

transgender woman

Center Transgender

Transgender Day

TRANSGENDER collocates with WOMAN and WOMEN which suggests that

HRC primarily discuss transwomen as opposed to transmen or gender non-

conforming people.

TRANSGENDER collocates with REMEMBRANCE and DAY as per HRC’s

promotion of the Transgender Day of Remembrance for those killed as a result of

transphobia and the resulting violence against trans people.

COLOR refers to ‘trans people of color’

Concordance lines show that COMMUNITY largely refers to HRC’s discourses

surrounding the TRANSGENDER community.


39/115

1360613 38

goes for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as well,said

identity. absolutely refuse to leave the transgender community behind in non-

Guard Reggie Bullock. "Even as the transgender community experiences historic

In addition to these victories, the transgender community has also become more

constant threat of brutality faced by the transgender community. HRC Steering

3.2.2.6. Same-sex

Collocations

At this point, WMATRIX3 was unable to search SAME-SEX in the collocation

function most likely because of the hyphen. My solution was to use Antconc for the

collocation analysis. The following collocates were sorted by frequency (including both

left and right sorts).

same-sex sex

same-sex couples

same-sex marriage

same-sex to

same-sex the

same-sex of

same-sex for

same-sex in

same-sex On

SAME-SEX collocated most significantly with COUPLES, MARRIAGE and

LEGALLY

COUPLES collocated most significantly with MARRIAGE

LEGALLY collocated most significantly with MARRY and MARRIED

3.2.2.7. Summary of collocation analysis:

Analysis of the frequently occurring keyword collocations suggested that HRC

discuss MARRIAGE more than any other social issue affecting LGBTIQ* Americans.

With the exception of TRANSGENDER, all other high frequency words were often used

to discuss marriage. The use of phrases like LOVING COUPLES and COMMITTED

COUPLES also implied that HRC promotes a vision of LGBTIQ* relationships as


40/115

1360613 39

heteronormative and domestic; a rhetorical strategy that serves the argument for inclusion

within the institution of marriage.

Another significant finding was that EQUALITY collocated closely with words to

do with marriage or the campaign for federally recognized same-sex marriage.

EQUALITY was not discussed in relation to any other social issue. This suggests that

the campaign for marriage equality has come to overshadow all other issues pertaining to

inequality. By measuring EQUALITY solely against the right to marry, any and all other

issues disappear from the discussion, indicating that accusations over HRC’s alleged

privileging of same-sex marriage is founded in the corpus data.

The only exception was the significant discussion of transgender issues. This

suggests that HRC are at least discussing one other critical issue outside of same-sex

marriage.

In order to ascertain if HRC’s primary focus on marriage equality is unique to

their organization, I compared corpora from other major LGBTIQ* advocacy groups.

3.2.3. Corpora comparison

To establish whether the HRC’s focus is unique within the mainstream LGBTIQ*

social justice movement, I compiled two separate corpora from other major LGBTIQ*

organisations: Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute. Lambda Legal is an advocacy

group providing legal council for the LGBTIQ* community as well as people living

with HIV/AIDS. They focus on impact litigation, societal education, and public

policy work. They are recognised for their work on Lawrence v. Texas that made the

criminalisation of consensual same-sex intercourse illegal and unconstitutional (Lambda

Legal 2015). The Williams Institute is a think-tank at UCLA Law that conducts

independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law as well as public

policy. They are highly cited within discussions of LGBTIQ* issues (The Williams

Institute 2015). The corpora consisted of PRs from 2014. The Lambda Legal corpus

contained 147 PRs, with a total of 77,397 words. The Williams Institute corpus contained

76 PRs, with a total of 36,364 words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIVhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litigationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDShttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV


41/115

1360613 40

In order to establish how LGBTIQ* social issues are represented between

organisations, I conducted a keyness analysis of Lambda Legal and The Williams

Institute using AmE06 as a reference corpus – the same method used for establishing

keyness in the HRC corpus. I recorded the top 50 keywords in the Lambda Legal and

The Williams Institute corpora (Appendices D and E) and have presented the top 10

keywords below.

3.2.3.1. Corpora comparison (A):

Lambda Legal The Williams Institute HRC

LAMBDA COUPLES LGBT

LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE MARRIAGE EQUALITY

COUPLES LGBT HRC

SAME-SEX DE RIGHTS

COURT STUDY SAME-SEX

2014 WILLIAMSINSTITUTE

COUPLES

TRANSGENDER STATE GAY

V. EXTENDING CAMPAIGN

LGBT TRANSGENDER TRANSGENDER

Table 3.1: Keyword comparison between HRC, Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute corpora using AmE06 as reference corpus.

The corpora comparison demonstrated that HRC are not unique in focussing on

same-sex marriage. The most common keywords across HRC, Lambda Legal and The

Williams Institute were:

1.

LGBT

2. MARRIAGE

3. COUPLES

4. SAME-SEX

5. TRANSGENDER


42/115

1360613 41

The only notable differences between the corpora were attributable to organisational title

(e.g. LAMBDA, LEGAL, WILLIAMS INSTITUTE) and their functional remits. For

instance, the Lambda Legal corpus featured keywords like COURT and V. (e.g.

Lawrence v. Texas). This was attributable to their legal advocacy work. In The Williams

Institute corpus, keywords like STUDY were likely due to the academic nature of their

work.

To determine if there was a difference in the way these issues were discussed, I

conducted a keyness analysis of HRC PRs using Lambda Legal PRs and The Williams

Institute PRs as reference corpora. The top 50 keywords in the HRC corpus were

recorded (Appendices E and F) and the top 10 keywords presented below.

3.2.3.2. Corpora comparison (B):

HRC Keywords

(Lambda Legal Reference

Corpus)

HRC Keywords

(The Williams Institute

Reference Corpus)

HRC EQUALITY

LGBT HRC

EQUALITY CAMPAIGN

SAME-SEX SAME-SEX

TRANSGENDER COURT

CAMPAIGN PRESIDENT

HUMAN RIGHTS

PRESIDENT HUMAN

SUPPORT ORGANIZATION

AMERICANS WASHINGTON

Table 3.2: HRC keyword comparison using Lambda Legal and The Williams

Institute as reference corpora

A keyness analysis of the HRC corpus using Lambda Legal and The Williams

Institute as reference corpora revealed that the three organisations speak about marriage

and transgender rights in different ways. After removing keywords that only referenced


43/115

1360613 42

the title and slogan (i.e. HRC, LGBT, HUMAN, RIGHTS, CAMPAIGN, and

ORGANIZATION), the data revealed the following.

The most notable result when compared to Lambda Legal was the keyword

TRANSGENDER. This suggests that transgender issues factor more prominently in the

HRC corpus. Both corpora however revealed that HRC uses the keywords EQUALITY

and SAME-SEX significantly more. As demonstrated in 3.2.1., SAME-SEX collocated

most frequently with COUPLES and MARRIAGE. The most compelling data, however,

came from the use of the keyword EQUALITY. In the HRC corpus, EQUALITY

primarily collocates with MARRIAGE making it a noun phrase:

state, and national efforts for marriage equality; serve as a national platform for

challenging Oregon‚Äôs ban on marriage equality, known as Measure 36. Judge McS Republicans 41 and older support marriage equality, an astonishing 59 percent of tho

the U.S. Constitution to block marriage equality. HRC believes this should be a wa

kickoff event for Americans for Marriage Equality, a bipartisan coalition formed

(Appendix F)

This was unique when compared against The Williams Institute corpus. When

sorted right, MARRIAGE collocated primarily with TO SAME-SEX COUPLES. When

sorted left, MARRIAGE collocated primarily with EXTENDING. In The Williams

Institute corpus, MARRIAGE was discussed primarily as part of a process – as the

subject in a verb phrase.

seen in states that already extend marriage to same-sex couples, this

states that have not yet extended marriage to same-sex couples. The online

mar-2014Colorado: Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Should Add

first three years LOS ANGELES, Extending marriage to same-sex couples in Colorado

the first three years of extending marriage to same-sex couples, the study

(Appendix 95)

The nominalisation of MARRIAGE EQUALITY is not unique to HRC, but its

frequency is. In the HRC corpus, EQUALITY collocates almost entirely with

MARRIAGE. This suggests that EQUALITY is now synonymous with same-sex

MARRIAGE, as opposed to same-sex MARRIAGE being one step on the path towards

true EQUALITY. This raises the following questions:


44/115

1360613 43

Has HRC co-opted the phrase EQUALITY for the sole purposes of its

campaign for same-sex marriage?

