Cover not available

Article published In: Democracy and Discriminatory Strategies in Parliamentary Discourse
Edited by Karin Bischof and Cornelia Ilie
[Journal of Language and Politics 17:5] 2018
► pp. 676–695

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Austrian postwar democratic consensus and anti-Semitism

Rhetorical strategies, exclusionary patterns and constructions of the “demos” in parliamentary debates

 | University of Vienna
Published online: 13 September 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18033.bis
Abstract
This paper explores the relation between the use of anti-Semitic rhetoric in post-war Austrian parliamentary debate and the development of the consensus-oriented, corporatist model of Austrian democracy, the “consociational model,” between 1945 and 1955. Specifically, this paper examines the anti-Semitic stereotypes found in parliament, an arena where “the sayable” of official politics is defined, and whether such anti-Semitic stereotyping serves political-strategic purposes. The predominant pattern of exclusion proves to be the attribution of ambivalence, drawing on the repertoire of nationalist anti-Semitic stereotypes, depicting “emigrants” as “cowards,” incapable of love for and defense of their countries. The analysis shows this pattern of exclusion is rooted in an ethnicized, homogeneous, and masculinist understanding of the people – recurrent in contemporary right-wing movements and parties. It follows the lines of Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, in which the distinction of “friend” and “enemy,” and hence, the eradication of pluralism and ambivalence, is pivotal.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology and data
  • 3.Jewish expellees and the Demos – legislative context and rhetorical constructions in parliament
    • 3.1Legislative context
    • 3.2Rhetorical constructions of expellees
    • 3.3The topos of cowardice
    • 3.4The topos of privileged status, profiteering and harmfulness
    • 3.5The notion of ambivalence
    • 3.6The strategic use of discursive constructions of Jewish expellees – “emigrants” and the Austrian consociational model
  • 4.The notion of ambivalence and the concept of friend and enemy
    • 4.1Carl Schmitt’s masculinist and anti-Semitic concepts of friend and enemy, demos, and democracy
    • 4.2Ambivalence as a threat for the binary/dichotomous order of the world
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (39)
References
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1993. Modernity and Ambivalence, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker-Schmidt, Regina. 1998. “Trennung, Verknüpfung: zum feministischen Umgang mit Dichotomien.” In Kurskorrekturen. Feminismus zwischen Kritischer Theorie und Postmoderne, ed. by Gudrun-Axeli Knapp, 84–125. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bechter, Nicolas, Karin Bischof, and Marion Löffler. 2017. “Ein- und Ausschlüsse von Juden und Jüdinnen in Politik und Rhetorik des österreichischen Nationalrats nach 1945. Die Anfänge der Zweiten Republik.” In Jüdische Identitäten und antisemitische Politiken im österreichischen Parlament 1861–1933 [], 269–300, Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergmann, Werner. 2009. “Anti-Semitism.” In. Handbook of Prejudice, ed. by Anton Pelinka, Karin Bischof, and Karin Stögner, 37–75, New York: Cambria.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bischof, Karin. 2017. “’Emigranten‘ und die Konstruktion des österreichischen Demos in Parlamentsdebatten nach 1945 .” In: Bilderbuch-Heimkehr? Remigration im Kontext, ed. by Wolfgang Straub, and Katharina Prager, 191–202. Wuppertal: Arco.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Global player EU? Eine ideologiekritische Metaphernanalyse, Bielefeld: transcript. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Botz, Gerhard, and Albert Müller. 1995. “Differenz/ Identiät in Österreich. Zu Gesellschafts-, Politik- und Kulturgeschichte vor und nach 1945.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft [Austrian Journal of Historical Studies] 6 (H1): 7–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Armin. 2003. Das Parlament und seine Sprache: Studien zu Theorie und Geschichte parlamentarischer Kommunikation, Tübingen: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burger, Hannelore. 2014. Heimatrecht und Staatsbürgerschaft österreichischer Juden. Vom Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts in die Gegenwart, Wien/Köln/Graz: Böhlau. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Embacher, Helga. 2001. “Eine Heimkehr gibt es nicht? Remigration nach Österreich.” In Jüdische Emigration: zwischen Assimilation und Verfolgung, Akkulturation und jüdischer Identität, ed. by Klaus Dieter Krohn, 187–209. Munich: edition text und kritik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engel, Jakob, and Ruth Wodak. 2013. “‘Calculated Ambivalence’ and Holocaust denial in Austria.” In Analysing Fascist Discourse. European Fascism in Talk and Text, ed. by Ruth Wodak and John E. Richardson, 73–96. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frevert, Ute. 1996. Männergeschichte – Geschlechtergeschichte. Männlichkeit im Wandel der Moderne, Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gross, Raphael. 2007. Carl Schmitt and the Jews. The “Jewish Question,” the Holocaust, and German Legal Theory, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1992. “The West and the Rest. Discourse and Power.” In Formations of Modernity, ed. by Stuart Hall, and Gieben Bram, 275–320. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holz, Klaus. 2001. Nationaler Antisemitismus. Wissenssoziologie einer Weltanschauung, Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holzleithner, Elisabeth. 2011. “‘Führung muss sein’ : Carl Schmitts Fiktion eines totalen Staates.” In Staatsfiktionen. Denkbilder moderner Staatlichkeit, ed. By Eva Kreisky, Marion Löffler, and Sabine Zelger, 103–124, Vienna: Facultas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knight, Robert. 1988. ‘Ich bin dafür, die Sache in die Länge zu ziehen’: Die Wortprotokolle der österreichischen Bundesregierung von 1945 bis 1952 über die Entschädigung der Juden, Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. 2006. Begriffsgeschichten. Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, 211–259. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kreisky, Eva and Marion Löffler. 2009. “Maskulinismus und Staat: Beharrung und Veränderung.” In Staat und Geschlecht. Grundlagen und aktuelle Herausforderungen feministischer Staatstheorie, ed. by Gundula Ludwig, Birgit Sauer, and Stefanie Wöhl, 75–88, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Jan-Werner. 2003. A Dangerous Mind. Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought, New-Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palonen, Kari. 2010. “Begriffsdebatten und Debattenbegriffe. Das parlamentarische Paradigma des Begriffsstreits und – wandels.” Zeitschrift für Politische Theorie [Jounral of Political Theory] 1 (2): 155–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pelinka, Anton. 2001. “Die geänderte Funktion von Vergangenheit und Vergangenheitspolitik. Das Ende der Konkordanzdemokratie und die Verschiebung der Feindbilder.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft [Austrian Journal of Political Science] 30 (1): 35–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism, London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1987[1963]. “Vorwort. In Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien, 9–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996[1938]. The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Meaning and failure of a political symbol, Westport/London: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000[1923]. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, Cambridge/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007[1932]. The Concept of the Political. Expanded Edition, Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stachowitsch, Saskia, and Eva Kreisky (eds.). 2017. Jüdische Identitäten und antisemitische Politiken im österreichischen Parlament 1861–1933, Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stögner, Karin. 2014. Antisemitismus und Sexismus. Historisch-gesellschaftliche Konstellationen, Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tálos, Emmerich. 2006. Sozialpartnerschaft. Austrokorporatismus am Ende? In Handbuch des österreichischen politischen Systems, ed. by Emmerich Tàlos et al., 425–442. Wien: Manz Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uhl, Heidemarie. 2016. “Transformationen der österreichischen Identität im 20. Jahrhundert.” In Geschichtsbuch Mitteleuropa. Vom Fin de Siècle bis zur Gegenwart, ed. by Anton Pelinka, Karin Bischof, Walter Fend, Karin Stögner, and Thomas Köhler, 358–394. Wien: new academic press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2015. The politics of fear. What right wing populist discourses mean?, Los Angeles: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michal Krzyzanowski. 2008. Qualitative Discourse analysis in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Teun A. Van Dijk. 2000. Racism at the Top. Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States, Klagenfurt/Celovec: Drava Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Peter Nowak, Johanna Pelikan, Helmut Gruber, Rudolf de Cillia and Richard Mitten. 1990. “Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter”. Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Bischof, Karin
2025. The Great Replacement and Other Conspiracy Narratives: Intersectional Antidemocratic Features of Authoritarian Populism and the Far Right. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 28:1 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Bischof, Karin & Marion Löffler
2023. What Parliamentary Rhetoric Tells Us About Changing Democratic Culture: Antisemitism in Austrian Parliamentary Debate as a Threat to Democracy. Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory 26:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue