Discourse Networks and Legitimation: on the Relationality of Legitimation Arguments

In recent years, research on discourse networks – relating text and network analytic approaches – has grown considerably (e.g. Leifeld 2016, Haunss 2014). Usually, these approaches extract information from text and talk in order to reconstruct relations between actors and are primarily interested in actor networks (cf. Diesner/Carley 2010, Gaugler 2009, Haunss/Schneider 2013). However, as discourse networks connect actors via concepts (like ideas, interests, arguments) these bipartite networks (cf. Borgatti/Everett 1997, Borgatti/Halgin 2011) also allow for an analysis not only of the relations between actors and between actors and concepts, but also for the investigation of the relationality of the concepts foregrounded by the actors. This is particularly interesting as not only actors are embedded in (social) relations, but also concepts are. The paper argues, that the meaning of (contested) concepts expressed by the actors emerges from the relationality of their (sub-)dimensions only (cf. Somers 1994: 132, 134–135, Mische 2011: 87). Key political concepts – such as democracy or legitimacy – carry different meanings, which vary across time and space (cf. Buchstein/Jörke 2007). In order to conceive these different meanings, it is necessary to decompose such concepts and empirically reconstruct their components. The paper demonstrates how discourse network analytical approaches can help to reveal the meaning of such concepts by analysing legitimation discourses of political elites in Germany since 1949. Political actors not only play a principal role in legitimizing (or delegitimizing) political systems, but also participate in the (discursive) negotiation about the question under what conditions a political system is regarded legitimate. Thus, by discursive practices of (de-)legitimation they contribute to the re-definitions of the norms, which political systems should fulfil in order to be considered legitimate (in the sense of the Habermasian (1976: 39) term as worthiness to be acceptable), that is of the dimensions of the concept ‘legitimacy’. Up to now, research has paid – despite a growing theoretical and empirical interest in the role of political elites in the discursive construction of legitimacy (e.g. Barker 2001, Biegoń/Gronau/Schmidtke 2013) and legitimation strategies applied by political actors (e.g. van Leeuwen 2007, Rojo/van Dijk 1997) – only little attention to the norms and values, that is, of legitimation arguments employed to back legitimation claims. The paper reconstructs the evolution of legitimation arguments foregrounded by political actors over time and emphasizes the relationality of these legitimation arguments. By conducting a discourse network analysis of german government statements and parliamentary discussions since 1949, based on the manual coding of the speeches in these debates, the paper sheds light on the ensemble of legitimation arguments and its evolution and thereby contributes to better grasp the understandings of legitimacy of political actors. Beyond that, it is shown, that and how this relational perspective (methodologically realized via a discourse network analysis) is better suited for capturing the different understandings of legitimacy than common approaches in legitimation research, which – despite a growing interest in discourse – still mainly rely on survey data.