Is HRC implying that, with the legalization of same-sex marriage, EQUALITY

has been achieved?

Does this use of EQUALITY limit the discussion of other forms of equality, ie.

economic equality, equal access to quality health care, equal access to

housing, and so on?

In order to begin answering these questions, I returned to the HRC corpus to

investigate if HRC significantly discussed any other issues pertaining to equality or

inequality.

3.2.4. Key terms search: IN/EQUALITY KEY

In order to establish if HRC discussed any other issues pertaining to in/equality, I

generated a wordlist that showed both the frequency and the relative frequency of each

word in the HRC corpus. While the frequency showed the actual number of times a word

was used, the relative frequency tool normalised the results with respect to the corpus

size and converted the frequency to a more representative percentage value (Rayson

2008:530). I then conducted a search of key terms using the socioeconomic issues

discussed in Section 1.0 as a guide:

Economic inequality

Healthcare and support for people living with HIV

Immigration

LGBTIQ* youth homelessness

Criminalisation and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth

Racial injustice

My question was:

Does HRC discuss, in a significant way, any socioeconomic issues facing the

LGBTIQ* community?

The full results of this analysis are shown in Appendix H. What I have provided

in the next section is a list of the key terms searched and a summary of any significant

findings.


45/115

1360613 44

3.2.4.1. Economic inequality:

Key terms: Job, Income, Employment, Work, Wealth, Poverty, Welfare

The lemma, WORK, had the highest relative frequency of the key terms searched.

However, WORK and WORKING were primarily used in verb phrases unrelated to

employment. WORKPLACE collocated primarily with words like DISCRIMINATION,

NON-DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTIONS. WORKERS collocated primarily with

LGBT and referred to protections and discrimination. The only other word with a relative

frequency over 0.05 was EMPLOYMENT which, like WORKPLACE, collocated

primarily with DISCRIMINATION and PROTECTION

These findings suggest that HRC focuses primarily on employment and the

workplace, but does not frequently address the ramifications of unemployment like

poverty, welfare, and protections for low-income people.

3.2.4.2. Healthcare and support for people living with HIV/AIDS

Key terms: Healthcare, Care, Treatment, HIV, AIDS, Access, Disability, Medical,

Mental, Insurance

None of the terms associated with HEALTHCARE had a relative frequency

above 0.03. CARE, HEALTHCARE, TREATMENT, HIV and ACCESS had the highest

relative frequencies ranging between relative frequencies of 0.02 and 0.03. This

demonstrates that, while discourses concerning HEALTH and HEALTH CARE are

present in the HRC corpus, their relative frequency suggests a significant lack of

consideration. The issue of HIV/AIDS is neglected altogether.

3.2.4.3. Immigration

Key terms: Immigration, Migrant, Deportation, Asylum, Refugee

None of the terms associated with immigration had a relative frequency above

0.01. The highest frequency terms were IMMIGRANTS, occurring 13 times, and

DEPORTATION occurring 10 times. This demonstrates that HRC are almost entirely

overlooking the issue of immigration and asylum seekers.


46/115

1360613 45

3.2.4.4. LGBTIQ* youth homelessness

Key Terms: Homelessness, Shelter

HOMELESSNESS and SHELTER have relative frequencies of 0.00 indicating

that the issue of LGBTIQ* Youth Homelessness is effectively absent in the HRC corpus.

Their silence on the issue is conspicuous as 40% of all homeless youth identify as

LGBTIQ* (Durso and Gates 2012:3).

3.2.4.5. Criminalization and mass incarceration of LGBTIQ* youth

Key Terms: Prison, Imprisonment, Incarceration

The highest relative frequency was for PRISON at 0.01. Concordances showed,

however, that more than half of the time PRISON was used (nine times out of 16), it wasin relation to the incarceration of LGBTIQ* individuals in countries other than the US,

e.g. Uganda and The Gambia.

3.2.4.6. Racial injustice

Key Terms: Race, Ethnicity, Color, Racism, Racial, Profiling, Black, African-

American, Hispanic, Latino/a, Asian, White

While RACE and COLOR were the most frequent terms, neither of the terms hada relative frequency above 0.02. BLACK and HISPANIC both had a relative frequency

of 0.01 while the remaining terms associated with racial injustice all factored at 0.00. By

omitting issues of race and ethnicity from their platform for equality, HRC demonstrate

that they do not view the LGBTIQ* social justice as imbricated with the rights of ethnic

and racial minorities.

