ACRITICALDISCOURSIVESOCIO-COGNITIVEAPPROACHTOCONTENTANALYSISOFCONTEMPORARYSTILLIMAGESREGARDING

ISLAMOPHOBIA

Student:IsaacJiménezGarcíaProfessor:PhD.SaraCarmonaBenito

Department:SociologyoforganizationsDate:15/06/2017Sociologygraduate

ABSTRACTTheeventsinNewYorkonSeptemberthe11th2001havenoprecedentsinmodernhistory.Theseattacksembodyaglobalgeo-politicaltensionbetweenwesternandMuslimcountries,so a plausible clash of civilizations can eventually occur. Moreover, the militarization ofpublic areas, the increase of border controls and the hostility againstMuslim populationgenerallycrystallisesinanislamophobicglobalconcern.Thus,usingimagesasinvestigativedata and a discursivemethod I analyse and compare the hegemonic and the alternativediscoursesregardingislamophobia.Resultsdodeterminehowhegemonicdiscoursesfosterengagementand involvementwith spectatorsappealing towesternvalues likedemocracyandfreedombyfocusingonsocial features.Alternativediscoursescreatethisengagementthrough feelings, emotions and a reflexive perspective upon this social fact by targetingsubjects’cognitivebrainsstructures.KEYWORDS:islamophobia,discourse,images,contentanalysis,Islamterror,terrorism

ABSTRACTLosacontecimientosdeNuevaYorkel11deseptiembredel2001notienenprecedentsenlahistoriamoderna.Losataquesencarnanlastenionesgeo-políticasentrepaísesmusulmanesyoccidentalesevidenciandounplausiblechoquedecivilizacioines.Ademáslamilitarizaciónde los espacios públicos, el incremento de los controles fronterizos y la hostilidadgeneralizada hacia la población musulmana cristaliza en una preocupación islamofóbicaglobal.Así,utilizandoimagenescomodatosdeinvestigaciónyunmétododiscursivoanalizoy comparo los discursos hegemónico y alternativo en relación a la islamofóbia. Losresultados determinan cómo el discurso hegemónico promueve el compromiso y laimplicación de los espectodores apelando a valores occidentales como la libertad y lademocracia centrándose en aspectos sociales. El discurso alternativo crea el compromisocon losespectadoresmedianteemociones, sentimientosyunaperspectiva reflexiva sobreestehechosocialcentrándoseenlaestructuracognitivadelossujetos.PALABRAS CLAVE: islamofóbia, discurso, imagenes, análisis de contenido, terror islámico, terrorismo

INDEXI.Introduction 5 1.Terrorovertheworld.Anewglobalorder 6 1.1Discoursesafter9-11.Hegemonicvs.alternative 9II.TheoreticalFramework 19 2.Contextualizationofimages 20 2.1.Sociologicalapproach 23 2.2Linguisticapproach 27 2.3.Cognitiveapproach 30 2.4.LakoffandtheMetaphor 32III.Methodology 34IV.Analysisandinterpretationofresults 40 4.Contentanalysis 41 4.1.Hegemonicdiscourseimagescontentanalysis 41 4.2.Alternativediscourseimagescontentanalysis 50 4.2.1.Banksy 51 4.2.2AiWeiwei 57V.Conclusions 62VI.Discussion 64VII.BibliographicReferences 65 7.Web-graphicReferences 67VIII.Annex 68

4

“LemasqueestpourtantlarégiondifficiledelaPhotographie.Lasociété,semble-t—il,seméfiedusenspur:elleveutdusens,maiselleveutenmêmetempsquecesenssoitentouréd’unbruit(commeonditencybernétique)qui

lefassemoinsaigu.Aussilaphotodontlesens(jenedispasl’effet)esttropimpressif,

estvitedétournée;onlaconsommeesthétiquement,nonpolitiquement”.

(1980:61)

ROLANDBARTHESLachambreclaire

5

I.INTRODUCTIONItmustbeaweirdfeelingorsensationtopopupintoabusandyetfeelfeartorealisethataleftoverbagisunderasit.ItisastrangesensationtooforinstancetorunamarathonwithinamultitudeonasunnySundaymorninginParisorBerlinandcheckalloverforsomeoneorsomething looking suspicious. It is also bizarre to walk on the street and do not feelconfortable passing by a Muslim person. Panic and anxiety regarding these scenariosbecomesacommonthingthosedaysamongpeopleworldwide.Thefactthatsomeonecanimmolate him/her self makes all citizens in the globe aware. This is so because: “loshumanos estamosdotados de unapsicología intuitiva, o folk psychology, que nos permitenavegar con facilidad por la vida social, demodo que podemos atribuir estadosmentalesintencionales a los demás y hacer predicciones e inferencias muy fiables sobre sucomportamiento.” (Mundó, 2006:265) There is a lot of literature about what happensnowadays in theworld concerningglobal security and Islamic terror. Therearediscoursesfocusing on terror attacks in order to justify and legitimize war. There are discoursesfocusinginreligionandculture.InthisTreballFinaldeGrau(TFG)Iwouldliketounderstandand analyse howdiscourses are built through images to explain the relationship betweenseveral social scenariosor realities such as Islam, terror attacks, freedom,democracy andclash of civilizations among others. Thus, form a sociological perspective (but also from alinguisticanda cognitiveone)discourseshelp social scientistsunderstandhow,whenandwhy certain social realities interact. They help to understand interactions through powerrelations and interests. These are ideological and self-interested interactions. The comingpages try tostress theneedassocial scientist toseek for thesourceof these interactionsthroughasocial,alinguisticandacognitiveapproachusingcriticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA)forit. Ichoosethisdiscursivelinguistictoolbecauseitallowsmetoanalysethecontentofstillimagesthroughthementionedapproaches. When it comes to personal interests Imostly focus on differentmanifestations ofpower relations among social groups and the tools they have to impose their values andnorms. Using images to accomplishmy purpose I choose thework of two artists such asBanksy and Ai Wiewie to analyse islamophobia through their alternative discourses incomparisontothehegemonicone.BydoingsoIexpecttofindoutadditionalnarrativesthatrevealotherepistemologicalformstoenlightenaboutthisconcretesocialreality.Thus,andalthoughCDAhasitslimitations,suchasmyowninterestsasaresearcherormyownvaluesandprejudices,itpermitsmeconstructanobjectiveanalyticalmodel.Consequently,Itrytochallenge thehegemonicwesterndiscoursewith some furtherquestions related to terrorand Islam. In my opinion, critical analysis of social phenomenon is crucial to increasepeople’slivingstandardsontheonehandandtobetterunderstandsocialinteractionsandpowerrelationsontheother.QuestionslinkedtothethreeperspectivesIamusingsuchas

6

howdoesacollectiveimaginaryconditioncertainsocialrealitiessuchasthisoneregardingIslam(cognitiveperspective),whyalternativediscoursesfindsomuchdifficultiestospread(linguistic perspective) or can civil society overcome hegemonic discourses with its ownresistancemechanisms (socialperspective)helpmetoadvance in this journey.Todoso, Italkfirstaboutaneworderofterrorandtheemergenceofcertainislamophobicdiscourses.Then I focus on different analytical approaches to continue with the methods I use toanalyse still images that are representative of both alternative discourses and thehegemonic one. After the comparative analysis between images that reinforce thehegemonicdiscourseandthealternativeoneIdropsomeconclusionsandafinaldiscussionwithseveralopenquestionsthatshouldleadtofurtherresearch. 1.Terrorovertheworld.AnewglobalorderTheeventson theeleventhSeptember2001 inNewYorkCity constituteoneof themostrelevantactsinlatestdecadesworldwide.ItsimpactnotonlyonAmericancitizens,butmostofall,overtheMuslimcommunitywithintheUnitedStateshaslittleprecedentsinmoderncontemporaryhistory.However,theimpactofwhattheAmericanGovernment(andallmassmediaplatformsworldwideincludingtheU.S)categorizesasterrorattacksspreadsthroughthewholeglobeinsuchaparticularway.Thisisawaythatsubmitspopulationtofearandtoglobalinsecurity.Itsubmitspopulaceinanon-endingandpermanentrisk.AsBeckstressesthis is a characteristic from contemporary societies that are under constant risk due topolitical,economicalorenvironmental issuesamongothers. (Beck,2009)Thus,this impactcrystallizesindifferentsocio-political,economicandculturalchallenges.Challengessuchasincreaseofbordercontrols, increaseofrefugeesflowsrunningawayfromhotgeo-politicalwar spotsand terrorattacks in several European,AmericanandMiddleEast countries forinstance. As a consequenceof all this, themilitarization of public spaces in some capitalsaroundtheworldandseveralon-goingwarsintheMiddleEast(butalsoinotherscenarios)arevariousexamplesofthiscrystallizationandits impactnotonlyoverMuslimpopulationbut also over all citizens on earth. Although the impact at the politico-institutional orgovernmentalandeconomiclevel isvast,myinterestisrathertoanalysehowtheseterrorattacks create a generalized islamophobic feeling that help to sprawl a global commonhegemonic discourse against Muslim population. I do think it is important to analysecritically this scenario as far as it has a massive impact on citizens worldwide, mainlyMuslims but not exclusively. This is a turning point in modern history and I doreconnaissanceacriticalreflectionandanalysisispertinentandneeded. What Image1 illustrates iswhat thehegemonicdiscourseabout IslamandMuslimpopulation spreads nowadays among western societies. It displays what is inside mostwestern people’s minds. This is fear and alarm over Muslims. This image displays and

7

represents somehow the western global and shared imaginary over Islamic citizensworldwide.Itisadeclarationofintentionsfromgovernmentsandmassmediaoperators.Itisasocialpositioning.Thisisoneofthestrongestmechanismspoliticalandsocialeliteshavetoimposeaglobalimaginaryaboutanysocialreality.Theyusemassmediaapparatuseslikenewspapers,radioandTVprogramsandnewstoreachthemaximumaudience.NowadaysInternethelps theseelitesevenmore in their commitment. This latest isnot theultimatetool for thesesocialelites,however. Internetalsoopensadoor todissentaspeoplehavealsoaccesstootherdiscoursesthatarenotshownthroughtheancientmechanisms.Thus,Internetcanbeausefultoolwhenitcomestospreadalternativediscoursestochallengethehegemonicone.Aspointedabove,formetouseacriticaldiscourseanalysistoexaminethehegemonic western discourse is the main motivation for this research. According to mypersonal interest inCDA, I think thisTFGcanhelpme tobetterunderstand thisanalyticaltoolandimproveitsapplicationinsuchsocialreality.Moreover,asasocialscientificanalystI rather confront hegemonic discourses that pushes people to follow them in their ownbenefitthatsupportthem.Itismandatoryundermyownperspectivetobecriticalwiththewayrealityisconstructedandexplained.Thisiswhyinmyopinionwehavetogivevoicetoother discourses besides the hegemonic one. This is to have other discourses from otheractorsinvolvedinanyconstructedsocialreality. Image1:Terrorworldwide

Source:Worldnetdaily.com,May20,2014

Aconstructedrealitymeansthatinteractionsbetweendifferentactors(eitherpolitic,economicorsocial)constructorbuilttherealityweliveinandatthesametimegivesenseormeaning to it. (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Thus, reality is constructed through powerrelationsamongtheseactorsarticulatedthroughdifferentdiscoursesandrhetoric.(Potter,1996).Thisistoseekaholisticpolyhedralviewaboutaconcreteissue.Thisistolookforaninclusive constructionof this shared reality.However, this isnot to find the truthaboutaconcrete social fact (Durkheim, 1982) but rather to better understand the whole picturehaving as much perspectives as possible. In this case I want to understand how CDA on

8

imagescanhelptoexplainhowislamophobiacomingfromdiscoursesfromthe9-11canbechallengedandreoriented.Thus,Iwouldliketodeconstructthehegemonicdiscoursewithalternativeone(s)andmakeitcoexistwiththemtoshowamorecomprehensiveexplanationof this social reality. Hence, an alternative discourse (or discourses) has to somehowemerge.Bydoingsootheralternativeactorsandargumentscan(andmust)alsoappear.Thisisthenthemostchallengingpartofthiswork,tomakeotherdiscoursetoflourishandgrow.Furthermore,andasvanDijkargues:

ElACDtambiéncentrasuatenciónenlaformaenlaquelosgruposdominadosseresistenyoponendiscursivamente a dicha dominación. (…) Aquéllos involucrados en el ACD, explícitamente tomanposiciónyhacenénfasisenque losespecialistasdeberíanasí,deformamásgeneral, reconocereimplementarsusresponsabilidadessocialesyusarsuconocimientoyperspectivasparaoponerseaaquéllosqueabusandelpoder,ensolidaridadconaquellosquesufrendichaformadedominación.Paraestarencapacidaddelogrartanambiciosasmetassocio-políticas,elACDes,talvez, lamáscompleja de todas las sub-disciplinas del estudio del discurso, ya que el ACDdebería no sólo sercapaz de describir adecuadamente las estructuras y estrategias de cualquier tipo de discurso yrelacionaréstasconloscontextoscognitivo,social,políticoycultural,sinoquetambiéndebería,almismotiempo, formularunacríticabien fundamentadayconposiblesalternativas.EstosignificaqueelACDes,también,esencialmentemultidisciplinario.1(2004:8)

This quote shows another important aspect of CDA that cannot be denied for thepurposeofthisanalysis. Itshowstheconnectionbetweendiscoursesandpower.Betweendiscourses and domination. This power and domination comes from social actors likegovernments,massmediacorporationsandsocialelitesthatholdthemechanismstospreaddiscourses through contemporary societies as there is a strong consolidated link thenbetweendiscourse andpower (vanDijk, 2004). Then, thequestions here are:what visualtoolsdiscoursecanusetobespread?Isthereanycommonsharedarenaforbothdiscourseandpowertocoexist?Isthataglobalrule?Thatis,isthisrelationshipthesameworldwide?YettoanswerthesequestionsIneedtoarguesomemorepoints.However,andtolinkthesequestions of power and domination to the topic I also think islamophobia in all itsrepresentations(suchaswarofterrorandclashofcivilizations)isatthecoreofinternationalgeo-political relations, and political strategies such as public policies and national andinternationalsecurityagendasfor instance.Therefore itbecomesan interestingandfertilesociological phenomena to explore. There is a massive awareness in western countries’citizens regarding this reality. There is a lot ofmoney and resources (public and private)investedtofightterrorism.Islamicterrorism.ThekeythinghereistheassociationpeopleinwesterndevelopedcountriesdobetweenIslamasaculturalentityandasareligiouspracticeforinstanceandIslamasterrorism,however.Theassociationwedowithsomeone’sreligionandTerror.Theassociationweestablishbetweenatargetedsocialgroupanddestruction.

