Cda 111

“A carefully measured piece”: A critical discourse analysis of Jack Straw’s op-ed on the full veil BANDAR AL-HEJIN LANCASTER UNIVERSITY 31/7/2007 ABSTRACT. This article presents a critical discourse analysis of Jack Straw’s 2006 editorial on the Islamic full veil, which triggered the now infamous “veil row” in the British media. Analytical categories from the Discourse-Historical Approach (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Wodak, 2001) are used to examine the linguistic strategies employed in the text to construct the full veil is a “problem” while preserving the author’s positive self image. These include adversative connectors, modality, nominalization, implicatures, predication, and disclaimers. The analysis also draws on argumentation theory, specifically pragma-dialectical theory (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992), to examine the “acceptability” of Straw’s claims. The article concludes with a discussion of the advantages and challenges of applying the above tools to this type of text.

Introduction The following article presents a critical discourse analysis of Jack Straw’s 2006 editorial on the full veil. Using analytical categories from the Discourse-Historical Approach (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Wodak, 2001), this paper aims to examine the linguistic strategies employed in the text to convince readers that the full veil is a “problem”. These include adversative connectors, modality, nominalization, implicatures, predication, and disclaimers. I will also draw on argumentation theory, specifically pragma-dialectical theory, to examine the acceptability of Straw’s claims.

Theory and Analytical Tools CDA theories are sometimes difficult to operationalize due to their grand nature. Fairclough (1992), for example, proposed the highly influential theoretical model representing discourse as having three dialectically related dimensions: text, discursive and social practices. In practice, however, it is often difficult to investigate how these three dimensions actually interact due to lack of access to both ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’ within discursive practices. Moreover, due to its interdisciplinarity, CDA is more of an approach than a method, which may leave the analyst confused between social (Fairclough, 1992, 1995a, 1995b, 2003), socio-cognitive (van Dijk, 1988, 1991, 2001) and discourse-historical (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001) theories, each of which has developed its own box of analytical tools, not to mention different definitions of what ‘discourse’ actually means.1 It seems that the choice of theoretical framework ultimately depends on what the researcher is personally interested in and whether the chosen tools produce meaningful results. In my case or, more specifically, within the context of the representation of the Muslim veil in Straw’s 1

Discourse has come to mean different things even among discourse analysts. Following Fairclough (1992, 1995, 2003), I use the term to refer to a particular way of using language to negotiate power in social contexts. Discourse generates and draws on discourses (count noun). A discourse reflects a certain opinion (e.g. I agree) on a given topic (e.g. restrictions on immigration) resulting from a certain stance (e.g. conservative) within a social domain (e.g. politics).

article, a ‘historic’ approach seems to be the most sensible choice when one is confronting apparent ignorance and misinformation about Islam. The discourse-historical approach distinguishes itself from other CDA approaches in three respects: “the emphasis on interdisciplinarity, the principle of triangulation, and the ethnographic approach to sources of data” (Titscher et al., 2000: 158). The approach emphasizes the importance of examining the historical context behind a given discourse and how that discourse may transform as it is recontextualized in new genres and texts. It also identifies common discursive ‘strategies’ that are particularly useful for analyzing racist and prejudiced discourses which are unfortunately characteristic of news reports about Muslim women. Strategies are discursive practices aimed at achieving a specific goal which may or may not be conscious (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 44). These are often used to construct an US vs. THEM discourse and may include: 1. Referential/Nomination which constructs a group of people as being part of the in-group or the ‘other’ (e.g. British vs. foreigners). 2. Antithetical pronomination (we/us/our/my/here vs. they/them/their/ his/her/there). 3. Predication which labels a group using linguistic devices that convey positive/negative attributes (e.g. illegal immigrants) 4. Disclaimers (e.g. I have many Muslim friends, but…) 5. Argumentation, which claims to justify a given position.

a) b) c) d) e) f) g)

