“When the immigrants faced the Statue of Liberty”: Critical Discourse Analysis of National Narratives in Greek Parliament

The mass population movements in Europe led to the rise of different attitudes and practices toward immigrants/refugees

The term immigrant defines people who move, of their own will, seeking work opportunities and better living conditions, whereas the term refugee defines people who move under the pressure of geopolitical changes and the infringement of their rights and are under asylum status or apply for asylum (for a more detailed definition of the two terms, see indicatively Stergiou and Simopoulos 2019, 33–34). Realizing the generalized use of these terms, the often-blurred boundaries between them, as well as the political considerations, perhaps hiding behind the use of the one or the other term, in this article we choose to use the terms together, as immigrants/refugees, referring simultaneously to both groups.

This increased arrival of immigrant/refugee populations and the traditionally (allegedly) homogeneous population of Greece in the past (Christopoulos 2021) often leads to public debates. These debates about immigrant/refugee policies are often raised in parliament. The parliament, as a dominant institution with a symbolic role in representing the nation, is connected to the construction of national identity (Shenhav 2008) and the promotion of the official national homogenizing discourse (Archakis 2020). Inside parliament, speakers, using specific arguments, aim to construct various identities and persuade their audience (Chilton and Schäffner 2002; Tsakona 2014, 533). To accomplish this, politicians often exploit narratives and, more specifically, national narratives. Through national narratives, they reframe aspects of history in order to shape the national conscience (Yadgar 2002).

In this study, we examine how two political leaders of ideologically opposing parties attempt, through national narratives, to construct different aspects of national identity inside parliament and to promote national discourse. In particular, both Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Yanis Varoufakis (re)construct from their own perspectives the movement of Greek immigrants/refugees to the USA, in order to express their own views on the policy Greece must follow today to address immigrant/refugee issues.

To analyze their national narratives, we utilize the model suggested by Bamberg (1997), drawing a distinction between three levels of positioning: the narrative world, where we focus on how the characters are positioned in relation to one another within the reported events; the narrative interaction, where we examine how the narrator positions him/herself in relation to the audience through specific argumentative strategies (Reisigl and Wodak 2001); and the broader socio-ideological framework, which concerns the positioning of the narrator toward the Discourses, namely, toward the ideologically defined ways of representing reality (Fairclough 1992, 2003).

In what follows, we focus on the role of the narrative in the identity construction. More specifically, we examine the function of narratives as a means of constructing national identities and reinforcing national construction, as well as the exploitation of such narratives in parliamentary talks. Then, we present our data and describe the analysis tools. In the analysis section, we analyze two indicative excerpts from the two politicians’ talks. The last section rounds up the discussion and the conclusions.

Our data consist of national narratives in excerpts from plenary talks at the Hellenic Parliament. These excerpts refer to the immigrant/refugee movement of Greek people in the past. We detected in the proceedings of plenary meetings talks between July 2015 and January 2020 about immigrant/refugee issues. We draw our data upon the official website of the Hellenic Parliament (www.hellenicparliament.gr). 132 out of the 264 talks in total contain narratives, and 24 out of those contain national narratives referring to the immigration of the Greeks in the past.

Here, we chose to analyze two out of the 24 national narratives in which two political leaders of ideologically opposite parties reframe the immigrant/refugee movement of the Greeks in the past in order to argue about the immigrant/refugee issue today. Specifically, we discuss a narrative by Kyriakos Mitsotakis, president of New Democracy (ND), and a narrative by Yanis Varoufakis, president of the European Realistic Disobedience Front (MeRA25).

ND, according to its program statements about the immigrant/refugee issue, claims on the party’s official website:

“nonnegotiable political priority is ensuring the security of Greek citizens,”

In contrast, the program statement of MeRA25, as stated on their official party website, includes the following about immigrant/refugee issues:

“MeRA25 […] will be against any military ‘solution,’”

As previously mentioned, the two national narratives we chose refer to the same historical period, namely, the movement of Greeks to the USA in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. Both K. Mitsotakis and Y. Varoufakis mention the reception and identification of immigrants/refugees on Ellis Island, USA. Ellis Island is outside Manhattan, and from 1892 until 1954 functioned as a reception center for moving populations as well as a spot for their legal and medical examination.

The talks from which we drew the excerpts took place in October 2019, a period when ND was the governing party, and issues surrounding the management of immigrants/refugees were on the news. More specifically, K. Mitsotakis’ narrative took place on October 4, 2019, in the framework of the 26^th meeting, in response to the timely question by Y. Varoufakis on the issue of the “Abolition of the camp in Moria and the internal borders” (Hellenic Parliament 2019a, 3015–3020).

[1] KYRIAKOS MITSOTAKIS (President of the Government):

You referred to the Statue of Liberty. When the economic immigrants of the previous generations faced the Statue of Liberty through the fog that is often found in the area, they also knew that they would go to Ellis Island, where they would be registered and identified, so that the American authorities would know who enters the country and who does not!

(Applause from the side of ND)

Please do not compare, Mr. Varoufakis, a country which was built by immigrants, a country with vast lands that needed immigrants, a multicultural and multiethnic country, with Greece or other European countries (Hellenic Parliament 2019a, 3019).

On the other hand, Y. Varoufakis’ narrative took place on October 31, 2019, in the framework of the 40^th meeting, in response to the discussion about the amendments to the draft law of the Ministry of Citizen Protection entitled “About International Protection and other Provisions” (Hellenic Parliament 2019b, 4003–4120).

[2] YANIS VAROUFAKIS (Secretary-General of MeRA25):

However, let us look at the situation more generally and not specifically. The distinction between refugees and immigrants, which is indeed part of International Law, has a history that is very different from the present. Let us return to 1922, when the Destruction of Smyrna took place. The Greeks of Smyrna left on ships. Many of these ended up on Ellis Island, New York.

Some left from the Peloponnese, others from Egypt. We discuss our Greek compatriots who ended up on Ellis Island. There, they registered, and a distinction was made depending on who was persecuted or was just an immigrant. They did not throw anybody in the sea; they did not load on ships those who were immigrants, and not officially refugees, to be sent back. They were sorted and then they were integrated into American society. The United States would not be as powerful today if this had not happened.

Foreigners created more working positions than they occupied. Indeed, the labor supply rose when we had immigration flows, regardless of whether it was in the United States, Australia, here in Greece in 1991, or anywhere else. Simultaneously, however, labor demand increases due to multiple reactions (Hellenic Parliament 2019b, 4026–4027).

Analyzing the above-mentioned national narratives, we aim to examine how the two political leaders construct the same event narratively, how they argue and interact with their audience, and how they position themselves concerning the national discourse on the immigration/refugee issue.

In our analysis, we use the three-dimensional model suggested by Bamberg (1997, 2004). Bamberg (1997, 2004) distinguishes the levels of positioning by setting three basic questions. The first question posed was: How are the characters positioned in relation to one another within the reported events? At this level, we analyze how the narrative world and the characters are constructed and which aspects of the narrator’s identity are highlighted. The speaker constructs the narrative world, filtering the past through the present. The events selection, array, assessment, and language coding are decisions of the narrator. So, each narrative world has the stamp of its narrator-constructor (Bruner 1990, 109–110). Here, our analysis aims to compare the two different narrative worlds that construct Mitsotakis and Varoufakis for the same historical event of immigrants/refugees arriving on Ellis Island.

The second question posed by Bamberg (1997, 2004) is as follows: How does the speaker position him/herself in relation to the audience? Here, we are interested in how a narrative is carried out in front of the audience, the degree of the narrator’s alignment and adjustment to the expectations of the audience, and the way the narrator designs their audience (Bell 1997). So, at this level, we focus on the different ways the narrative of Mitsotakis, on the one, and the narrative of Varoufakis, on the other, reinforce their argumentation and adjust to the audience’s expectations.