1NotethatIwillkeeporiginallanguageonquotesandcitationsthroughthewholepaper

9

Moreover,this iswhyIthinkthisphenomenonhasalsoasocialandcultural impactwithinwesternsocieties.Thesesocietiesmustdealwithitinanintegratedandcomprehensiveway.Thesesocietiescanjustachievethispurposeiftheyseekforalternativesdiscoursestothehegemonicone.Theymustfinddiscoursesthatareabletocapturedifferentperspectivesofthesamesocialreality.Theymustfindawaytolegitimizeandspreadalternativediscoursesiftheywanttoovercomethepresentthreateningandinsecureglobalscenario.1.1Discoursesafter9-11.Hegemonicvs.alternativeAs far as discourses that emergeon the 9-11 attacks from theU.S government andmassmedia from western countries do focus mostly on terror attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan andtyranny,butalsotheydofocusondemocracy,freedomandinternationalsecurity,thereistoo a sort of a tacit agreement among these countries andmedia corporations regardingthese discourses and the topics within them. I call thesemain discourses the hegemonicones.Hegemonyhastodowithideology,cultureandagencyontheonehandandthefactthat there is consentof intellectualandmoral leadership (Gramsci,1971)on theother. Inthis case this discourse stands for patriotism, freedom, democracy and national-globalsecurity.This ishowthroughthisdiscourseandtheseconceptstheUnitedStates(butalsobyotherwesterncountries)handle international geo-politicsaccording topower relationsand on-going wars worldwide. This discourse stands also for Islam, terror, dictatorship,insecurity,threatandfear.Thisscenariocorrespondstoaglobalizedarenawherehotspotslike Israel and Palestine in theMiddle East but also France, the U.K or Germany amongothers inEuropeareconnectedthroughinternationalrelations(eitherpoliticoreconomic)wherenationalinterestsandsecurityareatstake.Moreover,andatthetopofeverything,there is a spread lay knowledge associating this globalized terror to Islam not just as acommunitybutalsoasareligion.Thisis,thereisasharedimaginaryamongwesterncitizensthat think or associate Islam as a religion to terror. This actually is the main impact onMuslimpopulationofthehegemonicdiscourse.AlthoughitisafactthatISISandtheIslamicState, under this hegemonic perspective and description, are radicalized Muslims, theconnection or link establishedwith its religion and terror is damaging citizens worldwidegenerally, and the whole Muslim community particularly. The fact that we, as westerninhabitants, have this pernicious imaginary embedded nowadays in our everyday liferegardingMuslimpopulationistheprincipalachievementofpowerfulelitesandtheirspreadvisual discursive tools. Each arena reinforces the others. Thismeans for instance that theeconomic,thesocialandthepoliticalelitesworksomehowtogetherinordertomaintainthestatusquoontheonehandbutatthesametimetheyhavethestrengthtointroduceinthisontology significant changes that target a given social group, in this case Muslims, togenerateanotherontologicalsocial reality.This layknowledge isaglobalsharedcollective

10

imaginaryonwesterncountriesthatstandsforIslam(atawhole)asameananddangerousreligion and social group. It is an imaginary that focuses on “the other” as a threateningsubject.ItisthewesternpenalizationofMuslimsworldwide.Image2:IslamterrororIslamicTerrorism

Source:TheVolcanoofIslamicTerrorism.AmericanCentreforDemocracy,January10,2016

Image2showshowthisimaginaryisconstructedbywesterncountries(theU.Sinthiscase) and spread throughmassmedia apparatuses like internet, news papers, TV and soforth.ThisimageillustratesalsohowthegeneralimaginarydoesnotdifferentiatebetweenradicalandnoradicalfractionsofIslam.Thisistosaythattheyare“allthesame”.Actuallyitis also a fact that this imaginary is not just the consequence of the September 11th 2001attacksontheTwinTowers.TherearealsotheattacksinCharlieHebdoinParis,theattacksinBrussels, inBerlin,theoneinStockholmthisyearandthoseyettocome,helpconstructthemaindiscourseandconstructawholestorytellingornarrative.Aparadoxicalexampleofthis imaginary istheGuantanamoBay. InImage3thereareseveralMuslimsheadcoveredcontrolledbytheAmericanArmy.ThisisacuriouscasewheretheWesternimaginarygoesbeyond legislation and reason. This is so because a lot of prisoners in Guantanamo areconfined therewithnoprevious trial, norwith any iotaof the international human rightsprotection. Although there are organizations that look after human rights to beimplementedandstronglycensureit,likeNATOortheInternationalHumanRightsTribunalamongothersforinstance,GuantanamoBayhastheconsentoftheseinstitutionsandalotofAmerican(butalsowesterncountries)citizensthatsupportGuantanamoBayandthinkitis desirable institution for society. That is how this collective imaginary works. It is soembeddedinpeople’sminds,thatalthoughwesupportandfightforhumanrights,Muslimsastheyarehazardous,donotdeservethesametreatmentaccordingtothisprincipalthanothercitizens.Theyhave loosethisrightduetotheirterroractions.Thisscenarioshowsadichotomybetweenthegoodandthebad.Betweenwhathastobeandwhathasn’t.Underthesepremisesit issuchanormativehegemonicdiscourseexplainedbythesimpledouble

11

categorizationof:us, and “theother”.Usunderstoodas thegood, thedesirableand “theother”asthethreatandtheundesirable.Thus,Ithinkitisproductiveandpertinent(underasociologicalperspective)tobreakwiththistendencytodichotomisesocialrealityinordertobetter explain and understand it. It is desirable to seek other ways to categorize socialphenomena. To do so, we need to overcome this social dichotomy that seems to beestablished in social science in general and social discourses in particular. Dichotomizerealityistomissinformationthat’sinbetweenthesetwocategories.Onlywhenthispurposeis achieved, as social scientists, we will be able to produce and deliver alternativesexplanationsoverthe“samereality”,andspecificallytotheproblemofislamophobia.Image3:GuantanamoBayprisoners

Source:NBCNews.ReutersfileJanuary11,2002 The main objective of this paper is therefore to examine the hegemonic and thealternativediscourse (ordiscourses) regarding islamophobia throughstill imagesusing theCDAasanalyticaltool.BydoingsoIdonotexpecttobenefitordamageanysocialgrouporinstitution. I rather would like to offer a critical view of this global situation that has animpactonallcitizensintheplanet.Inmyopinionconstructivecriticismisthemaintoolthatacademiaandsocialscientistcanusetoshowandpreventagainstpoweranddomination.Itdoesnotmatterweather thispoweranddomination is economic,political, social or evenculturalasallmanifestationsofpowerareembeddedineveryone’severydaylife.Therefore,toshowandfightthisdomination,andtoseekforalternativestoit,CDAisatoolthathastobeatthecoreofanysocialdiscipline.Besides,andbydoingso(thisislegitimizingalternativediscourses)weempowerdiscoursesofsocial,politicalandeconomicgroupsthatwouldnotbe taken into account otherwise. Additionally, I would like to analyse this phenomenonthrough a selection of several still images using visual data as representative items of anislamophobic context. There are tones of different sources of information. There is aconstant flowofnews, imagesand textsworldwide.There isabasic ideabehind thisnewsocialexchangingphenomenon.Constantflowsareacharacteristicofmodernsocieties.This

12

iswhatBaumancall “liquid society”.According to theauthor,nowadays “liquid” formsofcommunication and social relations are at the core of contemporary societies. (Bauman,2001)Asfarasweareimmersedinaninformational,technologicalandcommunicativeera(Castells, 1996) it is inmy opinion pertinent to use images to analyse any social reality. Ithink so because nowadays images are easily accessible via Internet (but not exclusively),theycanbetransferredreallyfastfromonesideoftheworldtotheotherandtheycapturea precise instant of a concrete reality. Images are somehow in this sense a democraticartefact.AsMartinpointsout:

Bydemocratization,Isimplymeantthegrowingwillingnesstotakeseriouslyasobjectsofscholarlyinquiry all manifestations of our visual environment and experience, not only those that weredeliberatelycreatedforaestheticeffectsorhavebeenreinterpretedinformalistterms(aswasthecasewith,say,so-called‘primitive’ethnographicobjectsbyaestheticmodernists)andalso:Insofaraswe live in a culturewhose technological advances abet the production and dissemination ofsuch imagesatahithertounimagined level, it isnecessary to focusonhowtheyworkandwhattheydo, rather thanmovepast them tooquickly to the ideas they representor the reality theypurporttodepict.(Martin,2002:88)

Moreover,stillimagesofferadifferentkindofcommunicativescenariothatpermitstotalkwithouttabooofcertainideologicalpositions.Thisisthereisnolinguistic(orspoken)aspectonthem.Besides:“Thesocialandthepoliticalcharacterthattheusageofimagestakesoninmodern society becomes evident when it comes to visual representations of relationalentities.” (Schmid,2012:82)Furthermore, theydo suggesta reflectivedialogwithoneself.This is why I choose to analyse images instead of proper written or spoken discourses,because images encourage a discourse with ones owns fears, prejudices and feelings. Ispertinenttonoteherealsothat:

Makingsenseofvisualexperiencedemandsnolessawillingnesstotoleratedifferent,sometimescomplementary and sometimes contradictory, approaches. Certain questions are perhaps morefruitfullyaddressedbyoneapproachthananother,butwecanalwaysthinkofnewquestionsthatdemandfreshanalyticaltools.(ibid,p.90)

Thereisalsoanotherfacthere.Thisis,thereisaturnofsemioticsfromlinguistictovisualinordertoachieveahypothetic“photographiclanguage”(Calabrese,2012).Thus:“enlugardeorientarelanálisis semióticohacia labúsquedadeunhipotético“lenguaje fotográfico”,espreferible estudiar el funcionamiento de “textos fotográficos”, es decir, de las fotosentendidas como textos.” (ibid. p. 3) I chose this quote because I treat images under thisperspective.Itreatimagesastext.However,imagescanbealsopublicrepresentationsofaconcrete social reality. Public representations have also their own characteristics: “Cadarepresentaciónpúblicapuede interpretarse, entonces, comounamaterializaciónobjetiva yexterna al sujeto de una representaciónmental – de algunamanera toda representación

13

públicaeselresultadodeunarepresentaciónmentalo lacausadeella”.(CastroNogueira,2008:111) This is important becausewhen one stares an image there is a discoursewithone’s own values. We interpret images on the basis of our pre-established mentalrepresentations.Thereisadiscoursewithone’sownhistory.Withone’sownemotions.Tofaceanimage,andtoattachmeaningtoit,istofaceoneselfreality.Althoughsubjectsthusbuild itsownsenseof islamophobia,at thispoint,andtomakesurethatreadersassocialactorsunderstandwhat islamophobia isundermyperspective inthiscase, Ineedtomakemy own definition of this social construct. Although most people’s lay knowledge aboutislamophobia stands for actions (either institutional or individual) against the Muslimcommunity, this is,direct forwardmovementsoractionsagainstthemlikeviolentassaultson the street, insults to theMuslim community and small actions like aggressive looks orverbal attacks amongothermanifestations as shown in Image4, I rather focus in amoresubtleorsophisticatedandintegratedholisticentry.Itisnotjustphysicalactionsbutratherattitudinal ones that involve ways of thinking, moral values and beliefs. It is institutionaldiscriminationtowardsMuslimpopulation.Image4:Graffiti“Muslimsgohome”

Source:barenakedislam.com

It isanunconsciouswayofactingandthinkingwithoutquestioningwhydoweaswesternsocieties behave and think like this. It is the crystallization of a powerful ideology and anabsorbable and gobbling up capitalist culture. Islamophobia is a behavioural pattern. It isalso away of understanding life and culture. All these characteristics together arewhat Iunderstand as islamophobia in present western societies. Islamophobia is both, andinstitutional and a social (or collective) and a subjective cognitive construct. It is not anontologicalreality.Itisratheranepistemicartefact.Accordingly,Iunderstandislamophobiaasanysocialrealitythatinvolveatthesametimethesocial,thelinguisticandthecognitive

14

arenas. In relation to CDA this hegemonic discourse focuses on singular and complexrealities. It is singular because it focuses on particular aspects of islamophobia, and it iscomplexbecause it uses all representationsof the three arenas. Iwould like tonote alsosomethinghere.Thisis,theinterrelationorconnectionthesethreearenashaveandshare.Mostimagesembedallarenasatthesametime.Thismakesitdifficultforresearchersandsocial scientist to classify themexhaustivelywithin one andonly arena.However, for thisanalysisIwouldtrytobeselectiveandprecisesoeachimageisproperlyclassified.Thus,inthesocialarenathereisormustbewesternideologyandinstitutionalizedpowerrelationsofdomination.This is,westernarmiesmustsafeallofusfromthethreatandfearofMuslimattacksinaninsecureWorldforinstanceasImage5displays.Image5:Socialarena:NATOConnectedForcesInitiatives

Source:nato.intConnectedForcesInitiative(CFI)June22,2016 This imagealso shows the commitmentof internationalwesternorganizations andinstitutionstoovercomethisglobalperil.Thequestionshereare,however:whydowereallyneedtobesavedfromMuslimsandhow?AreNATOandothersupranationalorganizationsthebestoptions toachieve thispurpose?Do theysafeguardpeople’s interestsordo theysafeguard the states ones? Are states interests the same as citizens ones? In this imagesoldiersappeartobethesavioursofwesterncivilizationagainstIslamicglobalthreat.Thus,theArmyforcesarethen legitimizedbystates,butalsobycitizensworldwide,tofight,killanddestroyanysignofresistancetore-establishtheirown(andthereforeours)wellbeing.Militaryforcesseemthentobeenoughtodefeatthisglobalhazard.Noneedforconsensusordialogapparently isrequired.Brutalstate legitimizedforceagainstterror istheanswer.Thesepremiseshaveaperniciousconnotationinmyopinion. It leavesoutoftheequationtheorganizedindividualorcivilaction.Ifasacivilmembersomeonewantstodosomethingaboutit,heorshehastojoinmilitaryforcesasfarasjustgovernmentarmycaneventually

15

overcome and end up with this globalized issue. No individual actions are contemplatedhere. It seems then that subject’s willingness to locally manage islamophobia is useless.Withinthe linguisticarena ithas tohaveembeddedthehegemonicdiscourse inanyof itsforms. The hegemonic discourse within democratic western countries stands mostly fordemocracyand freedom.There isadiscourseabout freedomforpeople tochoose, this isfreedomofchoice.Freedomtochoosewhatwewantandwhatwedeny.Thereisanotheronefocusedonfreedomforcitizenstomovearound.ThisiswhattheSchengenagreementfor instance supports or stands for. Other discourses concentrate on freedom of speech.Freedom of speech becomes then one the most valued linguistic, political and socialstandards indemocraticnations.TheattacksonCharlieHebdo January the7th2005areadirect bullet to this achievement. Islam terror hits and challengesoneof themost crucialaspectsoffreedomdemocraticstates.Image6:Linguisticarena:Westernfreedomofspeech

Source:cbsnews.com,January12,2015

Nevertheless,isfreedomofspeechanopenfieldwithnofences?Doesithastohavelimitsinordertoprotect“theother”freedom?Thisisatrickyscenariowithindemocraciesall over as far as there is a non-ending discussion about it, and no one has an ultimateanswer to it. It seems clear that freedom of speech has to be defended over anycircumstances.Yet,canitbeusedasanexcusetodeclarewar?Isitasufficientargumentforit?Freedomofspeechmustbecertainlyprotectedwithinallsocieties.However,itmustalsobewelldefinedandpreservedfrommisusing.Anappropriateuseofthisrightismandatoryif respect for “the other” has to become also a key element in contemporary westernsocieties.Regardingthecognitivearenathehegemonicdiscoursehasto involveprejudicesandmoral values, this is to say feelings and emotions.When it comes to this arena, it is

16

important to remind that each singular human being has its own perception about socialfactsandrealities.Althoughwecanconvergecertainlyinseveralglobalsharedmeaningsofsocialliveandmoralvalues,eachofusunderstandsandexplainsthesamefactsdifferently.OnesocialfactthatisoftenusedbythehegemonicdiscourseregardingIslamisgenderandtheneedtosaveMuslimwomenfromIslamicradicalregimesforinstance.Image7:Cognitivearena:PoliticsandSociety