Van Dijk (2000) provides a useful classification of disclaimers into: Apparent denial (e.g. I’m not a racist, but…) Apparent concession (e.g. Not all immigrants are criminals, but…) Apparent empathy (e.g. They have a lot of difficulties in their country, but…) Apparent ignorance (e.g. I don’t know, but…) Apparent excuse (e.g. I am sorry, but…) Reversal (e.g. It is us who are being discriminated against) Transfer (e.g. I have no problem with them, but the citizens…)

The fifth strategy of argumentation is a good example of interdisciplinarity within the discourse-historical approach because it links in with the field of argumentation theory, which provides its own tools for deconstructing rhetoric. For example, one can test the validity/fallacy of an argument by checking for: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency (in that order). The absence of any of these standards renders an argument fallacious (Govier, 2001). Another way to deconstruct an argument is to explore the unexpressed premise on which it is based. Pragmadialectical theory (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992) provides three argumentative schemes for exposing unexpressed premises: Symptomatic: X is a feature of Y Comparative: X is the same as Y Causal: X causes Y

The reasonableness of an argument is largely dependent on the acceptability of a given argumentative scheme (an example of this will be given in the analysis). Finally, the discourse-historical approach addresses four levels of context surrounding the discourse: (1) the immediate language cotext; (2) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationships between texts, genres and discourses; (3) the extralinguistic social situation; and (4) the wider historical context of the discursive event as well as the topic itself. One of the perceived problems with CDA is that the 1

analyst’s interpretation of a text is based on an ideological commitment rather than an analytical one (Schegloff, 1998). However, I think that exploring these four levels of context adequately, though challenging, does provide the analyst with a much stronger basis for the interpretive claims he/she makes. It is not possible to demonstrate the discourse-historical approach in its entirety within the limits of this assignment. Instead, I will demonstrate the application of some of the above-mentioned strategies to the text. At certain junctures, it will be necessary to step outside the text to for additional context, especially with regards to Straw’s claims about Islam. Such contextualization will also illustrate how the ‘historical’ part of this approach might complement textual analysis.

Some Context In October 2006, Labour MP, Leader of the House of Commons and now Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, published an editorial in the Lancashire Telegraph which argued that the full-face veil was a mark of separation that prevents Muslims from fully integrating into British society (2006). He added that the veil obstructs communication as one cannot see the interlocutor’s face. In an interview with BBC Radio 4, Straw went as far as saying that he would prefer it if Muslim women did not wear the full-face veil at all (Remove, 2007). Straw’s comments were met with mixed reactions and started a seemingly endless “veil row” in the media. Any news report relating to the veil thereafter became headline news. It was somewhat surprising that a politician with Mr. Straw’s background would publish such a piece. He was after all home secretary from 1997 to 2001 and foreign secretary until 2005. More importantly, Mr Straw was Labour MP for Blackburn, a city in which 25 to 30 percent of residents are Muslim (Remove, 2007). He must have been aware that his article would cause controversy within his own constituency and probably offend the sensibilities of the Muslim community in general. Organizations such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Council of Lancashire Mosques, and Protect-Hijab (run by Muslim women) were outraged at Straw’s remarks (Straw's veil, 2006). Yet he chose to go ahead and publish what he later described as “a carefully measured piece”. Even Tony Blair described Straw’s article as “measured and considered” (Brown Support, 2006). It is precisely Straw’s ‘measured’ language that seems to allow him to get away with saying what he does and that language will form the focus of my analysis.

Textual Analysis Part of being ‘critical’ in CDA is self-reflection (Wodak, 2007: 209). Before beginning the textual analysis, I will briefly declare my ‘agenda’ as it were. As a practicing Muslim, I naturally have a vested interest in representing my religion and its practices in a positive light and that includes the veil. Rather than passing judgments on the veil, the argument underlying my work is that society should do its best to respect and accommodate all forms of veiling as long as there are women who do so as a matter of personal choice. Turning to the text, Jack Straw begins as follows:

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

“I want to unveil my views on an important issue” “It’s really nice to meet you face to face, Mr Straw,” said this pleasant lady in a broad Lancashire accent. She had come to my constituency advice bureau with a problem. I smiled back. “The chance would be a fine thing,” I thought to myself but did not say out loud. The lady was wearing the full veil. Her eyes were uncovered but the rest of her face was in cloth. Her husband, a professional man I vaguely knew, was with her. She did most of the talking. I got down the detail of the problem, told them that I thought I could sort it out, and we parted amicably.