We draw tools from the critical discourse analysis to detect how the two narrators construct their argumentation. Specifically, we exploit the argumentation strategies suggested by Reisigl and Wodak (2001, 45). To construct their arguments, text producers use various topoi/loci. The topoi/loci comprise “conclusion rules” that connect the argument(s) with the conclusion and the contention (Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 75–80). As Boukala (2020, 295) mentions, the topoi/loci “can contribute to a deep analysis of the political [texts] since they are ‘research formulas’ which examine the common sense or the dominant knowledge.” In our data, we analyze the following topoi/loci: 1)

The topos of history: An action, when it is comparable with a historical example, should be performed or omitted in relation to its consequences (Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 80).

Here, we examine how the two narrators make different uses of the topos of history and the antonym pairs of the topoi of advantage/usefulness and disadvantage/uselessness, each one aiming to become likable to his audience. Political leaders addressing an existing or imagined audience (Litt and Hargittai 2016) attempt to construct an in-group (Duszak 2002), a common collective identity (Polletta and Jasper 2001; cf. Sifianou and Bayraktaroğlu 2012, 295) with the people who support their party or the people they want to influence. In this way, our aim at the level of the narrative interaction is to analyze how the two political leaders, by exploiting specific argumentative strategies, attempt to construct a homogeneous group with common “imagined” characteristics (Sifianou and Bayraktaroğlu 2012, 298) and common expectations.

At the third level, Bamberg (1997, 2004) poses the question of How do the narrators position themselves to themselves? This is a transition to the broader cultural, ideological, and social context. Based on common perceptions, speakers construct their narratives and position themselves (explicitly or implicitly) toward the expected norms, values, and dominant discourses (see also Archakis and Tsakona 2012, 44). At this level, we examine how the two political leaders position themselves toward the national discourse and what practices they use to achieve national homogenization.

In Table 1, we summarize the analysis tools and research aims for each narrative analysis level, as suggested by Bamberg (1997, 2004).

In this study, we focused on how two political leaders of ideologically opposing parties promote national discourse in their parliamentary talks. Specifically, we analyzed two national narratives, one by K. Mitsotakis, leader of ND, and one by Y. Varoufakis, leader of MeRA25. The main aim of our analysis is to indicate how the two political leaders narratively reframe the immigrant/refugee movement of the Greek people to the USA in the past in order to argue about the present immigrant/refugee issue. As analytical tools of the two national narratives, we use the three levels of positioning (narrative world, narrative interaction, socio-ideological context) suggested by Bamberg (1997) and certain argumentative strategies (the topos of history, the topos of advantage or usefulness, and the topos of disadvantage or uselessness) suggested by Reisigl and Wodak (2001).

To sum up our findings, at the level of the narrative world, the two political leaders reveal their positioning toward the Greek immigrants/refugees of the USA in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, as well as toward the immigrant policy of the USA. Mitsotakis constructs the USA as a country that assimilated only whomever was useful to it and excluded the rest, while Varoufakis constructs the USA as a country that assimilated all immigrants/refugees because everybody was considered useful for its economic growth.

At the level of narrative interaction, we emphasized how Mitsotakis and Varoufakis are aligned and adjust to the expectations of their audiences and how the two narrators design their audiences (Bell 1977). Here, the narrators use specific argumentative strategies to persuade their audience (existing and/or imaginary) on the suitable policies concerning the management of the immigrant/refugee issue. Thus, they construct with their audience a homogeneous group with common “imaginary” characteristics (Sifianou and Bayraktaroğlu 2012, 298) and expectations. On the one hand, Mitsotakis focuses on the rhetoric of discrimination and exclusion, and, on the other, Varoufakis employs the rhetoric of assimilation. The same rhetoric is also depicted in the respective program statements of the parties they represent. Mitsotakis seems to promote the opinions of his party about “ensuring the security of Greek citizens,” the “[d]istinction between refugees [namely legal] and illegal immigrants” and “procedure for returning.” On the contrary, Varoufakis promotes the opinions expressed by his party about the “unacceptable” distinction between refugees and immigrants and the “provision of permanent work/residence permit” (see Data Section).