3.2.5. Corpus analysis summary

In Section 3.2.1, the keyness analysis demonstrated that the most frequent

keywords were MARRIAGE, EQUALITY, SAME-SEX, COUPLES, GAY and

TRANSGENDER. In 3.2.2, a collocation analysis of each keyword revealed that

MARRIAGE was the most frequently discussed social justice issue. EQUALITY,

SAME-SEX, COUPLES, and GAY all collocated with MARRIAGE in some way.


47/115

1360613 46

TRANSGENDER was the only keyword that did not connect to the campaign for same-

sex marriage.

A compelling finding was the collocational frequency between MARRIAGE and

EQUALITY. This revealed the extent to which MARRIAGE EQUALITY (Appendix F)

has become a fixed noun phrase. This has significant repercussions. First, using

EQUALITY almost exclusively with MARRIAGE suggests that EQUALITY is

synonymous with MARRIAGE. Same-sex marriage is no longer represented as one step

on the road to LGBTIQ* equality, but as the sole measure by which LGBTIQ* equality is

achieved. The second implication has to do with the construction of social reality

through discourse. Stubbs claims that ‘if particular lexical and grammatical choices are

regularly made, and if people and things are repeatedly talked about in certain ways, thenit is plausible that this will affect how they are thought about’ (Stubbs 1996:92). If the

most influential LGBTIQ* advocacy group frames EQUALITY as synonymous with

MARRIAGE, then we can expect that the media will follow suit and the public will begin

to believe this is the case.

In Section 3.2.3, I compared the PR corpora from two other LGBTIQ* non-profit

organizations ( Lambda Legal and The Williams Institute) against HRC. This comparison

demonstrated that, while the privileging of same-sex marriage over other issues was not

unique, the use of the phrase MARRIAGE EQUALITY was. This suggested that HRC’s

critics are justified in accusing HRC of framing same-sex marriage as the only path to

equality. In 3.2.4, I investigated the accusation that HRC do not discuss any other social

issues in a significant way. I searched key terms relating to economic inequality, racial

injustice, immigration, healthcare, HIV/AIDS, LGBTIQ* youth homelessness as well as

LGBTIQ* criminalisation and incarceration. Results showed that HRC are effectively

silent on all of these social issues. For example, while the relative frequency of

MARRIAGE and EQUALITY were 1.0 and 0.86 respectively, the highest frequency key

term from the list above was EMPLOYMENT at 0.07.

The HRC is uniquely positioned to influence the shape and scope of the campaign

for LGBTIQ* social justice. They have the media presence and resources to shape public


48/115

1360613 47

perceptions about what LGBTIQ* Americans hope for and what they wish to achieve in

the fight for equality. In fact, the corpus data reveal that HRC is an organisation that has

limited the scope of equality to a single-issue. The data also show that HRC wilfully

neglects issues that affect marginalised and vulnerable populations within the

community. PRs are not a reflection of how HRC is covered in the media. PRs reveal a

calculated media strategy to advance the interests of the organisation. The data suggest

that people of colour, the poor, the sick, the homeless, and the incarcerated are not

included in the HRC’s interests. Many people, however, still actively support HRC. An

important question is:

How do HRC represent the argument for marriage equality in the media?

In the next section, I will conduct a practical argument analysis of an HRC PR that

explains why marriage equality is the primary goal for HRC.


49/115

1360613 48

4.0. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: PRACTICAL ARGUMENTATION

ANALYSIS

Based on the corpus analysis, I selected a text on which to conduct a CDA using

Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing practical arguments. This

exercise aimed to determine how HRC represents the Marriage Equality campaign and

what practical arguments they use to justify their claims. In the DRA framework, this

stage of analysis constitutes the normative critique of discourse. The press release chosen

is titled #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now (Appendix J) and

was selected for the following reasons:

1.

It focuses on HRC’s ‘marriage equality’ (L1) campaign and is thereforerepresentative of the corpus findings.