Source:Vridar.Musingsonbiblicalstudies,politics,religion,ethics,humannature,tidbitsfromscience.March27,2017 This is themainargumentof LauraBush2when she tries to legitimate themilitaryattacksonIraqandAfghanistanafterthe11-S.Butonceagain,andasAbu-Lughodargues,do Muslim women really want to be saved? In her article, she stresses how from thiswesternhegemonicperspectiveofgenderMuslimwomenmustbesavedfromtheTalibanregime as LauraBush argues. There are cultural facets that prove theopposite, however.Muslimwomendonotwanttobelikewesternwomen.Norwantthemtolookor livelikethem.Muslimwomenarguethat theywill fight for their rights,andthat thoseare inpartcommon to other women worldwide facing patriarchy, but at the same time with theirparticular cultural values different from the western perspective that confounds MuslimwithArabwomenduetoaclassificationofcultures.Accordingly,theydefendtheircultureandvaluesoverthewesternoppression.(Abu-Lughod,2002)Image7demonstrateshowthehegemonic discourse uses gender as an artefact to justify its supremacy over otherdiscoursesontheonehandandtodefendwesternfemininevaluesoverotherculturalonesontheother.Thisimagealsorevealshowhegemonicdiscourseattemptstotargetanysortof social reality or social group (women in this case) in order to grow and extent itself.Moreover, itaccentuatesandlegitimizeswesterns’femininepointofviewovertheothers.Hence these three different arenas combine several necessary aspects of the hegemonicdiscourseinordertogenerateasharedglobalimaginaryoverIslamandMuslimpopulation.2TocheckLauraBushspeechgototheannex

17

Thisis“theother”(Muslims)isaglobalthreattodemocracy,freedom(ofspeechinthiscasebutnotonly) andalso in termsof gender regardingwomen (althoughother social groupslikehomosexualscanbealsounderthreatoverthesepremises). The definitive way out to this menace from the state perspective is constantsurveillance of public spaces, international institutional geo-political pressure andwar onterrorglobally.Conversely, civil societyhas this scenarioembedded.This ispreciselywhatthe hegemonic imaginary does. It transfers the state and elitist imaginary down to thegroundofsocialaction,representationandinteraction.Thus,civilsocietyactsaccordinglytothis“imposed”imaginaryreinforcingthehegemonicdiscourseandgivingmeaningtoit.Thesocialarenaorapparatusistheimaginarythathastobeenforced.Thissocialapparatususesthelinguisticarenaanditsmechanismstospreadalloverandleveragesthecognitiveonetoimplement a sophisticated cognitive conceptual frame in citizen’s brains to accomplish itspurpose against Islam andMuslim population that are targeted as the undesirable socialgroupcapabletodestroycoexistenceamonghumanbeingsonearth.Thisiswhythesethreearenas or perspectivesmust be combined together in order to fully analyse islamophobiaandtheimpactthatthisconstructhasonpeople’slives. Image8:UnwelcomeIntervention

Source:TheWorldofBanksyArtAcollectionofnews,knowledge,andmiscellaneousBanksyartmadness.October11,2012

Afterthepresentationofwhatahegemonicdiscoursestandsfor,Iwouldliketotalkabout what an alternative discourse means for this analysis. When it comes to definealternative discourses I do not want to follow or focus in any standardized conceptualdefinition,nor establish any sophisticated criteria to identify andanalyse it. I ratherpointherethatalternativediscoursesareallthesenarrativesthatarecritiquewiththehegemonicone.Theyareallthesediscoursesthatincludedifferentsocialactorswithintheirnarrative.Alternative discourses images then are those that do not show values and beliefs thatgovernments, mass media and social elites promote, but rather values and beliefs thattargeted groups by these elites stimulate. This is, alternative discourses include in their

18

narrativeaspectsandfacetsofacertainsocialphenomenon,islamophobiainthiscase,thatarenotrepresentedinthehegemonicone.Thus,thefirstthingIhavetodoispresenttheimages that correspond to the alternative discourses I choose for my analysis. I firstintroducethetwoselected images (orgraffiti) fromBritishartistBanksyandthenthetwofromChineseartistAiWeiwei.So,Banksy’sgraffiti(orImage8)illustratesapaintingonthewallthatseparatesIsraelfromPalestineonthePalestinianside.ThesecondgraffitiorimageisImage9.Itshowsagroupofblackpigeonsandagreenlonelyparakeet.OntheothersidetherearethepicturesfromWeiwei.Accordingly,Image10displayshowtheartistcoversthecolumns of the Konzerthaus of Berlin with red-orange refugees life vests. The last imagefromtheChineseartist, Image11,presents theartistemulating threeyearsoldSyriankidAylan Kurdi found death on theMediterranean Turkish beach. Selected images display asmentioned above different angles of this social reality. Both artists’ pieces are analysedthroughconceptualmetaphorsregardingitscontentanalysis.Image9:Pigeonsandparakeet

Source:BBCNews,U.K.October1,2016

Image10:SalvagedRefugeeLifeVestsattheKonzerthausBerlin

Source:Colossal.February16,2016

19

It is important to note here also that not everything that is critique with thehegemonicdiscourseoranynarrativethatexplainsislamophobiadifferentlyarealternativediscourses in thesense that Iwould like toapplyhere.This is, Iunderstandasalternativediscourseanarrativethatitmustbecritique(inaconstructiveway)withthehegemoniconebut at the same time it has to be inclusive (this is for target groups and formainstreamcitizens)andithastofostersomesortofvaluesontheonehandandpossiblesolutionstothephenomenonitsnarrativeitsagainstontheother.Imakethispointherebecausethereareothersdiscourses thatarealsocritiquewith thehegemoniconebut Idonot considerthemalternative. Iamtalkingaboutdiscoursescomingfromextremerightwingpartiesordifferent kinds of sects for instance. Extreme right parties can be critique (or not) withhegemonicdiscoursesbuttheyarenotinclusivewithtargetedsocialgroups.ThisiswhyIdonot include them as alternative for this study. Additionally, they strengthen hegemonicvaluesinaradicalwayratherthanchallengethem.Image11:Artistlaysonthebeach

Source:WideWalls.

II.THEORETICALFRAMEWORK

ForthepurposeofthisstudyIwouldliketofocusonthreedifferenttheoreticalapproachestothissocialreality.Thisis,Iwouldliketoarguefirstaboutasociologicalapproachofsocialconstruction and power relations upon Foucault’swork andBerger and Luckmann addingtheconceptofdeconstructionfromDerrida.ForthesecondoneIfocusonlinguistictheoriesfrom van Dijk,Wodak and Potter. The third approach is based on cognitive literature ofFerrésiPratsandagainRuthWodak.Wodak’sperspectivethathelpusunderstandmentalprocesses of cognition when it comes to analyse social phenomena (essentially usingimages)asshelinksCDAtocognitivebrainstructures.Ichoosetooperatewiththesethreedifferent theoretical approaches because it gives a better comprehensive and holisticanalysis of this social reality.Moreover, Iwould like to give some sense and logic to this

20

theoreticalframework.Thus,thereisanotherauthorIwouldliketomentionhere,however.Idonotframehiminanyofthethreetheoreticalframeworksashecouldeasilybeinallofthem.IamtalkingaboutGeorgeLakoffandtheapproachhedevelopsregardingconceptualmetaphors. Conceptualmetaphors canbeusedeither in a socialway as away to explainsocialreality,oritcanalsobeusedasalinguistictoolforpoetryforinstance,orevenmoreasacognitivemental instrumentwhenweneedtoconceptualizeandunderstandcomplexsocial realities. Thus, I argue about this author at the end of the three perspectives.Islamophibia is not just an empirical and observable social fact in terms of racism andxenophobiaorborderscontrol,nor is it justadiscourseonTVorawrittencolumnonTheWashington Post. Islamophobia is also a way of thinking, understanding, and interpretcognitively. So it is a constructionwith its institutional andpersonal accommodation. It issomethingsociallyconstructed.Itisasocialphenomenonthathasinstitutionalandpersonalimpactinthewaywedefine“theother”.Howwedopositionourselves.Hastodowithourown epistemological discourse. Thus, the triangulation of these theoretical approachesoffers a strong analytical tool3and it helps to developmy analysis. I would like to pointsomething at thismoment.Although I usedifferent theoretical backgroundshere Iwouldlike to note that any of them holds the key to a total and absolute truth. In a discursiveanalysis perspective Heracleous points that: “It is not the role of the analyst to judgewhetherstoriesaretrueorfalse,orhaveafactualbasis,butrathertopayattentiontothevariousinterpretations,inter-relations,constructions,andrenditionsofstoriesbydifferentactors.”(Heracleous,2006:46)Thisisimportantfortheanalysisofthehegemonicdiscoursebecauseallapproaches(eithersocial,linguisticorcognitive)offerstrongandusefultoolsofanalysisalthoughtheyallhavealsoweaktheoreticalandmethodologicalpointstotakeintoaccount (although I will not focus on these weaknesses now as it is not the aim of myanalysis).Itisalsoimportantforthealternativediscourses,however.ItisimportantbecauseHeracleousquotetakesintoaccount“storiesbydifferentactors”whichiswhatalternativediscoursestrytoinclude.ThereisalsotheapproximationtotruthfromFoucaultthathastodoalsowithcontextwherethesepremisesareconstructed.That iswhy,andaccordingtoPotter:

OnewayofclassifyingFoucault isasociologistandhistorianofknowledge(…)Heisfreetofocusontheproductionofknowledgethroughinstitutions(…)andonwhatthatknowledgeisusedfor,withoutbeingside-trackedbytheparticipants’concernastowhethertheknowledgeistrueornot.Toemphasizethisheusesthestrikingmetaphorofregimesoftruth,whichencouragesustoseetruthas related toa specific socialorganization,moreoveronewhich is likely tobehierarchical,potentially oppressive, and subject to radical change in coups d’état and revolutions. (Potter,1996:86)

3AlthoughIfocusmostlyonthesocialapproach,Iusealinguisticdiscoursivetechniquetoanalyseimagesandacognitiveapproachtopointsomeinterestingaspectsandtobeabletodoabetterandmoreglobalanalysis.Thus,Ithinkitismandatorytointroduceallthreetheoreticalapproaches.

21

2.ContextualizationofimagesThefirstthingIwouldliketointroducehereisabroadcontextofchosenimages.TodosoIpick up several authors in order to fully contextualize the economic, political and socialscenariowhereselectedimagesareproduced.TheseauthorsareInglehartandPutnamonthe political arena, Huntington on the social (or cultural) one, and Wallesrtein on theeconomic one. There is a previous step to take into account, however. This step ismandatorytounderstandthelinkbetweenallperspectives.IamtalkingabouttheworkofHarold Garfinkel. This author is important because it is transversal to all of them as histheoryonethnomethodologycansuccessfullyapplytotherestofauthors.ThisiswhyIthinka small reflexion about his work is helpful for the whole understanding of this socialphenomenon analysis. Thus, when I do the analysis of content of selected images I cansomehowrelatecontentandcontextinordertoachieveaholisticandfruitfulexplanation. Consequently,thefirstauthorIwouldliketotalkaboutisGarfinkel.HaroldGarfinkelusesitsconceptofethnomethodologytochallengesocialrealityfromamethodologicalandtheoreticalperspective.Inthissense,itisaperfectapproachthatcanbelinkedtoCDAasfarasbothanalytical toolsarecritiquewithsocialphenomenon.AlthoughGarfinkelworkandtheorization on ethnomethodology is vast and complex, the main idea I would like tohighlightformtheauthorisquitesimple.Thisisthathegoesbeyondanysocialtheoryandmethodandbasesitsworkontheeverydaylifepersonalexperiences(Garfinkel,1967).Thisiskeyforthisstudyregardingislamophobia.ItissobecauseIfocusmyresearchonthebasisof the way subjects perceive and generate islamophobia “practices”4based on personaleveryday lifeexperiencesorcontactwiththissocialphenomena.Moreover,Garfinkelusestheconceptofindexicalitytopointouttheimportanceofcontextwhenitcomestoclassifyanddescribesocialreality(Garfinkel,1967).ThisisasignificantelementbecausethemethodIusefortheanalysisfocusesonthewaysubjectsperceivesimages(thishastodowithbothcontentanalysisandcontext).Insum,Iusethismethodologicalapproachbecauseitpointsouttheprominenceofsubjects’personalexperiencesineverydaylifeandtheimportanceofcontextregardingtheseexperiences. As faras Ialsowould liketoexplainthepoliticalcontextof these images Ineedtointroduce here the work of Inglehart about post-materialists societies and the theory ofsocialcapitalofPutnam.Accordingtothefirstauthormodernsocieties(westerncountriesbasically) foster secular and self-expression values rather than religious/traditional andmaterial ones (Inglehart, 1977). This is amain difference betweenwestern countries andMuslimcountrieswherereligion isstill themainpoliticalandsocialorganizational feature.Putnam on the other hand focuses on how social capital impacts in societies in terms of

4HereIusetheterm“practices”foranymaterialorimmaterialrepresentationoftheglobalsharedimaginaryofislamophobia.

22

democracy,governability,andpoliticalparticipationofcivilsociety.Thisishowcivilsocietyatitswhole(butalsoincreaseinstitutionalquality)canachievebetterpoliticalstandardsofdemocracy (Putnam, 1993).What is key fromboth authors is the fact that certain valuesattachedtoindividualsreflectonhowcivilsocietyinteractswithpoliticalinstitutions.Thisisimportant to create and spread any shared imaginary among citizens over values such astrust, confidence and tolerance for instance. These values foster liberal democracies andindividualismamongwesternsocieties.InrelationtomyanalysisofislamophobicimagesitisimportanttounderstandhowtheseimagesimpactinthisglobalizedimaginaryoverMuslimpopulationintermsoftrust,freedom,democracy,andtoleranceforinstance. In relation to the social analysis I concentrate on thework of Huntington and therelationshipbetweencultureandwhattheauthorcalls“clashofcivilizations”.ThefirstthingIwouldliketodothenistodefinecivilization.Accordingtotheauthor:

Acivilizationisaculturalentity.Villages,regions,ethnicgroups,nationalities,religiousgroups,allhave distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village insouthern Italymay be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but bothwill share in acommon Italianculture thatdistinguishes themfromGermanvillages.Europeancommunities, inturn,willshareculturalfeaturesthatdistinguishthemfromAraborChinesecommunities.Arabs,Chinese andWesterners, however, are not part of any broader cultural entity. They constitutecivilizations.Acivilizationisthusthehighestculturalgroupingofpeopleandthebroadestlevelofcultural identity people have short of thatwhich distinguishes humans from other species. It isdefined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs,institutions,andbythesubjectiveself-identificationofpeople.(Huntington,1993:23-24).

