Language Analysis Using Foucault\'s Theory

¶ … Language Analysis

Using Foucault's Theory of Language/Power Relationships in Analyzing Three Separate Newspaper Article Reports of the Red Lake High School Massacre

One March 21, 2005, in northeast Minnesota near the United States-Canada border, a sixteen-year-old student on home tutoring at Red Lake High School, on the Red Lake (Chippewa Band) Native American Reservation, Jeff Weise, forced his way into the high school and past a security guard, where he then shot dead five teenagers, a teacher, and two other adults, and then turned the gun fatally on himself. Twelve others were wounded besides that, two of them critically. Even before this rampage inside the high school itself, however, the student had first gone to the home, also on the reservation. Of his grandfather, a tribal policeman, and killed him. Then he took guns and ammunition from his grandfather's home, which he next used to commit the shooting rampage at the school itself. Three newspapers (among countless others worldwide) reported the incident. These were: (1) the Mirror; (2) the Guardian; and (3) the Sun online. Each of these reported the major facts of the incident, although in each case slightly differently, emphasizing different details, and placing certain details before others, and/or not mentioning some at all that the other papers had mentioned. In this essay, I will analyze, using the language/power theories of the French linguistic anthropologist Michel Foucault, the way that each newspaper, respectively, described the incident, and the similarities and differences between the three descriptions. which relationship(s) of power each of these three articles is emphasizing, within the language of the article itself.

Methodology

The method that will be used, within this written language analysis of three separate newspaper articles about the March 21 Red Lake, Minnesota high school massacre, in order to examine these three texts, will be based on the anthropological linguistic theories of Michel Foucault, who argued that language is power (or, depending on context and circumstance, its opposite: helplessness). Since language is used within society (but never in a neutral way; power relationships are always implied within language usage, e.g., teacher to student; subordinate to boss; friend to friend), it is those power relationships that either permit or limit meaning. In other words, in the case of these three articles, an incident is never just "reported"; that reporting is inflected with meaning, based on which aspects of an incident a newspaper or newspaper reporter wishes to emphasize, perhaps even unconsciously.

Additionally, as Foucault (1970a; 1970b; 1972; 1980) suggests, discourse (language) is similar to a scientific system, or "discipline" that operates within a given social context or contexts (e.g., a work situation; a classroom; a written historical account; a newspaper article). Human discourses (e.g., spoken or written language) are never free, according to Foucault, of inflected, or implied, meaning(s) within that particular context(s). In other words, as Foucault (and later, Derrida, Fairclough, and others) asserted, discourse in never just written or spoken language that is neutral. Therefore, under Foucault's theory, there can be no such thing as completely neutral newspaper reporting, since language (that is, the written language by which the report is made) will always be inflected with meaning according to hidden (or not so hidden) relationships of language and power.

Further, human discourse is designed, received, and exists within a given social context (e.g., within the present essay, the various discourses being examined exist within journalistic mass media, that is, written language communicated from newspaper to reader). Context invariably inflects meaning, so meaning is never transparent, pure, or independent of context (i.e., imbedded language-power relationships that supersede discourse content). Since newspaper reporting is supposedly objective (although it is also well-known that each of these respective U.K. newspapers has its distinct "personality") it nevertheless enjoys an authority of sorts, that is, readers tend to believe what they are reading, since this is, after all, a newspaper, which is supposed to be delivering news in exchange for the cost of the newspaper.

The reader buys the newspaper in order to be informed, and believes that he or she will be reading unbiased information. However, as Foucault would argue, every newspaper contains its own inherent bias, some more visible than others, and every newspaper report will therefore be biased, in terms of (1) language/power relationships at the newspaper itself; and (2) language/power relationships of what is being reported, to whom, and by whom. In the case of these three articles, what is being reported is essentially fact, but within each, the facts of the incident are also being reported along with details of the incident, which are selected (or not) to be reported, and which are reported in a particular order. Moreover, even the mere facts of the incident (e.g., the name of the shooter; the number of people killed; where the incident happened and how it is described) are different within each of the respective articles. Foucault's was a theory of "language as power," through which information is permitted, restricted, or otherwise governed.

A complete analysis of all aspects of all three articles, using Foucault's method of close reading of a text in order to ascertain all inherent language/power relationships, would be extremely lengthy and beyond the scope of this essay. Therefore, this essay will examine a portion from the beginning; the middle; and the end of each of the three newspaper articles, and then compare and contrast them for evidence of inherent language/power relationships that might bias the reporting, and/or the tone or nature of the information received, within the respective articles themselves.

Analysis

Within the first of the three articles, from the Mirror, the lead-off sentence is"

Killer's Questions: Do you believe in God?" Since the word "killer" in this context implies a relationship of power (the killer's, that is, vis-a-vis his unarmed victims and would-be victims) the killer, under Foucault's theory, cannot possibly be asking a neutral question. A particular answer is wanted by the would-be killed (who, at the time of asking this question, has not killed anyone yet). Then, since many, perhaps most, believe in God, the use of those particular words themselves, not only as spoken by the killer, but as the lead-off sentence of the article, inflects the sentence with identification with the victim(s) by those reading the article. Readers who believe in God may then feel vicariously powerless vis-a-vis the gunman as well, identifying from the outset with the victims. Clearly, then. Such reporting, although interesting and attention grabbing, does in fact exploit language-power relationships, even if vicariously, and therefore is hardly neutral. Moreover, because this is the lead sentence, the entire article is inflected with non-neutrality right from the start. Next, however, the reference to believing in God is repeated within the article itself, thus further reinforcing what has already been implied, in terms of a language/power (shooter/victim(s)) relationship within the preceding sentence:

TEENAGE gunman went on the rampage at his school - asking one boy:

Do you believe in God?" before shooting him. Nazi worshipper Jeff Weise, 16, who called himself the Angel of Death, grinned as he gunned down a security guard, five pupils and a teacher before killing himself after a shootout with police. (Mirror.co.uk)

This first paragraph of the article clearly shows the language/power relationship of "TEENAGE" (the word is in upper-case for emphasis) student (the fact that the teenager is a student in implied within the phrase "at his school" to peer victim (i.e., "asking one boy: "Do you believe in God?" (Mirror.co.uk). Next comes the phrase "Nazi worshipper Jeff Weise."

Since the shooter, then, is a "Nazi worshipper," the implication is that since he is the one asking the question "Do you believe in God," the answer he would prefer from the boy being asked the question would be "No." Like the sentence that introduced this story itself, "Killer's Questions: Do you believe in God?," the repetition of that particular question reinforces most readers' bond with the victim being asked the question, as well as identifying the killer, in the next phrase, as a "Nazi-worshipper," thus further distancing the killer's victims (and readers of this article) from the killer. These sentences lead into the second paragraph: "Fifteen pupils were injured in the spree - America's worst school massacre since Columbine High in 1999 which left 15 dead [emphasis added].

This sentence links the Minnesota high school incident to the Columbine High School killings, where students were also killed by peers. Afterward, other students, faculty, staff, and administrators of the school; parents; community members, and, by association, the nation, felt victimized.

The Mirror, in its reporting of the Minnesota incident, parallels Columbine with this latest shooting: victimization of the innocent; godless neo-Nazi perpetrators; innocent God-worshipping victims, thus establishing the aggressor-victim relationships, in both rampages, perverse, thus shifting the balance of power, at least for readers, to: God-worshipping + anti-Nazi = good; non-God-worshipping + neo-Nazi = bad. Therefore, as Foucault would argue, by reducing the shooters to the now-powerless position of "bad guys" they become godless, misguided, Hitler-worshipping social misfits. The failure of the school and/or social system to address their needs as misfits is never mentioned, thus maintaining the original balance of power (e.g., we, society, have done nothing to help cause these crimes; social misfits have committed them).

In addition, according to the Mirror: "Weise was described as a loner who usually wore black and was teased by fellow pupils... his father committed suicide four years ago. His mother, who has brain injuries for [sic] a car crash, lives in a Minneapolis nursing home... Weise wrote messages expressing support for Hitler on a right-wing website [emphasis added]."

This additional information further isolates the killer from the mainstream; he was a loner; dressed atypically; came from a problem family; and admired Hitler. These unusual characteristics, the article implies, singled him out to begin with; therefore, he, like the Columbine killers, is an anomaly within society. Since so few people are like this, although the incident was tragic, society itself need not be concerned about its own implicit role in such tragedies.

The final sentence of the article reads "It was the second fatal school shooting in Minnesota in 18 months. Two pupils were killed at Rocori High in Cold Spring in September 2003. John Jason McLaughlin, 15 at the time, is awaiting trial." This also implies, as Foucault would argue, that perhaps there is something about Minnesota, or Minnesota's TEENAGE [emphasis not added] population in particular, that singles it out for violent crimes against peers. Therefore, it is not us (the powerful majority) that are responsible for such tragedies; it is them (the less powerful minority, [which should, therefore, stay that way]).

The second article, from the Guardian (March 23, 2003) begins differently:

You could hear a girl saying, 'No. Jeff, quit, quit. Leave me alone. What are you doing?'

Nine killing in deadly school rampage of neo-Nazi loner stun Red Lake."

In this opening, the Guardian describes the shooter and his victim as peers, implying more of a relationship of equals than does the Mirror story. This, Foucault would argue, is an important distinction, because the lead paragraph of this article implies far less of an "us vs. him" relationship than does the Mirror's lead. Further, in the second sentence, the words "neo-Nazi loner" appear, but are followed immediately by the words "stun Red Lake," implying that Red Lake itself, a Chippewa Reservation, is as stunned by the violence as anyone, anywhere else (there is also no mention whatsoever, within this article, of the other recent Minnesota school shooting). and, where the Mirror hastened to compare this incident to the Columbine High School massacre within its second paragraph, that comparison does not come, in the Guardian article, until the fourth paragraph. Next we read: "The scale of the violence overwhelmed the emergency services in the remote northern community," further implying that the reservation is not used to such violence, and that, by implication, such violence is not typical of this reservation or tribe. (the detail of Red Lake's medical personnel being overwhelmed was not reported by the Mirror article.) Since most individuals (and readers of this article) are not themselves violent, and since most would be similarly overwhelmed by such an incident in their communities, this sets up far less of an "us vs. them" language/power dynamic, according to Foucault, than does the previous article on this incident from the Mirror.

In addition, the Guardian article mentions the social and economic problems of the community itself, while the Mirror does not. For example, also reported by the Guardian are the presence of: "Poverty, strife and few jobs," implying (as the Mirror does not) that the incident could perhaps spring from unfortunate social circumstances, rather than just the deranged actions of one individual. This further restores, at least to an extent, the language/power balance to one of equals, in which the perpetrator, his community, and the society that allows such problems within the community all have something in common.