The two speakers, through their argumentation, share experiences with the audience in order to construct a common identity, a similar ideological commitment to their audience (Fischer 1987, 63). As nations-states do not have only one national narrative, we can say that the two political leaders express antagonistic national narratives on the basis of which different aspects of national identity are constructed. With his national narrative, Mitsotakis fights to maintain his party’s control of state institutions and the right to talk about the nation as one that excludes Others if they are not useful for its prosperity. Varoufakis, through his national narrative, fights for his party to win control of the state and presents its voice as the voice of the whole nation, as one that assimilates the Others to its advantage (cf. Billig 1995, 71). However, both narrators reinforce the argument that a country accepts the immigrants/refugees who are useful, who can be incorporated into the productive fabric, who can contribute to the economic growth of a country, who can be assimilated. Therefore, in any case, the perception of immigrants/refugees is utilitarian (Pavlou 2004, 45).

With regard to the positioning of the narrators vis-à-vis the dominant social norms, we realized that despite the differences in the speakers’ positions at the two previous levels, the broader socio-ideological context of each narrative is common. The expected cultural normativity that is overturned, causing the need to carry out national narratives by the two political leaders, lies in their common acceptance that the fragmentation of the world in distinct nations-states is something natural (Bruner 1991, 11–12; Billig 1995, 61; Triandafyllidou 1998, 595). The two speakers, through their national narratives, attempt to project, interpret, and manage this overturn of normativity, the populations’ movement outside the “permitted” borders. According to the narratives of Mitsotakis and Varoufakis, nations are subject to the sociology of nationhood that distinguishes them and connects them with specific states. This principle dominates both majority (e.g., Americans then in USA, Greeks today in Greece) and minority groups (e.g., immigrants/refugees), and it imposes on both of them the need to respect the universal rules that define what a society can and cannot do (see Billig 1995, 82–83). However, the two political leaders give different interpretations to the immigrant/refugee policy of the USA and, therefore, define the universal rules we, as a society, should respect and follow in a different way. Mitsotakis promotes the exclusion of the Others from the national borders, while Varoufakis promotes the assimilation of the Others. Both the exclusion and assimilation of the Others comprise homogenizing practices. Therefore, the two leaders’ opinions, despite the different political directions of their parties, are based in a common national discourse. Even politicians who facilitate the procedures of hosting immigrants/refugees and (seemingly) accept and respect these groups feed and are fed by the national discourse and its homogenizing aspirations. Assimilation is one such procedure, promising to immigrants/refugees the protection and provision of the majority benefits. The national homogenizing discourse, therefore, is deeply rooted in the people’s conscience and is often reproduced even when it is seemingly undermined (Archakis et al. 2023).

We hope that our critical analysis of parliamentary talks can reinforce the critical reflexes of the people to obtain awareness about the politicians’ positionings and to realize the way national homogenizing discourse is reproduced in the parliamentary framework. However, we acknowledge the limitations of a local analysis which is essentially “post hoc and interpretative, open to alternative readings” (Coupland 2007: 224). The same narrative can be differently recontextualized and reinterpreted, as generally the texts are made relevant by specific discursive frames. So, such research may be enriched by a further exploration of how these narratives are perceived by the broader audience. Such research may also be enriched by other countries’ national narratives (e.g., countries of southern and eastern Europe) provided in their parliaments confirming or undermining the sociology of nationhood. Thus, we could compare the narrators’ positionings about immigrant/refugee issues across the local Greek borders.