Thisisapreciseandusefuldefinitionformyanalysisasittakesintoaccountvariablessuchasreligion,institutions,andsubjectiveself-identificationofpeoplewithinacertaincultureorcivilizationthatareatstakewhenitcomestoanalyseislamophobia.Moreover,itallowsmetounderstandtheuseof“clashofcivilizations”usedbythehegemonicdiscourseasitwelldistinguishesthecategory“us”fromthecategory“them”or“theother”. The last arena I would like to explore is the economic one. To do so I focus onWallerstein’s world system theory. The author argues how global production, trade, andconsumption shapes a sort of system where there is a core, a semi-periphery, and aperipheryunitedbyeconomicactivities.Thus,countriesthatbelongtothegroupknownasdeveloped countries are at the coreof this system.Developing countries are at the semi-periphery and under developed countries are at the periphery of it. (Wallerstein, 1974)Whatisanimportantaspecttoconsiderheretounderstandhowislamophobiafunctionsindeveloped or western countries is the relation between the economic structure andmigration flows. Thus, the economic relation between developed countries (western) andunder developedones (mostlyAfrican and SouthWesternAsian) is keywhen it comes toanalysethesynergiesofhowislamophobiaandtheglobalimaginaryregardingMuslimsasa

23

threat to western citizens jobs is created. Consequently, this approach is useful as itconnects two geopolitical areas worldwide greatly confronted on the one hand and itreinforcestheislamophobicfeelingamongcorecountriesontheother. Acknowledgingthepreviouspoints,thereisaconnectionamongallofthemastheyall take intoaccountthe interactionbetweensubjectsandstructures.This is InglehartandPutnam stresses the interaction between citizens and the political structure. Huntingtonarguesabouttherelationbetweenthesocialorculturalstructureandtheimpactthatithasamongwhattheauthorcallsdifferentcivilizations,theMuslimandthewesterninthiscase.On the economic structureWallerstein establishes a great connection not just regardingproductionandconsumptionsystemsbutalsoestablishesamethodortheorythatconnectsto Huntington’s approach on civilizations as core corresponds to western countries andperiphery to a lot of Muslims ones. Thus, all approaches are connected through severalaspectswithinthedifferentstructures.2.1SociologicalapproachAsBergerandLuckmannargue,societyisbasicallysociallyconstructed(Berger&Luckmann,1967). This is, we givemeaning to the world outside.We create concepts to define thisreality. There is a social construction not just at the epistemological level but also (andmostlyaccordingtotheseauthors)attheontologicalone.Ontologyoftheworldisinsidethesubject’s mental representations. Thus, the world that’s “outside” the individual isconstructedbyitself.Anditgetsitsmeaningalsofromthesubjects.Subjectsgivemeaningto reality. Subjects give meaning to their relationships with other subjects and with therelationshipwith the environment they live in. In otherwords, this is to givemeaning tosocialfacts.Individualscreatesocialfacts.Thereisaconstantinteractionbetweensubjectsandsocialfacts.Butthequestionhereis:whatasocialfactis?Isthatasortofconceptthathastodowithsubjectsalone?Orhasittodoalsowithsocialstructures?Hasittodowithbothorwithany?TobetterunderstandwhatasocialfactisthedefinitionofDurkheimhereisneeded.Thus,accordingtotheauthor:

they consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual, which areinvestedwithacoercivepowerbyvirtueofwhich theyexercisecontroloverhim.Consequently,since they consist of representations and actions, they cannot be confused with organicphenomena, nor with psychical phenomena, which have no existence save in and through theindividual consciousness. Thus they constitute a new species and to them must be exclusivelyassignedthetermsocial. It isappropriate,since it isclear that,nothavingthe individualas theirsubstratum,theycanhavenoneotherthansociety,eitherpoliticalsocietyinitsentiretyoroneofthe partial groups that it includes - religious denominations, political and literary schools,occupationalcorporations,etc.Moreover, it isforsuchasthesealonethatthetermisfitting,fortheword'social'hasthesolemeaningofdesignatingthosephenomenawhichfallintononeofthe

24

categories of facts already constituted and labelled. They are consequently the proper field ofsociology. It is truethat thisword 'constraint', in termsofwhichwedefinethem, is indangerofinfuriating those who zealously uphold out-and-out individualism. Since they maintain that theindividualiscompletelyautonomous,itseemstothemthatheisdiminishedeverytimeheismadeawarethatheisnotdependentonhimselfalone.Yetsinceitisindisputabletodaythatmostofourideasandtendenciesarenotdevelopedbyourselves,butcometousfromoutside,theycanonlypenetrateusbyimposingthemselvesuponus.Thisisallthatourdefinitionimplies.Moreover,weknow that all social constraintsdonotnecessarily exclude the individualpersonality. (Durkheim,1982:52)

In this quote there are the basic elements of this analysis regarding andunderstanding imagesasasocial fact insuchholisticandstructuralway.Thus, there isanimagethathaspowerrelationsembeddedsuchaspoliticalorreligiousaspects(social).Themostimportantaspecthereisthatthesesocialfactshappentobe“outside”theindividual.Athispoint,andalthoughthesetwotheoreticalperspectivesseemtobecontradictory(asBergerandLuckmannstandforanindividualontologyofsocialrealityandDurkheimstandsforasocialontologyoutofthesubject)Ineedtofindacommonarenaofbothperspectivesfor my analysis to work. I mostly understand from this contradiction that subjects andstructures(social,politicoreconomic)arepartofthesamesocialreality.Thereisnoneedtoundermine one over the other. Both actors interact each other in such a complex andparticular manner. Individuals interact with the structure constantly. However, thisinteractionisframedbythestructure.Structureslimitindividualactionalthoughitdoesnotdetermine it.Discoursesarepresent inbothsocialactorsequally.However,andregardingimagesthatrepresentthealternativediscourse,insteadoffosteringjustsubjects’awarenessabout this concrete social phenomenon, I argue that beyond the individual, alternativediscourses foster both communal (regarding subjects grouped together) and social(regardinganorganizedcivilsociety)awarenessaboutislamophobia(hypothesis1).Thatiswhyalternativediscoursesthrough images impactthe individualbutnotthesubjectalonebut thegroupofsubjects.Moreover, itwouldbenotenoughto focus theanalysis justononeor theother. Thiswouldpotentially leaveoutof the analysis important aspectsof it.That’sthereasonwhyagainthisquoteispertinentbecauseasDurkheimalsostressesattheend of it: “we know that all social constraints do not necessarily exclude the individualpersonality.”(ibidp.2)Thisisanopendoortheauthorleavesforsubjectstobeindividuallyincluded in what a social fact is, is the one I use to analyse these images under boththeoreticalapproaches.Imagesarethenformetheinteractionofwhathappenswithinandoutside the social structure that foster the construction of it (the image) and the subjectinteractingwithitandmostimportantlygivingmeaningtoit.Toseparatebothperspectivesplays against any intent of a broad holistic explanation. Acknowledging that, I state thathegemonic discourses foster a strong engagement and involvement with spectatorsregardingislamophobia(hypothesis2).

25

AnothersociologicaltheoreticalapproachIwouldliketofocusonistheoneFoucaulthasoverpowerrelations.Ichosethatapproachbecausepowerrelationsarealsoimportanttounderstandhowdiscoursessprawlamongsocieties,especiallywhenitcomestoanalysehegemonic discourses. Foucault uses the panopticon concept of Jeremy Bentham toillustrate a form of control and power that can governor everything from its privilegedposition (Foucault, 1976). I take intoaccount theseelementsof control andpowerof thepanopticonconceptformypurposes.Inmyopinionthereisabasicbutcrucialideabehindthispanopticon.Thatideais:thereisan“eye”thatisabletoseebasically“everything”.Thathappensfromaconcreteposition,andIwouldalsoadd,atcertainlevel.IwouldliketousethisideabutIneedtoturnitupsidedownalittlebittoachievemygoalhereandbeabletoexplainmyself.Thus,thisis,totwistitsothat,ifthereisan“eye”thatcansee“everything”,theremustbealsoan“everything”atthesamelevel(butnotnecessarily)andfromanotherposition that can see this “eye”5. Thus, my point is to consider the “eye” as a socialphenomenon,andthereforestandsinmystudyforthestillimages,andalsotoconsiderthe“everything”asthe individualorspectators inthiscase.Atthispoint Iwould liketoarguealsoaboutthedirectionalityoftheinteractionbetweenimageandspectator.Formeastillimagehasabidirectionalpanopticoneffect.This is, ithas thecapacity toproject (has thecontrol)what’sinsidethe“eye”orinthiscasetheimageontheonehand,andtheabilitytopenetrate through sight (has the power) into individuals brains on the other. There is animportant (and apparently contradictory) fundamental difference in this bidirectional line.What the “eye” projects within the image has to do also with social construction.Whatpenetrates inthe“everything” (spectator) fromthe“eye”hastodotoowiththesubject’scognition.Sotherearetwodifferentlevelsofanalysishereembeddedonthe“eye”orstillimage.Onelevelreferstothefieldofconstructionismandsocialsciencesandtheotherlevelreferstothecognitivistsciencesone.Fromtheperspectiveofthe“everything”orspectatoritalsoexiststhisbidirectionalcharacteristic.Itdoesalsorespondtothesamelogic.Thisis,whilewhat the individual observes in the imagehas to dowith its cognitive physiologicalcapabilitiestowatchthroughitseyes(hasthecontrol)andwhat’sinsideitsmindhastodowithprocessesofsocialization(hasthepower).Moreover,andasasocialconstructedentitythe spectator’s mind is embedded with values, prejudices, emotions and so forth 6 .

5AlthoughFoucault(andalsoBentham)argueabouthowthepanopticon(the“eye”)isplacedabove“everything”,Iconsiderthispositionnotasrelevantastheydo.Idonotconsidereitherifthe“eye”isreallytheretocontrolornot(thisisalsoakeyaspectofthepanopticonconcept).However,whatIdoconsiderkeyandimportantformyanalysisisnotthefactthatthe“eye”isabove“everything”orthefactthatthe“eye”isthereornot,butthefactthatbothactors(“eye”and“everything”)interactinacommonsharedarena.Theoriginalideacannotbeunderstooodeitherunlessthereisasharedarenabetweenthesetwoactors.Thisisthatthewatchmanorpoliceofficercannot“control”or“watch”prisonersunlesstheyareinthesameplace(thesamepenitentiaryinstitutionforinstance).Althoughnowadaysnewtechnologieshaveovercomedthisscenario,theoriginalideadoesnotconsideritsoIwillnoteither.6IwanttonotealsoherethatIdonotanalysetheroleoftheautoroftheimage.Thisis,Idonottakeintoaccounttheintentionalityoftheartist(orthemeaningheorshewantstogivetoit)whenitcomestostablishatheoreticalandmethodologicaltoolofanalysis.Mypurposehereistocontributeassaidtothetheoreticalandmethodologicalsphereofsocial,cognitiveanddiscursivescience.

26

However,isthiscontrolandpowerthesameinbothcases?Iwouldarguethatitisnot.Itisnotbecausealthoughan image isapolysemicartefact,thischaracteristicmustcomefromthe “everything” or spectator7that stares the image. Thus, and although an image hasalready an attributed attached meaning by its author, the “everything” has to give theultimateandownmeaningtothe“eye”throughitsownself,cognition,lifeexperienceandcontext.Thisisthataccordingtopowerandcontrolthesubjecthasthefirstandtheimagehasthelast.Ontheonehandtheimagehasthecontrolduetoitsstillpresentation,orputitinotherwords,an image iswhat it isand itshowswhat itshows, itdoesnotchangewithplace,contextormomentintime.Ontheothertheindividualhasthepowerbecauseattheendofthedayistheoneconstructingmeaningoutoftheimage.Withinthisscenario,whatprevailsthen,controloverpower,powerovercontrol?Isthereanyoptionforbothtohaveequalweightinthisrelation?ToanswerthisquestionIhavetogobacktoFoucaultandtheway this author understands power. Apart of the panopticon entry Foucault developsanother one that focuses on power as a net orweb,what he calls “mailles de pouvoir”8(Foucault, 1978). This is a relational conceptofpower thathelpsme toputmyargumenttogether. This is so because as every relational relationship, it is context dependent.Moreover:“LateoríadeFoucaultechaabajolasimpledivisión,mencionadaanteriormente,entre las formas de poder autoritario o coercitivo, ya que se entiende que el poder seencuentraen todas las relaciones socialesynoesalgoqueejercanúnicamente losgruposdominantes”.(Giddens,2009:1044) Thus, and going back to the question, both interact in a way that both exercisecontrol and power one over the other. This is, depending on the context sometimes theimage’scontrolprevailsoverthesubject’spowerandtheotherwayaround,itcanbethattheatomizedpoweroftheindividualisstrongerthantheimage’scontroldependingonthecontextandtherelationalsituation.Iwanttoillustratethisreflexionwithsomeexamples.IntheNaziGermanytheimageandthepresenceoftheswastikahavepowerenoughovertheGerman citizens (as its symbolic artefact) to control their behaviour and make them actaccordingly to a collective institutionalized shared meaning of the swastika. The samehappenswithanimageofJesusChristinachurchwhereitcontrolspeople’sbehaviourandmake them cross themselves when entering the Church (although there are churcheswithoutimages,intheProtestantismandIslamforinstance).Ontheothersidethesubject’spowerisstrongerthantheimage’scontrolwhenforinstancewhensomeoneisswimminginabeachwherethereisaforbiddensigntoswim.Itoccursalsowhenagaycouplekissesinfrontofanyreligiousrepresentationthatdeniesitsexistenceashomosexualsorinfrontofa

7IborrowthisconceptofspectatorfromRolandBarthes8Thisrelationalconceptreferstomechanismsofsocialcontrol.Thisis,therearemechanismsofpowerthataretransferredfromthestate(politicalapparatus)totheeconomicandthesocialapparatusthatcontrolpeople’sbehaviour.Thisconceptisimportantbecauseitshowstheinterrelationshipbetweentheseactorswhenitcomestounderstandhowcontrolmechanismswork.

27

radicalviolentsocialgrouplikefootballhooligansforinstance.Thisiswhenindividualpowerisstrongerthantheorganizationalone. The last approach I would like to use here is the Derrida’s one regarding itsmainacademic contribution. I want to talk about deconstruction. This concept is useful herebecause itopensadoorforanalysingandcriticizinghegemonicdiscourses(whateverformtheyhave)throughsubject’scognitivestructureswithinaconcretereality.Deconstructionisthen a powerful device to analyse social facts (such as images in this case). Thus, and asKriegerstresses:

La deconstrucción exige la fragmentación de textos y, en ella, el filósofo detecta los fenómenosmarginales, anteriormente reprimidos por un discurso hegemónico (Krieger, 2004:180) and: Eldeconstructivismo,queexige lecturassubversivasynodogmáticasde lostextos(detodotipo),esunactodedescentralización, unadisolución radical de todos los reclamosde “verdad”absoluta,homogéneayhegemónica.moreover:reconocemosenlaobradeDerridaelmuyvaliosoprincipioacadémicodelacontradicciónrazonablecomomotordelacognición.(ibid.p.182)

I use deconstruction here due to its critical approach but also, and most importantly,becauseitisaconstantquestioningoftheobjectofstudy.AccordingtoKrieger:

laobrafilosóficadeDerridaexigeacercamientoscríticosycreativos,noafirmativosoesquemáticos(ibid. p. 187) and: El análisis deconstructivista, uno entre muchos modelos epistemológicosactuales,cobrasufuerzagraciasaunatradiciónoccidental:lapregunta(p.188)However:segúnlalógica inherente del deconstructivismo, este término también debería someterse al análisisdeconstructivista parano convertirse en unnuevo instrumentodel poder discursivo centralizado.(ibid.p.187)

Thismeans that deconstruction (but also constructionism and panopticon) has to be putunder question and under critique constantly. This is important because as CDA,deconstruction helpme contextualizemy analysis.Moreover, it is important to note thatalternative discourses are a way to deconstruct hegemonic ones. This is so becausealternativediscoursesseekwhat isbehindthehegemonicones inorder toestablishothervariableswhen it comes toexplain social factsor realities. I find indeconstruction thenastrong and controversial link between the sociological, the linguistic and the cognitiveapproaches.Thereisaconnectionthenbetweenthesethreeapproachesandtheconceptofdeconstruction.2.2LinguisticapproachAccordingtothisapproachthereareseveralauthorsorperspectivesthatIwouldliketotalkabout.Thus,IidentifyheremanlythetheoreticalworksofvanDijkandWodak&Meyer,butalsoIwanttoconsidertheworkofPotterandCastells.Istarwiththelatestbecauseithasa

28

direct connection to the sociological approach. Thus, there is a basic idea in JonathanPotter’sbook.Thatisthatrealityisrepresentedandconstructedbydiscoursesandrhetoric.Although theauthor isquite critiqueabout theway reality is constructedby subjects andtheirdiscourses(accordingtoself-interestsandpowerrelationsamongotheraspects), it isclear that subjects give meaning to reality through elaborated concepts and articulateddiscoursesthatdefinethis reality (Potter,1996).There isalsoanother facthere,however.While these discourses give sense to reality, reality gives also sense to these discourses.There is a link between these two interrelated synergies. This is so because discoursescannot be understood without a concrete context. In fact, if we pretend to transfer adiscourse from one context to another, probably the discourse will not have the sameinterpretationormeaning.ThisiswhythenIassert thatalternativediscourses (or imagesrepresentingtheminthiscase)areratherinformativeassetsortoolsthannormativeones(hypothesis3),astheycanjustinforminadeterminedcontext.Thus,andasfarastheyareinformationlinked,thecontextwherethisinformationisgeneratedandspreadiskeyfortheanalysis. This is why Potter stresses the importance of the context when analysing socialrealitythroughadiscursiveparadigm.Especiallywhenitcomestoethnomethodology.Theauthorquotesthefatherofethnomethodology,HaroldGarfinkel.Theauthorargues:

HaroldGarfinkel (1967)developedthesametheme insomewhatdifferentdirections.Oneof thebasicobjectivesofhisprogramforethnomethodologywastostudythemethodsthatpeopleusedto produce descriptions of the social world which seem rational, appropriate and justifiable.(Potter, 1996:42) and continues: it is important to note that when ethnomethodologists talk of“occasion”and“context”theyaremeaningmorethangrossinstitutionalfeaturesofthesettingoftalk(…)theyarehighlightingthespecificsoftheinteractioninwhichtheparticipantsareengaged.Sotosayanutteranceis“occasioned”istosaythatisfittedtoasequenceoftalk,whichispartofabroadersocialsetting.(ibidp.43)

Ipickupthisquotebecause itconnectsdiscourse,ethnomethodologyandcontext.Withinthisperspective,Wodakhasalsosomethingtosay:

Porunlado,lasdeterminacionessituacionales,institucionalesysocialesconfiguranlosdiscursosylesafectan,yporotro,losdiscursosinfluyentantoenlasaccionesylosprocesossocialesypolíticosde carácter discursivo como en los de carácter no discursivo. En otras palabras, en tanto queprácticas sociales lingüísticas, pueden considerarse como elementos que constituyen prácticassociales discursivas y no discursivas, y, almismo tiempo, como elementos constituidos por ellas.(Wodak,2003:104-105)

Thus, I can use this bridge that both Potter andWodak construct between the linguisticapproachtofactconstructionanditsrelationtothesociologicalapproachtocarryonwithmyanalysis.