Newspaper headlines typically employ double meanings. It seems Straw could not resist the temptation of following in that genre using a ‘literally motivated’ metaphor (Koller, personal communication). The verb “unveil” is used metaphorically as a precursor to the topic of the article which is the veil in its literal sense. The most common collocates of the word “unveil” in the British National Corpus fall into the semantic categories of new projects and memorials (e.g. The new budget was unveiled on 25 May). Similarly here, Straw, as a public figure, is attempting to introduce a discourse of ‘honesty about the veil’ into the public sphere that is not new in itself but rather unusual among politicians of his stature. In lines 3-5 everything seems positive (really nice, pleasant, smiled) as Straw describes his meeting with a fully veiled Muslim woman and her husband. Then comes a sarcastic twist: “The chance would be a fine thing” [lines 4-5]. Straw seems amused at the irony in the lady’s statement that she is meeting him face to face when part of her face is in fact concealed. Line 7 makes the ‘problem’ of the veil explicit. Adversative connectors usually set up contrasting clauses. Here the positive (her eyes were uncovered) is contrasted with the negative (the rest of her face was in cloth). The negativity is emphasized in his figurative predication of the veil as being a face “in cloth”. The strategy of ‘positive self representation’ is employed in lines 9-10 as Straw constructs himself as politician capable of solving people’s problems. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

All this was about a year ago. It was not the first time I had conducted an interview with someone in a full veil, but this particular encounter, though very polite and respectful on both sides, got me thinking. In part, this was because of the apparent incongruity between the signals which indicate common bonds — the entirely English accent, the couple’s education (wholly in the UK) — and the fact of the veil. Above all, it was because I felt uncomfortable about talking to someone “face-to-face” who I could not see. So I decided that I wouldn’t just sit there the next time a lady turned up to see me in a full veil, and I haven’t.

In this section Straw continues his attempt to construct the full veil as a ‘problem’. His encounter with the veiled woman in the previous section is referred to as “All this” rather than just “This”, which seems to exaggerate a simple surgery meeting into a big event. It appears Straw wants to say that the full veil is incompatible with ‘British’ society, but he mitigates this opinion using:

3

• • •

modality: apparent [line 13] nominalization: incongruity [line 13], the fact of the veil [line 14] indirectness: the signals that indicate common bonds [line 13]

Again Straw sets up a dichotomy between attributes that seem “entirely” and “wholly” British on the one hand [line 14] and wearing the full veil on the other. The phrase “the fact of the veil” also seems to invoke the sense of the something unmentionable and unpleasant, which confirms a negative predication of the veil. Straw’s second and strongest objection to the full veil, as indicated by the phrase “Above all” [line 15], is that it impedes communication. Synecdoche, a type of metonym in which the part stands for the whole, makes this second objection more dramatic. Straw reduces a whole person to a face because “who” [line 15] refers not only to a face but a whole “someone” that he claims he cannot see. The phrase “wouldn’t just sit there” [line 18] recontextualizes a positive discourse of ‘activism’ which is normally associated with having the courage to take action when no one else does. The discourse serves to reinforce the positive self presentation of Straw as well as the negativity of that which he must take action against: the ‘problem’ of the full-veil. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Now, I always ensure that a female member of my staff is with me. I explain that this is a country built on freedoms. I defend absolutely the right of any woman to wear a headscarf. As for the full veil, wearing it breaks no laws. I go on to say that I think, however, that the conversation would be of greater value if the lady took the covering from her face. Indeed, the value of a meeting, as opposed to a letter or phone call, is so that you can — almost literally — see what the other person means, and not just hear what they say.

