This paper analysed the discrepancy between the recommendations of the majority of the Danish parliamentary and the public opinion during the Danish EU referendum in 2015. The political struggles in 2015 was regarding whether to uphold the legal reservations that Denmark holds towards EU or to integrate further, which was observed through several articles in the mainstream media. Based on Ernesto Laclau & Chantal Mouffe’s discourse theory and concepts, we found that five nodal points emerged in the midst of the political battle between the opponents and advocates of a proposed opt-in bill. In the discursive battle, the Opponents obtained a relative hegemony by building on universal demands and expanding the chains of equivalence in their construction of the nodal points. On the contrary, the Advocates constructed partially particular identities, which did not strive towards same objectives, and therefore instigating a segmentation within the political movement of the Advocates. The paper proceeded with a second analysis, about how the Opponents governed through their dominant discursive constructions, which also resembled a notion of their communication strategies. The paper then applied Mitchell Dean’s conceptualisation of Michel Foucault’s concept of ‘Governmentality’, which offered the framework for the second analysis. The second analysis then proposed how the Opponents governed through visualising certain problems and aspects, and utilising specific techniques such as scare campaigns through the media. In addition, the Opponents legitimised their arguments with well-known rationalities along with the formation of EU sceptical identities. At last, the paper explores these identities and how subjects perceived and applied to these by conducting separate interviews with two focus groups.
|Educations||MSocSc in Political Communication and Managment, (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||177|