29

TheothertheoreticalapproachIstresshereistheonefromTeunvanDijkontheonehandandRuthWodakontheother,bothregardingCDA.IputthesetwoauthorstogetherherebecausealthoughasI justsaidtheybothfocusoncriticaldiscourseanalysis, Ichooseonedifferentperspectiveofeachother.IstarwithWodakanditshistoricalapproachtoCDAandcontinuewithvanDijkandtherelationbetweendiscourseandpower(ordomination).Moreover, IusealsoanothercharacteristicofCDA thatalsovanDijkandWodakstresses.This is itsmultidisciplinary facet. In thisparticularcase therelationshipbetweendiscourseandcognition.OnawidedefinitionofCDAFairclough:

DeestemodolaLCyelACDpuedendefinirsecomodisciplinasquefundamentalmenteseocupandeanalizar,yaseanéstasopacasotransparentes,lasrelacionesdedominación,discriminación,poderycontrol(…)laLCyelACDtartandeevitarelpostuladodeunasimplerelacióndeterministaentrelos textos y lo social. Teniendo en cuenta las intuiciones de que el discurso se estructura pordominancia,deque tododiscursoesunobjetohistóricamenteproducidoe interpretado, estoes,que se halla situado en el tiempo y en el espacio (…). (Wodak & Meyer, 2003:19-20 quote:FaircloughyKress,1993:4ysigs.)Also:Elenfoquehistóricodeldiscurso,vinculadoalACD,siguelaorientación sociofilosófica de la teoría crítica. En este sentido, opera mediante un complejoconceptodecríticasocialqueincluyealmenostresaspectosinterrelacionados,dosdeloscualessehallanprincipalmente conexos con la dimensión cognitiva,mientras que el tercero lo está con ladimensióndelaacción.(Wodak&Meyer,2003:103)

Inbothquotes there is thehistoricalaspectofCDA.This is, according toWodak&Meyer,an important featureonCDA,but shealsomentionsalready thenotionofpower.UndervanDijk’sperspective:

Encontramos dos relaciones básicas entre el poder y el discurso: una es el poder de controlar eldiscurso y otra el poder del discurso para controlar lasmentes de las personas. (…) En lugar delpoder como la fuerza para controlar las acciones de las personas, el poder moderno es,esencialmente,poderdiscursivo.(vanDijk,2004:10)

Theauthornoteshereanother important aspectofCDA. This is the subject’smind. Thus,andasmentionedabovevanDijkstresses:

Dadamiorientaciónmultidisciplinary,laetiquetageneralqueavecesutilizoparaponerenprácticamiformadehacerACDesladeanálisisdiscursivo<sociocognitivo>.(…)yovalorolafundamentalimportancia del estudio de la cognición (y no solo el de la sociedad) en el análisis crítico deldiscurso,enlacomunicaciónyenlainteracción.(Wodak&Meyer,2003:145)

As van Dijk, Ruth Wodak also connects CDA with cognition. On her article “Mediationbetween discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches to CDA”Wodak discussesaboutthisinteractionandhow:

30

A theoretical foundation capable of reconciling sociological, cognitive and linguistic categories(mediation) is therefore obviously required”. (ibid p. 181) Moreover: “Throughout historycommunicationandinformationhavebeenfundamentalsourcesofpowerandcounter-power,ofdominationandsocialchange.Thisisbecausethefundamentalbattlebeingfoughtinsocietyisthebattleoverthemindsofthepeople.Thewaypeoplethinkdeterminesthefateofnormsandvaluesonwhichsocietiesareconstructed.(Castells,2007:238)

Castellsarguesalsoabouttheconnectionbetweenpower,politics,andimages.Thus:

themediaarenottheholdersofpower,buttheyconstitutebyandlargethespacewherepowerisdecided.Inoursociety,politicsisdependentonmediapolitics.Thelanguageofmediahasitsrules.Itislargelybuiltaroundimages,notnecessarilyvisual,butimages.Themostpowerfulmessageisasimplemessageattachedtoanimage.(ibid,2007:242)

To summarise the linguistic approach I would like just to note how Potter throughethnomethodology and Wodak using CDA establish a relation between the sociologicalperspective(essentiallytheconstructivistone)andthelinguisticone.Thiscanbearguedasevery linguisticasset,this isdiscourses inanyof itsforms(thisalso includes images inthisanalysis)aresocialandthereforecontextrelated.Thisisdependsonsocialconstrainsanditis historically developed. Discourses are contingent to social reality. Moreover, and asCastellsnotesthereisaconnectionbetweenpowerandthewaypeoplethink.Furthermore,and as van Dijk points discourse and power come also together. There is no way that adiscoursespreadswithoutapowerfulsource.Finallythelast,butobviouslynotleast,aspectIwouldliketomentionhereistheonethatconnectsCDAandcognitivescience.Thus,thereishereaholisticapproachtosocialphenomenaandrealitythatcanhelptoachieveamorecomplexanalysis.However,thelastapproachhastobearguedinordertofullyunderstandthewholeanalyticalinstrumentIwanttouseformyanalysis.2.3CognitiveapproachAs theaimof this TFG is tobasically focus in the socio-cognitive approach to analyse stillimagesusingtheCDAtechniqueormethod, it ispertinenttoexplain it.Thus,tostressmypointhereIfocusontheworkofFerrésIPratsontheonehandandalsoontheanalysisofWodak,vanDijkandNormanFairclough regardingCDAandcognitionon theother. I takethisapproachintoaccountduetoitsrelevantpaperwhenitcomestoanalyseimages.Thisissobecausewhatwesee(atthecognitivelevel)andthewaywereacttoit(concreteactions)isconditionedbythesubconsciousandisemotionallyexpressed(FerrésiPrats,2014).Thereis also the fact that certain images are attached to certain emotions sowhen the subjectfacesastillimageitreactsemotionallyinthedirectionthisemotionisattachedtothisimageor reality. (ibid, 2014) Moreover, there is a mechanism (through the memory brain

31

structure) that every time a spectator faces an image (or an scenario similar to it) thememorycircuitrecallsthesamefeelingoremotionthatthespectatorexperiencesthefirsttimeheorsheinteractedthissocialfactorreality.(ibid.2014)Thisisanimportantpointformy research here as images related to islamophobia probably make subjects reactemotionallyaccordingtotheirownexperienceswithIslamicinputs(notnecessarilyadirectpersonalcontact)andaccordingtothepreviousargument.Thus,thisisthewaywefaceorinterpretstillimagescognitively.Psychologicalsociologistsdefinethisemotionalreactionasprejudice. Prejudices, beliefs,memories, fantasies or stereotypes are embedded in racist,xenophobic, homophobic or sexist discourses among others. (Wodak, 2006) There arehistorical rootswhen it comes tounderstand the frame inwhich this interactionbetweencognitionandemotion,andhowitisembeddedinthisconcretesystemofbelief.(ibid,2006)ThisisasignificantpointbecauseoftheimplicationsorimpactthatprejudiceshaveamongMuslim population within western societies due to the hegemonic discourse is notable.However, the point here is not to use cognitive arguments to legitimate either thehegemonic or the alternative discourse but rather to understand how cognitive mentalstructures also impact thewaywe construct reality through discourses. These discoursesbringdifferentkindsof informationalso.At thecognitive levelnotall informationpresentwithinadiscourseiscaptured.Ourbrainsselectfromtheinformationavailabletheonethatismore relevant tounderstanda social phenomenon. This iswhy I state that hegemonicdiscourses (islamophobic images here) display and construct neat and clearmeaningfulunits (hypothesis4)sospectatorscaptureandretainwhathegemonicdiscourseselectsasimportant.AtthispointIwanttointroducetheotherthreeperspectivesregardingcognitionandCDAusingtheanalysesofWodak,FaircloughandvanDijk. TostresshowCDAlinkstocognitivescienceandimages(whichareatthecoreofthisanalysis)IwanttoquotewhatvanDijkstressesregardingbothtopics.Thisis:

(…)<discurso>seutilizaenelampliosentidode<acontecimientocomunicativo>, loqueincluyelainteracción conversacional, los textos escritos y también los gestos asociados, el diseño de laportada, la disposición tipográfica, las imagenes y cualquier otra dimensión o significaciónsemióticaomultimedia.Demanera similar,aquí<cognición> implica tanto la cogniciónpersonalcomo lacogniciónsocial, lascreenciasy losobjetivos,así como lasvaloracionesy lasemociones,juntoconcualquierotraestructura,representaciónoproceso<mental>o<memorístico>quehayaintervenidoeneldiscursoyenlainteracción.(Wodak&Meyer,2003:146)Laestructuradelassituacionessocialesesespecialmenterelevante,comohemosvistomásarriba,para una teoría del contexto. El discurso se define con frecuencia como un acontecimientocomunicativo que sucede en una situación social, presenta un escenario, tiene participantes quedesempeñan distintos roles, determina unas acciones, etcétera. Hemos visto que esascaracterísticas situacionales sólo son relevantesparaeldiscurso cuando sehallanencarnadasenrepresentacionesmentales,esdecir,convertidasenmodeloscontextuales.Enotraspalabras,puedeque tengamosuna teoríade las situaciones socialesparaexplicar los conceptos, pero, denuevo,

32

necesitamos la interfaz cognitiva para transformarlos en las <estructuras de relevancia> quellamamoscontextos.(ibid,2003:171)

These quotes express the importance of context and the way context and discourse arerelatedtocognitionandthereforementalrepresentations,emotionsandactions-reactions(interaction).Thisis,contextualmodelsorcontexts.Thus:

Los contextos no son un tipo de realidad social ‘objetiva’ o una situación social ‘real’ sinoconstructos subjetivos de lo que ahora es relevante en dichas situaciones sociales. En psicologíacognitiva estas construcciones subjetivas de situaciones o eventos se denominan modelosmentales.” (…) Los modelos mentales especiales que construimos de nuestras experienciascomunicativas se llamaránmodelos de contexto o simplemente contextos. En otras palabras, loscontextossonrepresentacionesmentalesdealgunaclasse.(…)EnelACDnecesitamossermuchomásespecíficos respectadichocontrolmental;esdecir,necesitamosuna teoríadetalladade lasformasenlasquesecomprendeeldiscursoyseguardaenlamemóriaycómoalgunaspropiedadesdedicharepresentaciónmentalpodríaninfluirennuestrascreencias.(vanDijk,2004:13-14)

There is also Fairclough linking CDA, discourse and social practices. However, this authorintroducesanotherconcepttothisequation.Thisis,semiosis.Asmentionedbeforeimagesareapoly-semioticartefact.PuttingallthesethingstogetherFairclough:

(…) lasemiosisentendidacomoparte irreductiblede losprocesossocialesmateriales.Lasemiosisincluyetodaslasformasdecreacióndesignificado–las imágenesvisuales,el lenguajecorporalytambién el lenguaje. (…) El ACD es el análisis de las relaciones entre la semiosis (incluido ellenguaje)yotroselementosdelasprácticassociales.(Wodak&Meyer,2003:180-181)

ItisclearbynowthatifIwouldliketoanalysethecontentofcontemporaryimagesregarding islamophobia I have to pay attention to all these aspects. This is, I have tounderstand the connection or the relationship between the social, the linguistic and thecognitive features of this social reality. There is another vital point here that needs to bearguedtofullyunderstandthiscomplexwebofinteractions,however.Thesearemetaphors.Unless I also consider the way conceptual metaphors help us understand how subjectsperceive, analyse andexplain social reality through this sophisticated social, linguistic andcognitive process, I cannot carry on with my purpose. It is also important to considerconceptualmetaphorsasasocialconstructthatalsohastodowithcognition,languageandcontext.2.4LakoffandtheMetaphorTo illustrate howmetaphors, or rather conceptualmetaphors,work I basemy theoreticalapproachonLakoff’stheories.AlthoughIdonotwanttoarguethisframeworkasmuchastheotherthree(asmetaphorisnotthemainframeIworkwith),Iwouldliketomentionits

33

mostimportantcharacteristicasIanalysealternativediscourseimages(Images8,9,10,and11)underthisperspectiveorparadigm.There isaconnectionbetweenconceptualmodels(orframesaccordingtoLakoff),theunconscious(orsubconsciousasFerrésiPratsstresses),language and the way we explain and create social phenomenon. Frames are symbolicambitsthatdeliberatelyexertselectiveinfluenceoversubject’sperceptionofmeaningtheyattributetoconceptstheyuse.Moreover:“Cadamarcoconceptualdefineelproblemaasumanera y, por lo tanto, define las soluciones necesarias para solucionar tal problema.”(Lakoff,2007)Thisquotehashugeimplicationswhenitcomestosolveasocialproblem.Itisso because by defining the problem (and not mentioning certain aspects that couldeventually also be part of it) we already state possible solutions. Thus, if hegemonicdiscourse targetsnationaland international security in relation to islamophobiaasamainthreat,possiblesolutionstoitmustcomealsofromthesecurityarena.Metaphorsalsohaveappraisingcharge,favourcertaininterpretations,andmodifyourperceptionoftheworldwelive in (Lakoff, 2011). Therefore we accept concepts that are presented under certaincognitiveframeswithnoquestioning.Thisisacognitivebias.Thus,conceptualframesthatarelinkedtothecognitiveunconsciousshowupthroughconcepts(andthereforelanguage).Inordertochangethem(conceptualframes)itismandatorytochangethewaywetalk(ibid,2011). Ineedtomakemypointhere inordertounderstandwhyI introducesuchasbasicframe.This isbecauseherewhatIunderstandas:“changethewaywetalk” ispreciselytoexpressthingsorrealitydifferently.Thisisinmyanalysistouseimagesinsteadofwordsandwrittentexts,butalsotochallengehegemonicdiscourseswithalternativesones. Moreover,byusingimagesIpretendtointroduceanotherlanguagethatcanbeusedtoanalysesocialphenomenathroughCDAsosubjectsareabletochangetheirconceptualframes, and by doing so overcome the powerful strength of the hegemonic discourseregardingislamophobia,beingconceptualmetaphorsusefulandnecessaryforthispurpose.Metaphorsthenhaveamaincharacteristic.Thisis,theyestablishaconnectionofmeaningbetweentwodifferentdomains.Onedomainis(oritwas)real(sourcedomain)andphysic,and theotherone is theoneweuse tomake theconnectionwith the latest (“bull’seye”domain) and it is basically conceptual. By doing so we give or attribute meaning to theseconddomaininrelationtothefirstone(LakoffandJohnson,1980).Thischaracteristicofmetaphors is crucial tounderstandhowcertain realitiesaresociallyconstructed.Theyareabstract forms that permit us understand complex realities. Moreover, conceptualmetaphors help us create new social phenomenon and structure realities composed byseveral fragments (ibid,1980). Inadescriptivewaywe learnconceptualmetaphors, this iswhy history and traditions are also key to understand how metaphors work. Thus, bygeneratinganewdomainthatrepresentsanewsocialphenomenonwewanttotarget,wejustneedtocorrelatethisnewdomainwithanestablishedone.Thisestablisheddomainisalreadyonethatcitizens,withinaconcreteanddeterminedcontext,understand,shareand