This section deals with the delicate matter of asking Muslim women to remove their face veil. Straw must be aware that this part of his article will be the most offensive to many Muslims. Accordingly he uses a disclaimer, a common discursive strategy when people criticize the practices of other groups. These typically employ one adversative connector but in this case there are two. The disclaimer begins with “I explain that this is a country built on freedoms” [line 20] (an explanation that seems more appropriate to foreigners or newly arrived immigrants than British born Muslims). The disclaimer continues up to the first adversative connector “As for” [line 21], which contrasts the more ‘agreeable’ headscarf with the ‘problematic’ “full veil” [line 21]. Interestingly, the disclaimer shifts back to a ‘positive self’ with an acknowledgement of the legality of the full veil in Britain [line 22]. The disclaimer then continues with a series of devices including epistemic modality (I go on, to say, that, I think, …that, would be) and conditional if to mitigate the effect (offence) of the speech act Straw is about to perform. Finally, the second adversative connector, however [line 24], introduces the indirect request to remove the veil. Note also the use of the more pleasant word “covering” [line 25] when Straw is indirectly reporting what he said to this Muslim woman as compared with his earlier use of “cloth” [line 7] when he was describing her to his readers.

4

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

I thought it may be hard going when I made my request for face-to-face interviews in these circumstances. However, I can’t recall a single occasion when a lady has refused to lift the veil; most seem relieved. Last Friday was a case in point. The veil came off almost as soon as I opened my mouth. I dealt with the problems the lady brought to me. We then had an interesting debate about veil wearing. This contained some surprises. It became clear that the husband played no part in her decision. She had read books about the issue. She felt more comfortable wearing the veil when out. People bothered her less.

There is an acknowledgement here that what Straw is asking Muslim women to do is difficult for them, but this possibility is immediately dismissed only to serve as a rhetorical tool to support his claim that unveiling is important and beneficial. The fact that all the women he asked to unveil their face obliged his request is taken as evidence that he had done the right thing. No consideration is given to the unequal power relation between the two parties and the implications it might have for obliging such a request. The implicatures behind the adjective “relieved” [line 29] and “The veil came off almost as soon as I opened my mouth” [line 31] are highly offensive to many Muslims. They suggest Muslim women do not wear the veil out of any true convictions as they are (apparently) just waiting for an excuse to remove it. This (mis)representation of veiling women can be traced back to early orientalist discourses claiming veiled women in Arabia were just waiting to be ‘liberated’ by the western man (Mabro, 1991; Said, 1978, 1997). To be clear, Muslim women wear the veil for different reasons. Some wear it as a matter of choice; others wear it because they have none. For those who do wear it by choice, the intrinsic motivation may be religious, cultural, social, practical, political, or a combination of these. For many women, however, the veil is primarily an act of worship. A recurring problem in western discussions of the veil, also evident in Straw’s article, is that they are conducted from secular perspectives that background the religious reasoning behind the act itself (Roald, 2001: 9). To his credit, Straw mentions the ‘surprising’ fact that this woman wore the full veil by choice and not because her husband demanded it. However, the reasoning behind her decision is reduced to a desire to avoid being harassed. Again, I would not dispute the existence of this reasoning but its recontextualization here only serves to support Straw’s implicit false claim that there are no religious reasons for wearing a full veil in Islam, which he makes explicit in the following final paragraph. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

OK, I said, but did she think that veil wearing was required by the Koran? I was no expert, but many Muslim scholars said that the full veil was not obligatory at all. And women as well as men went head uncovered the whole time when on their Hajj — pilgrimage — in Mecca. The husband chipped in to say that this matter was “more cultural than religious”. I said I would reflect on what she said to me. Would she, however, think hard about what I said — in particular my concern that wearing the full veil was bound to make better relations between the two communities more difficult. It was such a visible statement of separation and of difference. I thought a lot before raising this matter and still more before writing this. But if not me, who? My concern could be misplaced. But I think there is an issue here.

