Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Crisis Communication and crisis management duri...

Electronic data

  • Crisis_Communication_and_Crisis_Management_during_COVIDfinalrevised3_12_

    Rights statement: This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edited version of an article published in Global Discourse. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Author: Wodak, Ruth Source: Global Discourse: An interdisciplinary journal of current affairs, Volume 11, Number 3, May 2021, pp. 329-353(25) Publisher: Bristol University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/204378921X16100431230102 is available online at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bup/gd/2021/00000011/00000003/art00002

    Accepted author manuscript, 431 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Crisis Communication and crisis management during COVID-19

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>10/05/2021
<mark>Journal</mark>Global Discourse
Issue number3
Volume11
Number of pages25
Pages (from-to)329-353
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date15/02/21
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

This paper presents results from a comparative and qualitative discourse-historical analysis of governmental crisis communication in Austria, Germany, France, Hungary and Sweden, during the global COVID-19 pandemic lockdown from March 2020 to May 2020 (a ‘discourse strand’). By analysing a sample of important speeches and press conferences by government leaders (all performing as the ‘face of crisis management’), it is possible to deconstruct a range of discursive strategies announcing/legitimising restrictive measures in order to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic where everybody is in danger of falling ill, regardless of their status, position, education and so forth. I focus on four frames that have been employed to mitigate the ‘dread of death’ (Bauman, 2006) and counter the ‘denial of death’ (Becker, 1973/2020): a ‘religious frame’, a ‘dialogic frame’, a frame emphasising ‘trust’, and a frame of ‘leading a war’. These interpretation frameworks are all embedded in ‘renationalising’ tendencies, specifically visible in the EU member states where even the Schengen Area was suddenly abolished (in order to ‘keep the virus out’) and borders were closed. Thus, everybody continues to be confronted with national biopolitics and body politics (Wodak, 2021).

Bibliographic note

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copy edited version of an article published in Global Discourse. The definitive publisher-authenticated version Author: Wodak, Ruth Source: Global Discourse: An interdisciplinary journal of current affairs, Volume 11, Number 3, May 2021, pp. 329-353(25) Publisher: Bristol University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/204378921X16100431230102 is available online at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bup/gd/2021/00000011/00000003/art00002