34

attributethesamemeaning.(ibid,1980)Whenasharedcollectivemeaningfuldomaindoescorrelatewithanewsocialrealitythroughanotherconstructeddomain,bothsocialrealitiescanbeexplainedandunderstoodequally.Accordingly,ifsocial,politicalandeconomicelitesrelateIslamandthehegemonicdiscourseregardingislamophobia(newdomain)withotherestablisheddomainssuchasterrorismandreligion(realdomains),thecollective imaginary(peopleworldwide)associates therefore terror to Islam.Once thisassociation isdone it isprettytoughtore-establishitcognitivelywithanotherdomain.PuttingallthistogetherandasLakoffpointsout:

La neurociencia nos dice que cada uno de nuestros conceptos – los conceptos que estructurannuestromododepensara largoplazo–están incrustadosen lassinapsisdenuestrocerebro.Losconceptosnosoncosasquepuedencambiarsesimplementeporquealguiennoscuenteunhecho.Los hechos se nos puedenmostrar, pero, para que nosotros podamos darle sentido, tienen queencajarconloqueestáyaenlassinapsisdelcerebro.(Lakoff,2011)

This is important also because either consciously or unconsciously this correlation amongdomainsalsohavean impact inour feelingsandemotions (Ferrés iPrats,2014).Whenanemotion is associated or inferred to a certain domain, any reference to it evocates thisfeeling (ibid. 2014). Thus, the combination of all these four approaches is key to analyseislamophobiaandtounderstandhowthissocialfactspreadsamongandwithinsocieties.

III.METHODOLOGYThereareseveralmethodologiestoanalysediscourses.Amongallof themI ratherchoosequalitativedata.WithinthiskindofdataIalsonarrowtheoptionstovisualdata.Thisvisualdataarestillcontemporaryimagesregardingislamophobia.Thus,therearesiximages.Twocorrespond to thehegemonicdiscourse and four to the alternativeone (twograffiti fromBanksy and twopictures fromWeiwei) all six related to islamophobia that Iwould like toanalyse. The analysis then is to compare some images that stand for the hegemonicdiscourse(imagesfrom5to7)withthechosenones(8,9,10and11)representativeforthealternatives ones. Moreover, and although I chose these images because each of themrepresentsa specific reality, theyalsohaveseveral commoncharacteristics.Subsequently,andforthecontentanalysis,Ifocusonacoupleofanalyticalmethodologicalarticlessuchasthe one fromWang (andmetaphor) and the one from Harrison based on Kress and vanLeeuwentheoryofvisualanalysis.AlthoughIanalyseBanksyandWeiwei’simagesthroughthemetaphoric perspective ofWang, formy analysis I combine both authors’method inorder to have a stronger, more powerful and holistic methodology. I pick up also twodifferent kinds of images to analyse also if there is any difference between graffiti and

35

picture or still image when it comes to this matter. Last two authors develop theirframeworkonthebasisofsocialsemiotics.AccordingtothisquoteofLemke:

Social semiotics is a synthesisof severalmodernapproaches to the studyof socialmeaningandsocial action. One of them, obviously is semiotics itself: the study of our social resources forcommunicatingmeanings… Formal semiotics ismainly interested in the systematic study of thesystemsofsignsthemselves.Socialsemioticsincludesformalsemioticsanditgoesontoaskhowpeopleusesignstoconstructthelifeofacommunity.(1990:183)(Harrison,2003:48)

Additionally,WangalsoarguesaboutsocialsemioticsanditlinksittoCDA.Thus:

Based on social semiotics, VG [visual grammar], relevant theories in CDA, (…) a tri-moduletheoretical framework is constructed. The critical visual analysis framework consists in threeinterrelated layers: social semiotics constitutes the theoretical foundation for integrating theanalytical tools of multimodal studies, and CDA on the intermediate level, while at theimplementationlevelthecriticalvisualanalysismethodologyconsistsofthreemodules:discursivenarrative,visualintertextual,andcriticalvisualmetaphoricanalysis.(Wang,2014:267)

Socialsemioticsisthenakeyfactortoanalyseimagesfromacriticalperspective.However:

Semioticsdoesnotsimplyfocusonascientificreading:itisalsoregardedasanactivityconcernedwith meaning, signification, and the manufacture of meaning. And: Semiotic approachesconcentrateonthearticulationofmeaningratherthanthemeaningsthemselves.Theyattempttoexpose the processes of meaning production. Thus, they are theories of signification that arefocusedontheformofthecontent.(Batu,2012:465&468)

ThisiswhyIfocusonacontextualizedcontentanalysis.So,thefirstmethodistheonefromWang.TheauthorarguesabouttheuseofcriticalvisualmetaphoranalysisusingLakoffandJohnson theoretical approach. As far as I use Wang’s approach to critical visual analysisthroughconceptualmetaphors,Iconcentrateonthepartofhisworkregardingthisconcretescenario.Thus,andasfaras:

The article has attempted to establish a critical visual analysis approach. Such an approach isholistic, inthat itcoversawiderangeofvisualgenrescategorised inaccordancewithhowvisualsemiosis is presented, thus it can be adapted to a variety of visual corpuses. Although at apreliminarystageofdevelopment,allmoduleswithintheanalyticalframeworkasawholecanbeusedtoanalyseexamplesorcanbeemployedinempiricalstudies.Theapproachismappedoutinthreesteps.(Wang,2014:280)

There is another key element here that Kress and van Leeuwen stress and has to becombinedwiththis lastone.Thus,andif Idounderstandgraffitiasapictorialrepresentedstructurethen:

36

Pictorial structures do not simply reproduce the structures of “reality”. On the contrary, theyproduce imagesof realitywhichareboundupwith the interestsof the social institutionswithinwhichthepicturesareproduced,circulatedandread.Theyareideological.Pictorialstructuresarenevermerely formal: theyhave a deeply important semantic dimension. (Kress& van Leeuwen,2006:45)

Figure 1 shows the analytical approach the author defends to analyse images through acriticalvisualapproach.Figure2displaysabroaderapproachofthecriticalvisualanalysis.Ireproduce both figures because they are accurate and precise enough to understand thewholeprocessofanalysis.Idonotusethewholefigureinanyofbothcasesformyanalysisbutratherapartofit.Iusethepartorthebranchthatreferstodiscursivenarrativeanalysisandtheoneofcriticalvisualmetaphoranalysisinthecaseofthefigure2(whichcomesfromthepreviousfigure1).Figure1.Criticalvisualcontentanalysisapproach

Source:Criticisingimages:criticaldiscourseanalysisofvisualsemiosisinpicturenews.Wang2014

Thus, first I do a visual description of each image to be able to do a visualinterpretation of it and at the end a social explanation. On the other side I identify andanalysethevisualarrangementofmetaphors.BothanalyseshelpmeunderstandtheworkofBanksyandWeiweiandtoanalyseitfromacriticalholisticperspective.Accordingtotheauthor:“Invisualdescriptionand interpretation, the linguistic featuresandthemethodofencoding are discussed in detail. In this section, taking the macro-social context intoconsideration, the focus is on how the ideology in the pictures is legitimised as ‘commonsense’.” (Wang 2014:274) In this case the author stresses as “common sense” what Ipreviously name to be “lay knowledge”, this is the imaginary people has over a concretesocialrealitythatissharedandgeneratedbyeverydayexperiences.

37

Figure2.Thecriticalcontentvisualanalysisstage

Source:Criticisingimages:criticaldiscourseanalysisofvisualsemiosisinpicturenews.Wang2014

Table 1 presents the visual description dimensions. There are three: therepresentationalstructure,theinteractivemeaningandthecompositionalsystem.Thus,therepresentational structure refers to visual process that fulfil narrative and conceptualfunctionsintheimage.Herethereistheactionprocessthatdepictsanactiononthepartoftheparticipantortowardagoal.Therelationalprocessportraysanactionof“seeing”orasocialphenomenon.Thespeechprocessshowstheactionoftalkorinteractiveconversationandfinallythesymbolicprocessrelatestocertainculturalcontext.Ananalyticalindicatorisalsowithin thisdimension.There isalso the interactivemeaning that is“the interpersonalsideofvisualcommunication”,anditincludesdifferentangles,perspectivesordistancesandthemodalityoftheimage.Thelastoneisthecompositionalsystemthatstandsfor“thewayinwhichthepictureiscomposed”.Thisisframing,top/bottomperspectiveorthesystemoftheimageamongothers.Thelastaspectonthevisualdescriptionisthesalience.Itrefersto“thearrangementofbrightcoloursandthesizeoftherepresentation.”(Wang,2014:270) Following firstWang’smethodology, first there isavisualdescriptionbasedon therepresentational structureof the image.This iswhatsubjectscansee in the images.Thenthere are several interactivemeanings,where the subject or the spectator interactswithwhatisrepresentedwithintheimage,andfinallythecompositionalsystemoftheconcreteor selected images9.As faras themodel Iuse toanalyse these images isablendofboth

9Harrisonalsopresentsthesethreegroupsofindicatorsbutnamesthemdifferently.Accordingtotheauthorthereistherepresentationalmetafunction(representationalstructure),theinterpersonalmetafunctions(interactivemeanings)andthecompositionalmetafunction(compositionalsystem).

38

WangandHarrison’smethods,nowforthelastmethodologicalcontentapproachIproceedtousetheonefromHarrisontoapplytheauthor’sdefinitionsoftheseconcreteindicators.Thus, the representational structure (or metafunction) has five indicators that help toanalyse the visual description, the interactive meanings (or metafunction) has five moreindicators.Finallythecompositionalsystem(ormetafunction)hasnineindicators.Table1.Contentvisualdescriptiondimensions

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonWang&Harrison’smethodandindicators

Figure3 illustrates the representational structure indicatorsdefinitions. I choose toanalysethespeechandsymbolicprocessindicatorsplustheanalyticalone.Figure4showsthe interactivemeanings ones. From this figure I pick up all of themexcept the one thatrefers to themodalityof the image. Finally, fromFigure5 thatdisplays the compositionalsystemindicatorsIwouldliketoanalyseagainallindicatorswithinthetablebuttheframingand thesystemones.Moreover, Iwould like toquoteKressandvanLeeuwen inorder toclarify this relationship betweenwhat is representedwithin the image and the spectator.Thus:

images involve two kinds of participants, represented participants (the people, the places andthingsdepicted in images),and interactiveparticipants (thepeoplewhocommunicatewitheachother through images, the producers and viewers of images), and three kinds of relations: (1)relations between represented participants; (2) relations between interactive and representedparticipants(the interactiveparticipants’attitudestowardstherepresentedparticipants);and(3)

39

relations between interactive participants (the things interactive participants do to or for eachotherthroughimages).(Kress&vanLeeuwen,2006:119)

Figure3.Representationalstructureindicatorsdefinitions

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonHarrison’sdefinitionsofindicators

Figure4.Interactivemeaningsindicatorsdefinitions

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonHarrison’sdefinitionsofindicators

TosummarisethemethodologicalsectiontheseindicatorsaretheonesIuseforthecontentanalysisofselectedimages.Thisanalysisfocusesonvisualaspectssuchashowthenarrativeofrepresentedpersonsorparticipants(RP)iscreated,theinteractionbetweenRPandthesubjectsorspectatorsstaringatthoseimages,thecoloursandtheanglesofthemandhowtheRPareplacedwithintheimagesamongothers.Therefore,andforthecomingpages I first focus on Wang and Harrison’s methods on content analysis. As mentionedaboveforthecontextualizationofimagesIfocusonGarfinkel’sethnomethodologyapproachtosocialanalysisinabroadway.Withthisbroadmethodology,usedasacriticalonehere,Ifocus the analysis on the economic, politic and social context of the images. Thus, and

40

regarding the economic arena it is important to talk about capitalism, its globalizedexpansion and the impact it has on the periphery of the global production system(Wallerstein, 1974) to understand the synergyof this process of islamophobiaworldwide.Thepoliticarena isexamined in termsofdemocracyand freedomthrough theconceptofsocialcapitalbasedonpeople’strustoneachotherandoninstitutionsandpost-materialistandsecularvalues.Figure5.Compositionalsystemindicatorsdefinitions

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonHarrison’sdefinitionsofindicators*Thisvalue isbasedonhowwereadinWesterncultures(fromlefttoright). Itdoesn’tnecessarilyapplytoculturesthatreadfromrighttoleftorincolumns. In order to accomplish this analysis I focus on thework of Putman on the one hand andInglehart on the other. The social one focuses on culture andwhat is known as clash ofcivilizations.Thisoneisrelatedtotheprevioustwoaseachcivilization(orspecificculture)has its own ontological economy and political system in spite of sharing a globalinteractional arena. For the social analysis I use the theoretical backgroundofHuntingtonanditsculturalapproach.Moreover,Iwouldliketoanalysehowtheselatestindicatorsarerepresented and observed in concrete actions of subject’s everyday life experiences,activities and behaviour attitudes in general when it comes to evaluate the impact ofhegemonic discourses in these actions, and when it comes to islamophobic images inparticular.IV.ANALYSESANDINTERPRETATIONOFRESULTSToproceedwiththeanalysisIfocusonthecontentone.IapplyTable2indicatorsinImages5,6,and7thatrepresentthesocial,thelinguistic,andthecognitivearenasrespectivelyin

41

relation to thehegemonicdiscourse and Images8, 9, 10, and11 as representativeof thealternative ones. As far as I use a method that concentrates on indicators that refer to“participants” within the image, to say people or subjects represented, I choose images(mostofthem)wherehumanbeingsarerepresentedinsomeway10.Althoughthisanalysisisvisual,isitmandatoryasitisthefirstcontactsubjectshavewithoneimage.Thefirstthingweseeisthefirstthingweabsorb.AfterItrytocontextualizeallaspectswithinallimagestoputthemtogetherinordertobringamoresolid,comprehensiveandholisticexplanation.4.ContentanalysisAsalreadymentioned, selected imagesas representative for thehegemonicdiscoursearetheseofNATOmilitaryforcesonthesocialarena,theonefromCharlieHebdo’scoverastherepresentative of the linguistic one, and the one from the cognitive arena which is thegender one relatingwomen, terror and Islam. Thus, Table 2 displays the content analysisresults for these three representing images of the hegemonic discourse related toislamophobia according to Wang and Harrison indicators. Although I analyse all imagesseparately,therearetwoindicatorsthatIwouldliketoanalysewithinallimagesatthesametime.Theseindicatorsaretheverticalangleandthesalienceofeachimage.Ipickupthesetwoindicatorstoanalyseselectedimagestogetherbecauseitsrelationtopowerinthefirstcase,andthecapacitytocapturethespectator’sthoughtfulnessofwhatisrepresentedonthesecondone.4.1.HegemonicdiscourseimagescontentanalysisToanalyse thehegemonicdiscourse images I chooseseveral indicators (inmyopinion themostimportantones)amongallofrepresentedinTable2.Thus,thefirstimageIdoanalyseis Image 5. This image displays severalmen staring ahead that belong to a global unifiedarmyorganizedby theNATO.According to selected representational indicators this imagerepresents a symbolic process of international security where soldiers are the carriers ofmeaningwithin it,where no speech process is reflected.What is important to note fromsoldiersisthatallofthemareCaucasianandmalewalkingahead.Thisactionofmenmovingforwardwithintheimageevocatestheunstoppableon-goingprocessofwesternsocietiestoovercomeMuslimterror.That is, there isaconcernaccordingtothehegemonicdiscourseregarding islamophobia where this social phenomenon is a global hazard that has to beabolished by a global unified military cooperation among western societies. Therefore,soldiersarethekeyelementtocombatfordemocracyandfreedom.