Straw maintains his ‘positive self’ using another disclaimer: I was no expert, but… [line 37]. This is to express ‘apparent ignorance’ of Islam (van Dijk, 2000), but then he confidently proceeds to make three claims: (1) The Quran does not require 5

the veil; (2) Many Muslim scholars say the full veil is not obligatory; (3) Muslims wear the veil for cultural reasons. At this point it is necessary to step outside the text to provide more context. A common misconception is that all Islamic practices are explained in the Quran (what Muslims believe to be the word of God), but many primary practices such as the five daily prayers and giving alms are described in the sunnah (what Muslims believe to be the words and actions of prophet Muhammad). In that sense, most Muslims believe not only that the two texts are complementary but necessary for a complete understanding of their religion. Quranic verses must therefore be understood within their historical, social, and linguistic contexts which makes the sunnah crucial for interpretation. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the Quranic verses that address the veil and the sunnah surrounding this issue. However, to confront the issue of evidentiality in Straw’s claims, it seems necessary to summarize the general consensus and differences among Muslims (myself included) on this issue. Most early Muslim scholars agree that women are required to cover their entire body except for the face and the hands (Abou-El-Fadl, 2001: 240). Their opinions differ as to whether covering the face is a requirement due to differences in interpreting the relevant verses (Al-Quran Al-Karim: 33/53, 33/59, 24/31). The next step is to turn to the sunnah as a means of resolving linguistic ambiguities based on practice. The consensus is that the Prophet’s wives and daughters did cover their faces, but whether that should apply to all Muslim women remains to be a source of disagreement (e.g. Al-Albani, 2000; Khoja, 2004). Contemporary feminist re-interpretations of the religious texts argue that the veil served functions that were specific to the context of the Prophet’s time and cannot be generalized to all Muslim societies (Ahmed, 1992; Mernissi, 1991). Other scholars argue that the requirements of the veil depend on custom, nature, and necessity (Abou-El-Fadl, 2001: 241), which may explain the diverse ways Muslim women dress across the world. In any case, the issue of the veil in Islam is certainly not as simple and one-sided as Straw is attempting to present it here. The claim that veiling is merely a cultural2 practice [line 38] cannot be generalized to all Muslims. Straw’s reference to the dress code during Muslim pilgrimage [line 36] is a good example for illustrating the application of argumentation theory in discourse analysis, specifically Govier’s aforementioned criteria for sound argumentation. In terms of acceptability, the premise (women and men should not cover their head or face during Hajj) is correct. However, the argument fails to meet the second criterion of relevance. There are a host of prohibitions during Hajj which only apply during pilgrimage (e.g. cutting nails or hair, hunting, and sexual intercourse). In other words, the dress code during pilgrimage is actually irrelevant to the way Muslims are expected to dress in general. Alternatively this argument can be deconstructed based on the pragmadialectic argumentation scheme of comparability as follows (adapted from Atkin & Richardson, 2007: 17): Opinion: Argument: Unexpressed premise:

X is true of Y (covering the face is not required for Muslim women) because X is true of Z (Women do not cover their face during Hajj) and Y is comparable to Z (Hajj [pilgrimage] is the same as everyday life)

2

Like Straw, I am using the term cultural to refer to socially constructed practices rather than religious ones (even though the two are not always mutually exclusive).

6

The acceptability of the unexpressed premise is clearly questionable as there are significant differences between Y and Z. One might even question the acceptability of the argument (X is true of Z) because there are in fact narrations from the sunnah reporting the approval of women covering their faces during pilgrimage when they were in the company of strange men (Khoja, 2004: 47). To the majority of nonMuslim readers the pilgrimage example unfortunately functions as a strong argument against the full veil. To the more informed, it illustrates Straw’s limited knowledge of this complex issue (it also seems rather condescending that Straw feels he can interpret this woman’s religion better than she can). Returning to our text, in line 41 Straw once again constructs the veil as a ‘problem’ describing it as, “such a visible statement of separation and of difference”. ‘Multiculturalism’ was a slogan the New Labour government proudly associated with Britain since it came to power in 1997. It partially refers to accepting or at least respecting cultural differences. When it comes to veiled women, however, difference is rejected and multiculturalism is backgrounded. This may be due to a larger shift in the language of politicians following the 7/7 bombings. The discourse of “multiculturalism” has been replaced with “integration”. In a political context, the concept of integration is as controversial as it is ambiguous. In this case it seems to provide an ideological justification for constructing difference as a ‘problem’ that must be confronted. Straw ends his piece with two disclaimers. The first is what van Dijk (2000) refers to as ‘apparent empathy’. Straw tells his readers that he had given this matter a great deal of thought before writing it. The adversative connector is then followed by the rhetorical question, “But if not me, who?” [line 42] which links with Straw’s aforementioned (positive self) discourse of “activism” and self-sacrifice [line 18]. The second disclaimer, ‘apparent ignorance’ (“My concern could be misplaced”) is expressed only to reassert that the veil is “an issue”- a problem Mr. Straw has courageously addressed by asking Muslim women visiting his constituency to unveil their faces. The following section concludes this paper with a discussion of the efficacy of the discourse-historical approach for this type of data.

