Abstract:
This thesis examines how the discourse of two political leaders in Lebanon, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, the Secretary General of Hizbullah, a Shiite based party and Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces, a Marnoite based party, contributed to the shaping of group sectarian identities before and after the Doha agreement of 2008. Based on the Critical Discourse Analysis method and the group/social identity approach, this thesis shows that in-out group polarization is pervasive in the leaders’ speeches during both times of crisis and times of accommodation. Moreover, speeches in both times, with slight differences, are based on the following elements: categorizing the other as an enemy, appealing to emotions, and highlighting the fear and threat of the other. Mobilization of violence and religion exists as well in their speeches during both times, but more present during times of war. Speech analysis shows that both Nasrallah and Geagea claim to represent and address the nation and to represent a national unity, especially after the Doha agreement. However, their discourse is conflictive and works on categorizing the other as an enemy, and on distancing the “in-group” from the “out-group” even when claiming to address this nation. Finally, this thesis concludes that in the context of these manipulative and persuasive techniques which are practiced by the political leaders throughout their speeches, increasing national consciousness in Lebanon is not an easy or quick task. However, this study recommends one basic element of reform to be focused on: working towards increasing the level of critical thinking of citizens, especially of the children and youth.