10Therearejusttwoimagesthathavenohumanrepresentation.TheyaretheonefromBanksy(Image9)andtheonefromWeiwei(Image10).

42

Table2.Contentvisualdescriptionindicatorsforhegemonicdiscourseimages

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonWang’smethod&Harrison’sdefinitionsofindicators*Itisdemandbecausetherearetwooutofthethreewomenlookingforward**Itisnewinallcasesbecausealthoughtherepresentedparticipantsarenotontherightoftheimage,theydoactuallyrepresentanissueorproblem

This imagethus,showstheonlyandmorepowerfulsystemicsolutiontothisthreat.Thereareotherelementsinthisimage,however.Thesearethehelicopterbehindsoldiersandtheweaponscarriedbythem.Theseattributesrepresentthetechnological(andalsoknowledgerelated)aspectoftheglobalinterventionagainsttheIslamicmenaceonthepoliticalarena,butalsotheneedtofostermilitaryresearchandinvestmentontheeconomicone.Thisistocreateaglobalimaginarywherecivilsocietylegitimizesthegovernmentexpenditureonthemilitarybudgetandthemilitarizationofpublicspacesonthesocialarenathatwillcontainsubject’sfeelingsoffearandwillhelptorestoresecuritywithinwesterncities.Thepricecivilsocietymustpayforthissurveillanceislooseoffreedomwithinpublicspaces. Fromtheinteractiveindicatorsthereisademandofcontactwiththespectatorfroma far social distance with a frontal angle of the image. These indicators denote thecommitment and the effort from the hegemonic discourse perspective to interactintensivelyanddirectlywithspectatorsworldwide.Soldiersappeartobewalkingonanopenfield so the image achieves a sense attached to it of a real scenario. It shows a plausiblereality that can eventually happen. It also offers an important sense of community andcohesionamongwesterncountries.Moreover,thiscreatesonspectatorsafriendlypresenceofthearmyingeneralandadesirablepresenceofsoldiersinparticular.Whenitcomesto

43

theanglesoftheimagethefrontalonegeneratesarobustinvolvementwheresoldiersareconsidered “one of us” from spectators point of view. By doing so, both perspectivesaccomplish a strong and solid engagement between action and actors representedwithintheimageontheonehand,andbetweenthecivilsocietyandwhatisvisuallyrepresentedon the other. Here again the context gives sense to this image. This is so because aglobalized world needs global structures (in this case political/military) to fight againstIslamic terror. Moreover, a globalized western culture has also to protect its mostconsolidatedvaluesoffreedomanddemocracyovertyrannyanddictatorshipestablishedinseveralMuslim countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan (back in 2001) or Syria nowadaysamongothers.

Inrelationtothecompositionalsystemselectedindicatorsstandforarealandnewbottom-rightcompositionrespectivelycombinedwithacentredinformationalnucleusone.Accordingtothisconcretecompositionofthe image,beingrealmeans it isan informativeandfactualproposaltheuseofmilitaryforcestofightIslamicterrorism.Fromthespectatorspointofviewthisinformativerealnessisseenasareflexionofaproblemontheonehand,butasthesolutiontoitontheother.Thus,itisunderstoodastheconsequenceofaglobalperil and at the same time as the answer to contest it. That is actually what being newmeans,thattheimagereferstoaproblem,andinthiscasetoasolutiontoo(inthissituationbothcategoriescoexistwithinthesameimage,althoughitisnotnecessarytobelikethat).Anotheraspectof this real-newcompositionwith informationcentredamong the soldiersindicatesalso thatnot just themilitaryapparatus is important todefeat Islamic terrorbutindividuals have to foster also this initiative by giving social support to soldiers andmaintaining this support as long as the global threat persists. This is significant becauseislamophobia, as theway I define it here, is a social phenomenon that can takemultipleformssoitcanbepotentiallycomplextoestablishwhenthisglobalmenaceisover. ToputallindicatorsfromImage5togetheritisnotablethatthehegemonicdiscourseregarding islamophobia focuses on the impact and on the interaction between the imageitselfandspectators.Bydoingsoitachievestoinstalladeepandstrongcommitmentamongthe civil society withmilitary forces andmilitary interventions within and amongMuslim

44

countries. It also achieves a neat and clearmessage that stands for the understanding ofMuslims or “the other” as a global threat that has to be overcome by the cooperationamongwesterncountries.Moreover, this image reinforces thewesternvaluesof freedomanddemocracythatneedtobepreserved.Itstrengthenstheneedforaglobalapparatustoassuresubject’swellbeingandsafetyamongwesterncountriesworldwide.Thus,thisimageevokespowerfulengagementbetweenspectatorsandtheimageitself.Thisengagementhastodowiththeprocessesembeddedwithintheimage.Additionally,andasrepresentativeofthesocialarena(thatincludesthepoliticalandtheeconomicones)thisimagerepresentsaglobal political and social institutionalized agreement amongwestern countries to defeatIslamterrorism. Image6, that is the coverof theCharlieHebdoFrenchmagazine thedayafter theattacksagainst itself,displays the imageofaMuslimperson lookingstraight tospectatorswhere the representational structure shows how the speech process is represented by acardboardwithawrittentext:JesuisCharlie(IamCharlie)andanothertextabovehimthatsays:Toutestpardonné(it isall forgiven).Moreover,threat isthesymbolicprocessoftheimage.TheMuslimpersonrepresentedwithinitcarriesthemeaning.Bothtextswithintheimageareattributes.Asanattributeisimportantbecause“JesuisCharlie”becomesaglobalsentenceworldwide.Alotofcitizensamongwesterncountriestakethissentenceasasortof mantra that runs into demonstrations against Islam terrorism and in Facebook andInstagramprofilesofpeopleworldwide.ThereisaglobalempathywiththesituationoftheFrenchsarcasticmagazine.ThisempathycanbeexplainedbecausetheattacksoccurunderEuropeanground.Thereisnotthesamecivilsociety’sresponsewhentheseattackshappenina countryoutsideEurope,however. Thus, the symbolic threat represented isnot justathreat towesterncountries. It isamenace toamainwesternvalue.That is, amenace tofreedomofspeech.AlthoughthisperilcomesfromtheMuslimpopulation,thiscartoonasksfor forgiveness as the text above shows. However, is this really an image that seeksforgiveness?The cartoon represents a repentant cryingMuslimperson regretting from itsowncultureandacceptingwesternvaluesover itsownones(which inmyopinionisnotareal scenariobutplausibleofbeinganalysed).Thiscorresponds to thesecondattributeofthis cover that is: “Tout est pardonné”. That one is also important because it illustratesunderthehegemonicperspectivetheneedforMuslimstoforgiveallwhathappensagainstwesternpopulation.ThisisapassiveandsubmissivepositionfromtheMuslimrepresentedpersontothewesterncommunity.ItevokesthesupremacyofwesternvaluesoverMuslimones.Itfocusestheattentionofterrorismjustononesideofthephenomenon,onthesideof Muslims. They are the ones perpetrating the attacks and the ones saying that is allforgiven.But,what shouldbe forgiven fromMuslims towesterncitizens?Allattacks fromwestern governments to Muslim countries should be forgiven? Although it seems to becontradictory ad-hoc, it makes much sense in my opinion. It makes sense because it

45

indicates how French culture functions. It shows the process of cultural assimilation thatboththeFrenchgovernmentandtheFrenchwesternsocietyfoster.BysayingthatMuslimsforgive western governments of what they do over Muslim populations worldwide, therepresentedpersonwithin the imageacceptson theonehand that the rootof this socialphenomenoncanberelatedtowesterncountries,butontheotherhanditassumesthatthisfact can be forgiven. What would be the reading and understanding, however, of thisattributeifthepersonwhostates:“Toutestpardonné”isnottherepresentedMuslimbutthe magazine itself? In this case the analysis is quite different. The analysis under thisperspectiveisthatwesternsocietiescanforgiveMuslimpopulationoftheirterrorattacksiftheyacceptwesternvaluesandrules (as theother textdoes).Althoughtheperspective isdifferent,whatitreflectsisagaintheFrenchassimilationprocess.SoeitherwaythewesternconceptionoftheworldisplacedabovetheMuslimone.Thereisadialogicalbattlehere.

AccordingtotheinteractivemeaningsindicatorsinTable2thereisalsoademandofcontactwithspectatorsfromafarpersonaldistanceandafrontalhorizontalangle.Althoughas in Image 5 both share the same contact demand, which creates a great level ofengagement between the represented participant and the spectator, the latest generatesmoreinvolvementwithspectatorsduetoitspersonaldistanceincomparisonwiththesocialonefromthepreviousone.Thus,therepresentedsadcryingMusliminducesustothinkofall thisMuslimpopulationthat, likewesterncitizens, isalsoagainstMuslimterror.So,thisimage has a double-edged sword message embedded. On the one hand the message ofMuslimsagainstterrorimpliestherenouncetoitsownculturalvalues(assimilation)butontheotherthemagazineblamesalsoMuslimcommunityfortheattacks.ThereisafeelingofempathywithMuslimsandatthesametimeafeelingofguiltandblameagainstthem.Theinteractionthenwithspectatorsis,duetotheangleandthecontact,astrongandsolidone.Additionally, it reinforces the western perspective over this social fact. In the sameargumentative line, this representedMuslim canbe seen as a friend and as an enemyor“one of them”. This ambiguous reading of this image makes it more complex than thepreviousone.AsfarasthisImage6representsthelinguisticarenaIwouldliketotalkabout

46

freedom of speech and the textswithin the image. I do think as spectator that althoughfreedomof speechmustbe keptunder safepremises, there is a needalso to review thisprincipletoachievealinguisticharmonyamongculturesandcivilizations. Regarding thecompositionalaspectof Image6 there is centred informationwithareal and new bottom-right order. As in Image 5 the real-new composition stands in thespectators eyes for a real and factual issue. However, the text at the top of the imageinspires theemotiveglobal imaginaryofwesterncitizens to forgiveMuslimpopulationontheonehandandalsotheimaginaryofMuslimstoforgivewesterngovernmentsfromtheiractions within Muslim territories (although again this version can be exposed, it is notplausibleinmyopinion).Thisiswhyagainthisimageismorecomplexthanthepreviousoneas it canbe interpreted in severalways or perspectives.My choicehere is to understandboth, the represented person as a repentantMuslim and the text as an acquiescent andpatronizingonefromthemagazinerepresentingwesternvalues. Toconcludewith Image6 I remindthemainaspectsof theprevious lines.This isamorecompleximagethatshowstheMuslimglobalthreattowesternvaluesingeneralandto freedomof speech inparticular, creatingengagementand involvementwith spectatorsand playing with the catholic principal of forgiveness. It produces a common and globalimaginary overMuslims as a civilization that has to be assimilated in order to be able tocoexistwithothercultureswithinawesternterritory.Moreover,itdisplaysaMuslimpersonpretendingtobe“oneofus”withthetext:“JesuisCharlie”whileatthesametimeinfactthe other text: “Tout est pardonné” blames this Muslim subject from the terror attacksgiving to themagazine, and therefore towestern societies, the power of forgiveness andmercifulness over other civilizations. Thus, the linguistic tool here establishes a paradoxbetweenbothtexts.Thisfacthasnoimpactonthehegemonicdiscourse,however.Ithasnoimpactbecauseat theendof theday the finalunderstandingof thewholepicture is thatMuslimsmustfeelsorryforwhattheydoandwesterncivilizationisreadytoforgiveaslongasMuslimsassimilatetowesternvalues. The last image representing the hegemonic discourse is Image 7. In this case theimage represents the cognitive arena of the hegemonic discourse. This image, like theprevious one, has both represented participants and text. Represented participants arethreehalfnakedwomen.There isoneatthebackofthe image lookingoutthesceneandtwo at the front staring spectators. If I check the representational indicators there is asymbolicprocessrelatedtodefiancewherethethreewomenarethecarriersofmeaningonthe one hand, and there is also a speech process embedded on the other. This speechprocess is represented by the texts: “Arab women against Islamism” and “freedom forwomen”. This defiance represents and comes from another key aspect of the hegemonicdiscourseregardingislamophobia.Ifthetwopreviousimageswhererelatedtointernationalsecuritythefirstoneandtowesternvaluesthesecond,thisthirdimageisrelatedtogender.

47

GenderisusedbythehegemonicdiscourseasaweaponagainstIslamicterrorism.Womenthus, embody within its flesh western powerful structures and values such as freedom,democracy and equity among others. Going back to the indicators, and to start with therepresentedtext,Iwouldliketostresshowthemessageofthistextitdoesnotjustbelongto Arab or Islamic women but to all women on earth, especially the one that refers to“Freedomforwomen”. It ispertinentheretonotethat thetext impliessomethingelse. Itdoesimplythatwesternwomenarealreadyfreeunderthishegemonicperspective.AnotheraspectisthatthesewomenlooklikeArabwomen,althoughIcouldnotfullyasserttheyare.Theimagealsohasaloutishattitude,almostinsurgent.Thisishowthehegemonicdiscourseempowerswomen against Islamists. This is important from a cognitive approach becausewhatweseeinthisimagearestrong,determinate,andbravewomenready,organizedandprepared to fight for their rights. This has a direct impact on the way western societiesidentifygenderwithinIslamiccountries.