Discussion It is usually advisable to include more than one text in the analysis of a discourse in order to make the data more representative of existing (and absent) discourses. However, as Baker (2006: 19) points out, “A corpus which contains a single (unrepresentative) speech by the leader of a country or religious group, newspaper editor or CEO may carry more weight discursively than hundreds of similar texts which were produced by ‘ordinary people’”. Occasionally an ‘agenda setting’ text comes along, having a significant impact on the rest of society due to the high profile of its author. Straw’s editorial appears to be such a text, which made it worth a detailed analysis of its own. In terms of its impact, I have already mentioned that headline news continued to reference Straw’s article for several weeks after it was published. In another study, I was able to document how elements of Straw’s article were repeatedly recontextualized a month later in an online discussion forum discussing the possibility of banning the full veil in public places in the UK (HYS Veil Ban, 2006). Tracing such recontextualization across different media forms is an important part of the discourse-historical approach, but this may be difficult to do without a research team working on different genres. One might want to ask whether the discourse-historical approach is a feasible methodological choice for PhD students

7

working alone. The case study of the ‘Waldheim Affair’ in Austria for example was the result of an interdisciplinary research project conducted by six researchers form three different fields (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 99). PhD students working alone may find the interdisciplinary nature of the discourse-historical approach rather difficult to apply even in three years! In my case, it would be necessary to address topics as wide as Orientalism, the history of Muslims in Britain, theological arguments for/against the full veil in Islam, Muslims in the media among others, not to mention the textual analysis itself. Nevertheless, that seems to be the type of context the discoursehistorical approach demands for making valid and critical interpretations of relevant texts. The discourse-historical approach has traditionally been concerned with racist discourses such as anti-Semitism in the Austrian context. My analysis adapts the approach to the context of discourses about Muslim women and their religious practices in Britain. Although the prejudice against Muslims is often connected with racism, it appears to be more complex than that. Texts can draw on a number of discourses or “ways of seeing the world” (Sunderland, 2004: 6). As indicated, Straw draws on an ‘integrationist’ discourse but it can be argued that integration has xenophobic undertones. Prejudice against Muslims also stems from extreme secularism and a refusal to recognize the role religion plays in other cultures. It would therefore seem inaccurate to categorize the discourses in Straw’s text as being merely ‘racist’, ‘xenophobic’ or ‘Islamophobic’. A more fundamental problem in applying Wodak’s framework is the concept of ‘discourse’ itself. Unlike topics or genres, discourses seem far more difficult to identify because this process entails a judgment by the analyst about an ideology behind the text. For example, Reisigl and Wodak (2001: 39) refer to a discourse of “Austria First Petition” and “National Identity”. Such ideological perspectives are more easily identified in political texts than in news reports (my PhD data) where language is more ‘neutral’. If anything, this confirms the importance of historical context for identifying a discourse, despite the added difficulty. I was able to illustrate some of the linguistic categories of analysis associated with the discourse-historical approach such as adversative connectors, modality, nominalization, implicatures, predication, and disclaimers. These discursive strategies are typical of discourses relating to minority groups such as Muslims in the UK. My short analysis has shown these tools can be very effective in exposing negative implications in the text. Not surprisingly, the strategies were especially prevalent in that part of the text where Straw was ‘building up’ to the performance of his controversial speech act (Thomas, 1995: 200). The face-threatening (no pun intended) potential of his request that the woman remove her veil required a great deal of hedging to maintain a positive self-presentation. The incorporation of argumentation theory within the discourse-historical approach is an effective means of uncovering fallacious arguments in the text. Its success, however, is largely dependent on historical information outside the text. For example, it would not have been possible to problematize Straw’s Hajj example without knowledge of Islamic theology. This again illustrates the necessity of interdisciplinarity. Another difficulty in applying argumentation theory is that the basic structure of the argument is never explicit. Stripping parts of a text down to their basic premises and conclusions involves removing a lot of textual ‘garbage’. This has to be done very carefully to avoid biasing an unwarranted reading by throwing out ‘the baby with the bathwater’.