2. It provides a practical argument for why ‘marriage equality’ is a critical issue

facing LGBTIQ* Americans. It is therefore a rationale for HRC’s preoccupation

with ‘marriage equality’ (L1) and could reveal why HRC privileges this one issue

at the expense of others.

3. The text is structured as a practical argument for why ‘marriage equality’ (L1) is

the best solution for many social injustices – an argument best analysed using

Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) framework for analysing political discourse.

4.1. Text:

The #LoveCantWait: Why America Needs Marriage Equality Now PR was

distributed on September 30th, 2014. In it, HRC argues that the time has come for the

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to begin hearing cases on the

constitutional right of same-sex couples to wed. The PR was also written to generate

publicity for their hashtag #LoveCantWait – a social media campaign that encouragesAmericans to share their stories about same-sex marriage under the HRC banner and at

HRC.org/LoveCantWait. The following practical argumentation analysis addresses the

claim that ‘America needs marriage equality now’ (L1).


50/115

1360613 49

4.2. Outline of HRC argument

Figure 4.1 HRC argument: Why America needs ‘marriage equality’ now

In the #LoveCantWait PR, HRC claims that America needs marriage equality

immediately in order to achieve the goal of ending ‘the legal, financial and emotional

hardships’ (L2) of same-sex couples. According to HRC, the means-goal for achieving

this requires SCOTUS begin hearing pending marriage cases. The alternative option, that

SCOTUS does not hear these cases immediately, would result in ‘real families suffer[ing]

the often tragic consequences’ (L12-13) of being unable to legally wed. The

circumstances that HRC provide for this claim are based on the broad and systematic

suffering of same-sex couples ‘solely because they can’t get married’ (L3). The values

for such a claim are represented as a belief in equality and fairness for all Americans and

a belief that legal marriage is the fundamental vehicle for equality.


51/115

1360613 50

4.2.1. Circumstances

In 2004, a ruling in the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health case resulted in

Massachusetts becoming the first state to recognise same-sex marriage ( Goodridge v.

Department of Public Health 2003). While SCOTUS initially declined to hear appealsagainst this ruling (Kirkpatrick and Zizima 2004), a series of state ‘marriage-bans’, made

it inevitable that SCOTUS should make a decision on the constitutional protection of

same-sex marriages. At the time #LoveCantWait was published, same-sex couples could

marry in 19 states as well as Washington, DC (L23-24). Nonetheless, without

constitutional protection, independent states could deny recognition of same-sex

marriages performed in other jurisdictions (L24-26). The HRC PR advocates that

SCOTUS, as the final arbiter of the law and constitution, should make decisions to

protect ‘real Americans’ (L55) suffering the consequences of marriage-bans. The HRC

president emphasizes the necessity of legal action: by stating that ‘while we usually think

of love and celebration when talking about weddings, the truth is there are essential legal

protections and safeguards that come with marriage’ (L16). The PR text then draws on

two strategies to outline how banning same-sex marriage affects ‘real people and real

families’ (L15).

The text begins its exposition on the ‘devastating hardships’ (L18) faced by‘unwed same-sex couples’ (L18 – emphasis added) by claiming that, ‘without legal

marriage recognition, same-sex couples face issues in’ (L22):‘Out-of-state recognition’

(L23), ‘property rights’ (L27), ‘healthcare decisions’ (L30), ‘parenting’ (L34), ‘adoption

and custody’ (L37), ‘Taxes’ (L41), ‘employer benefits’ (L44), ‘social security’ (L47),

‘veterans benefits’ (L49), and ‘emergency services’ (L52). Each issue is written in bold

capitals followed by a colon and a brief explanation (2-3 sentences) that details how

same-sex marriage bans have legal ramifications on people’s lives. Between lines 22-54,

the text reads like a legal report. Sentence subjects are collective groups like ‘same-sex

partners’ (L31), ‘same-sex couples’ (L34) and ‘same-sex spouses’ (L45). Human

subjects become ‘someone’ (L28) and ‘a person’ (L28). The high lexical density indexes

a formal register that is then contrasted with a section using emotional language to

recount ‘stories from real Americans that detail why the Supreme Court shouldn’t delay


52/115

1360613 51

in taking up a marriage equality case’ (L55-56). Divided into three accounts, the titles

are: ‘If she’d lived six days longer…’ (L59), ‘A man’s final moments

wilkinson, mark

Documents