This thesis investigates universal themes in the violence-legitimizing communication of elites during inter-group conflicts. A comparative content analysis was conducted across communication from elites who have been internationally recognized as having played some kind of leadership role for in-groups that have committed acts of violence against out-group(s). Data stretching across two decades from four different countries were examined; including the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. A thematic coding scheme was developed, using Susan Benesch's proposal on dangerous speech and prevention of group violence and perspectives from Social Identity Theory as the theoretical groundwork. Coding and analysis revealed that across countries and temporal spans, elites bolster in-group and out-group distinctions through their language choices, but typically avoid outright derogation. Moreover, they commonly create non-falsifiable facts about current, past, or future events; and employ allegations against the intentions, plans and activities of the out-group. Several additional themes were identified as well. Implications for future research and theory examining antagonistic public communication are discussed. -- Abstract.
Read