8

Bias is of course a major concern that can never be completely resolved. Van Dijk states, “CDA is biased- and proud of it” (2001: 96), but his use of the term ‘bias’ has more to do with being critical than forcing a particular reading upon a text (interpreter bias). It is this latter sense of bias that concerns me as a Muslim interpreting/analyzing western media texts about Muslims. One way to address this concern may be to check with (non-Muslim) colleagues to ensure I am not imposing meaning onto a text that is not there. Another way may be to conduct reception studies that examine how the text is ‘consumed’ (Fairclough, 1992: 79). An example of this might be the analysis of readers’ comments or online debates which provide an insight into readers’ differing perceptions of a given text. In conclusion, it can be said that the discourse-historical approach is demanding but for good reasons. Criticisms of bias in CDA can only be countered with rigorous work outside the text to validate one’s claims about what is going on inside it. Analyzing sufficient context is a challenge of expertise as well as time and resources, especially the ‘broader socio-political and historical contexts’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001: 41). How much context is enough context? In the midst of this contextual research there may be a danger of neglecting the ‘linguistic’ part of the analysis, but the proponents of this and other CDA approaches are careful to stress the significance of linguistic systematicity across texts that reflect a given discourse (Fairclough, 2003; Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Documenting this systematicity seems crucial for maintaining more objectivity in CDA.

9

References Abou-El-Fadl, K. (2001). Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women. Oxford: Oneworld. Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Al-Albani, M. N. (2000). Al-rad al-mufhim. Amman: Al-Maktaba Al-Islamiya. Al-Quran Al-Karim. (1996). Madina: King Fahad Complex for Printing the Quran. Atkin, A., & Richardson, J. E. (2007). Arguing about Muslims: (Un)Reasonable argumentation in letters to the editor. Text & Talk, 27(1), 1-25. Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. BBC veil survey: Your comments. (2006). Retrieved 7/4/2007, from http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4844&&& &edition=2&ttl=20070407154432#paginator Brown supports Straw over veils. (2006). Retrieved 9/5/2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6036377.stm Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media Discourse. London: Hodder Arnold. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Govier, T. (2001). A Practical Study of Argument. London: Wadsworth. Khoja, L. (2004). Al-Dalaala al-muhkama li-ayat al-hijab ala wujub ghita wajh almara. Mecca: Um Al-Qura University. Mabro, J. (1991). Veiled Half Truths: Western Travellers’ Perceptions of Middle Eastern Women. London: I.B. Tauris. Mernissi, F. (1991). The Veil and the Male Elite: A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam. New York: Basic Books. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge. 'Remove full veils' urges Straw. (2007). Retrieved 24/3/2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5411954.stm Roald, A. S. (2001). Women in Islam: The Western Experience. London: Routledge.

10

Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books. Said, E. (1997). Covering Islam: How the Media and The Experts Determine How We See The Rest of The World. London: Vintage. Schegloff, E. (1998). Text and Context Paper. Discourse & Society, 3, 4-37. Straw's veil comments spark anger. (2006). Retrieved 17/7/2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5410472.stm Straw, J. (2006). I want to unveil my views on an important issue. Retrieved 5/4/2007, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/06/nveils10 6.xml Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered Discourses. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Thomas, J. A. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the Press. London: Routledge. van Dijk, T. (2000). New(s) racism: A discourse analytical approach. In S. Cottle (Ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media (pp. 33-49). Milton Keynes: Open University Press. van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary in CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203-225. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

11