The interactive indicators stand for a contact of demand framed within a publicdistanceandafrontalangle inrelationtothespectator.Liketheprevious imagesthisonecreates a deep and strong engagement with spectators. By doing so the hegemonicdiscourse pre-manufactures western citizens cognitive brains structures and thereforeconceptual frames that condition the way a concrete social phenomenon is understoodamongwesterncountriesontheonehandandthefeelingsattachedtothisphenomenonontheother.Moreover, itevokes involvementbetweenwesternwomenandArabwomenastheybothmuststillfightagainstpatriarchy.Inthissense,thisimagehasapowerfulcognitiveandemotionalresponsefromfemalespectators.Thisissoduetothepersonalidentificationwith a lot of women with these social realities over the globe. Accordingly, women areunderminedundermengenerally.Besidesthisfact,andalthoughImage7displaysafrontalangle,itcouldeventuallybedifficultforcertainmenofdeterminedculturestoidentifywiththis social fact.However,mostwomenwoulddo identify themselveswith themessageasthefrontalangleandthecontactdemandfosterthisengagement.Thepublicdistanceoftheimage that could eventually detached the engagement or the involvement of spectatorsdoes not reach to this point by the fact that it captures spectators’ attention due to thenakedbodiesandcoveredheads.Thatmakesthewholethingattractiveandcuriousatthe

48

eye.Thus,thisimage(liketheothertwo)interactswithspectatorsinsuchanintimateandclosemanner. The last indicators I comment from images that correspond to the hegemonicdiscoursearethosefromthecompositionalsystem.Thissystemhasthenucleusinformationcentredand itdisplaysareal-newevent.Likealsotheprevious images it isrealbecause itpresents women as problematic groups for Islamists so there is an issue here, and newbecauseitisinfacttreatedasaproblem.Thepointhereisthetextoftheimage.Itiswrittenfromawestern sourceand for awesternaudienceor spectators. Therefore, themessagecouldeventuallynotbeunderstoodforothercultureswherewritingisfromrighttoleftorinabottom-topsystem.Notealsothatthethreewomenrepresentedwithinthisimagearetheinformativenucleusof it.However,andbecause theyhave thewrittenmessageon them,the text becomes here also the informative nucleus of the image. Thus, there are twocomplementarynucleusofinformationreinforcingoneeachother. TorecallwhatImage7tellusaboutthecognitivearenaofislamophobiaIarguethatalthoughwomenworldwide fight and defend their rights equally against patriarchy, Araband Muslim women have their own specific battle against Islamism. The hegemonicdiscourse therefore takes advantage of this gender perspective and uses it for its ownpurposes. These purposes are the approach fromArabwomen towesternwomen valuesandpractices.Thiscreatesabiggerandstronger feelingofempathyfromwesternwomen(and western societies) in relation to Muslims ones that are perceived as weak andoppressed by the radical Islamic regime. Hegemonic discourse then uses women as aweaponagainstislamophobiawheretheirbodyrepresentsthefieldofthisbattle. TherearestillacoupleofindicatorsthatIwouldliketoexplore.Theseindicatorsaretheverticalangleandthesalienceofthethreeimages.Ianalysethemalltogetherastheyallhaveorsharethesamevalueforeachone.Thisis,Image5,6and7havegreatsalienceandmediumverticalangle.ThisissignificantinmyopinionbecausetheseindicatorsarerelatedtothethreearenasIamworkingon,thesocial,thelinguistic,andthecognitiveone.Thewaysalienceworktocaptureourattention(cognitiveframes)andthewaypowerisrepresentedand transferred to spectatorswithin these images (social and linguistic) in relation to thevertical angle can potentially determine the impact of the hegemonic discourse amongwesterncitizens.Accordingly,allthreeimagesusethemediumverticalangle.Thisconstructsasolidflathorizontalbridgebetweentheimageandspectatorsthatredistributesequallythepower between the two actors involved. This fact has also a direct impact on spectators’cognition of the images and it reinforces the hegemonic discourse within the social andlinguistic arenas as it makes spectators feel like they are also part of the solution. Thisdistributionofpowerwherethere isnohierarchyempowersspectatorstoempathizewiththis social fact and foster them to join and reproduce the hegemonic discourse with noontologicalorepistemologicalquestioning.There is thesaliencealso.Salience isespecially

49

importantbecause istheonethatmakesspectatorsstarean image.Asfarasthethreeofthemhavegreatsalience,Ichoosejusttwotoexemplifytheimpactofitonspectators.Ipickup Image 6, the one with the Muslim character, and Image 7, the one with half nakedwomen.Image6hasaMuslimcharacter(itcouldbeaProphet)dressedinwhiteandwithagreenbackground.Coloursfor instancearekeywithinthis image.Theyarekeybecause inwesternsocietiesgreenstandsforhope.Ontheotherhandwhitedressstands inwesterncountriesasapurecolour.Itstandsforthecolourofpeace.ItisnotthesamewithinMuslimsocieties,however.Thewhitecolourisclosertodeaththantopeace.ItisalsothecolouroftheMuslimmartyrs.So,hereagain,thehegemonicdiscourse,throughtheproduceroftheimage,playswiththisclashofcivilizationsbytheintentionalanddeliberateuseofcolours.The impact of this among spectators is that they can get confused for this apparentlycontradictory information.Thesamehappenswithbothtextswithintheimage.Thick linesandclearneatspellinghelptotransferthemessage.InthesameapproximationImage7hasgreatsalience.Inthiscasewhatsaliencefirstcapturesspectators’attentionisthefactthatthesewomen are half nakedon theonehand, and the fact that the text is on themandcoversalmostthewholechestandbellyofrepresentedfiguresontheother.Thisagainhasdouble lecture.Fromthewesternperspective it isasignoffreedomandfemale liberationthefactthatwomeninwesternsocieties(notinall,however)arebetteroffthaninMuslimones so they can showwhat they want and behave how they choose. It is a completelydifferent history from theMuslim perception.Muslim population (eithermen orwomen)perceive this image as an offence to women moral values and principals. They see theobjectificationofwesternwomenunder theeconomic capitalist regimeand the completelostofmoralvaluesincomparisontotheMuslimsones. After analysing selected indicators of images representing the three arenas of thehegemonicdiscourse Iwould liketohighlightthemost importantpointsandcontextualizethem in the present social, politic, and economic conjuncture. Thus, all images haverepresented participants that carry the meaning of what is embodied. They all demandcontact and have frontal-medium angles within a great salience and a centred nucleusinformation. Besides they all represent a new-real problematic or social phenomenon.Therefore, all images create a strong and solid involvement and engagement withspectators. Moreover, images stand for three of the most treasured values of westerncountries.That is, internationalsecurityagainstterrorism,freedom(ofspeechinthiscase)and democracy on the basis of human rights and equity (gender here). These are threepillarsofwestern societies thatneed tobeprotected from the Islammenaceall over theplanet. That’s the main argument that the hegemonic discourse fosters and constructswithin the social, the linguistic, and the cognitive arenas. Additionally, the three selectedimagesevokea robust attachmentanda solid commitmentbetween the image itself andspectators. So, when the hegemonic discourse is able to impact through images the

50

cognitivestructureofcivilsocietywithaconcretemessageregardingislamophobiathefirstthing thatoccurs is thegrowingandspreadofaglobalized feelingagainst thiscommunitydueto itsconstant threat tomentionedwesternvalues.Oncemindsareset, the linguisticarena shapes the message of the hegemonic discourse that ends up constructing acontingentsocialphenomenonthatwesterncivilsocietysupportsandiswillingtohear(orseeinthiscase).Presentedimages’indicatorscorrelatewiththissequenceaseachindicatorstrengthenstheothers.Thethreearenasmustworktogetheraccordinglytothehegemonicdiscourse needs. This crystallizes inmilitarized urban public spaces to defend civil societyfrom terrorist attacks,neverendingborders controls inorder tomaintainmigration flowsfrom Muslim countries controlled. These migrant flows correspond to the impact oftransnational corporations activities in terms of foreign direct investment (also known aslandgrabbing)forinstancewithintheseMuslimcountriesmostlyconcentratedinAfricaandSouth-EastAsia.Italsocrystallizesinaglobalcognitiveimaginaryamongwesterncountriesthat the Islam and the terror attached to it have to be defeated at any cost.When thehegemonic discourse achieves this point, any action against the Muslim community isalreadylegitimized.Islegitimizedbythegovernmentasitisarighttoprotectourselvesfroma global peril (social arena), it is legitimized by social elites (like mass media here), thattogetherwith the government, have to safeguard and protect freedom of speech, and islegitimized by civil society within the cognitive arena fostering and spreading perniciousfeelingsandemotions,likeasortofapartheidagainsttheMuslimpopulationworldwide.4.2.AlternativediscourseimagescontentanalysisItistimenowtoanalysethecontentofimagesthatcorrespondtothealternativediscourse.FirstIdoanalyseBanksy’simagesorgraffititofollowwithWeiwei’sones.Inordertokeepthe analysis coherent, I analyse the same indicators that the ones from the hegemonicdiscourse.Todoso I focuson indicators fromTable3. Inthiscase Ialso leavetheverticalangleandthesalienceoutofthefirstapproachtoanalysebothimagestogetherattheend.Also,likewiththeimagesfromthehegemonicdiscourse,Iwouldliketocontextualizebothgraffitiwithinthesocial,politicalandeconomicspherestocheckwhatistheimpactofthepresent situationon thealternativediscourse. First, Iwould like to shortly introducebothartistsfirst,however.Thus,Banksyisagraffitiartist,filmdirectorandactivistbasedintheUnitedKingdom.Heexhibitshisartonpublicsurfaceslikewalls.This is importantbecauseheusespublicresourcestospreaditsdiscourse.Thecontroversialaspectofthisartististhatnooneknowswhoisheorshe.His/her identity isanonymous.Thisfactprovidesamysticfeaturetothisfigure.TheotheroneisAiWeiwei.Weiweiisa59yearsoldChineseartistandalso an activist.Hiswork has travelled the globe from the TateModern in London to theMoMA in New York. The Beijing National Stadium for the Olympics 2008 is one of his

51

architecturalachievements.Theartist isalsoarrested for theChinesegovernmentback in2011 for being critique with the Chinese Government11. After this brief but necessarypresentation of both artists I proceedwith the analysis of the alternative discourse usingtheirpiecesofart.4.2.1Banksy’simagescontentanalysisThe first imageorgraffiti fromthisartist is Image8.This image isplacedordrawnat theIsraeliWestBankbarrieranditshowsaholeonthewallthatemulatesabeachprovablyintheCaribbeanorelsewhereonearth.Therearealsotwokidsthatrepresentthepaintersofthescene.Onestandsandstaresatspectators,theothersquatsandlooksatthestandingboy.Moreover,andasTable3illustrates,theindicatorsfromtherepresentationalstructureshowadreamoranillusionasthesymbolicprocesswithintheimage,wherethetwoboysareattributesregardingthemeaningofit.Thisisalreadyadifferencewithpreviousimageswhere representedparticipantswerealwayscarriersofmeaning.Here, inmyopinion, thecarrierofmeaningisthewallitselfandthewholegraffitiincludingbothkidsandthebeach,andasfarasitisacritique,theydonotcarrythemeaningalthoughtheytrytogiveanothersignificance to themainone. To clarify thiswith an examplenote that theopenblue skyabovetheimagewouldbealsoanattributetothewallbecauseitdoesnotcarrythewholemeaning but contributes to frame it. Also the fence in front of the wall would be anattribute. Back to the symbolic process indicator it is important to check this dream orillusionemotionorfeeling.Theartistfocusesontheglobalimaginarythatwesternsocietieshavewhenitcomesto illustrateparadiseandwellbeingfor instance.Thus,therearepalmtreesby thebeach, ablue sky anda cleanocean.Also the fact that theyare kids andnogrownupsubjectsiscentral.Kidsnormally,inacognitiveway,lettheirimaginationeasilyflyawaywhileinadultsthispracticeismoreconditionedbysocializationprocesses.Alsoakid’sbrainismoremouldablethantheadult’sones.Moreover,todreamandtohaveillusionforachange is in thiscase,andaccordingtothegraffiti, themostvaluableassethumanbeingshaveandmustkeep.

11Tocheckmoreaboutbothartistsgototheweb-graphybelow.

52

Inrelationtotheinteractiveindicatorsthereisalsoademandofcontactfromafarsocial distance within a frontal angle. Like the previous images these indicators promoteengagementwithspectatorsand involvementwithrepresentedparticipants. Inthisgraffitiengagement and involvement from spectators refer to the symbolic process of therepresentationalstructure.Thisissoduetothecognitionandunderstandingoftheimage.This is like that becauseof themetaphoric facet of the image.When it comes to analysethrough metaphors there is a crucial point to highlight. This is, there is already anestablished imaginary between the real domain and the target one. Agreeing with thisprincipleweallhaveamindsetinrelationtometaphors,otherwisewewouldnotbeabletouse them. If theanalysisof thehegemonicdiscourse focuseson the social structure (thatincludesthepoliticalandtheeconomicones)andthelinguisticandcognitivereinforcetheformer one, here on the contrary, are the cognitive and the linguistic ones the mostimportant,while thesocial reinforces theother two.Accordingly, indicatorsanalysedhereare(ifpossible)evenmorecontextrelatedasmetaphorsdonotnecessaryfunction(orcanbetransferred)fromoneculturetoanother(evenwithinthesamecountry).Therefore,andalthoughtheinteractiveindicatorsgenerateengagementandinvolvementwithspectators,theimpactofthemetaphorgoesbeyondthat.Table3.ContentvisualdescriptionindicatorsforalternativeBanksy’sdiscourseimages

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonWang’smethod&Harrison’sdefinitionsofindicators*Itisofferbecausealthoughthereisnotahumanface,thepigeonsanttheparakeetarelookingateachotherwithintheimage**Itishighbecauseofthecoloursbutlowbecauseithasnolightorshade**Itisnewbecausealthoughtherepresentedparticipantsarenotontherightoftheimage,theyrepresentanissueoraproblem***Itisgivenbecausetherepresentedparticipantsarefocusedontheleftoftheimage

53

Thelastindicatorsbelongtothecompositionalsystem.Thissystemincludeslikethehegemonicdiscoursethenew-realcombination.Ithasadiverseinformationalrelation.Thisissubservientinformationbecausethegraffitiisplacedatthemarginoftheimageandnoton the centre. This new position implies that the information of the graffiti can eithercomplementorcontradicttheprincipalinformation(thehegemonicdiscoursehere).Inthiscircumstance it does contradict and critique the hegemonic discourse related tointernational security. Although it is subservient information, this graffiti provokes onspectatorswhat itssymbolicprocessevokes.This is,althoughthere iscentred informationthesubservientone iscognitivelymore intenseso itsmessageovertakes thecentredone.This is actually how alternative discourseswork. Theymust fight citizens’ cognitivemindssetsorconceptualframesinordertoaccomplishitspurposes. Granting that, Image 8 uses the interactivemeanings to create engagement and asort of involvement with spectators. Although it does represent a global issue being thegraffitiatthebottomoftheimage,themaincharacteristicofitisthesymbolicprocessithasembedded. This process refers to childhood, dreams and illusion. It induces spectators todream.Itencouragesrandomspectators(butalsoinhabitantswithinthisarea)tobebraveandchallengethisoppressivewallbetweenIsraelandPalestinewithitsmaincognitivetool,imagination. This graffiti is an open door to freedom. Again here, like in the hegemonicdiscourse,westernvaluesconditionalternativediscourses.Furthermore,andbeingkidsthehumanactorsofthegraffiti,itisalsoacallforcourageandhopeoffuturegenerations.Thatis also a way of challenging hegemonic discourses. To project social phenomenon in thefutureontheonehand,andtore-educatecivil societyonearlystagesof itsdevelopmentwherebrainsarenotmuchsetandarecapable toabsorbothervaluesbasedoncommonbasicneedsontheother. ThesecondimagefromBanksyisImage9.Thisimageholdsagainawrittentext.Herespectatorscanread:“Migrantsnotwelcome”,“GobacktoAfrica”,andthelastone“Keepofourworms”.Theseareveryexplicitandspecificmessageswithaveryprecisetargetsocialgroup,migrants(thatarerepresentedbytheparakeet).Thisactuallycouldbethemessagefrom the hegemonic discourse regarding islamophobia. Within the representationalstructure there is in this graffiti a symbolic process of racism where pigeons representwesterncivilsocietyandtheparakeetthetargetedmigrantgroup.Itisremarkableherethattheartistchoosespigeonsastherepresentativeforwesterncivilsocietiesandaparakeettorepresentmigrants.Althoughpigeonsrunfree,theyaredirtymuckyfilthybirdsandfullofdiseases.Aparakeet isacharmingcleanprettyandnoisy littlebirdevenif it liveswithinacage.Thisisnotanigglingquestionhere.Thereisadoubleinterpretationhere.Ontheonesidethereadingthatwesterncivilsocietyisafreeoneandthatmigrantsmustbesomehow“enclosed”or“contained”andthe fact that they (migrants)aredifferent (thisexplenationwouldmatchwith the hegemonic discourse understanding and perception).On the other

54

side the readingwouldbeanotherone,however.Thisalternative reading (ordiscourse inthis matter) would be that western citizens are mean damaging and harmful and thatmigrants can be exotic, beautiful, kind, and pleasant. This image demonstrates then how“the other” can be someone suitable and desirable to fit in “our” western societies.Accordingtothesymbolicprocessofracism,thisimagecouldagainreinforcethehegemonicdiscourse on islamophobia. However, it does not. It does not because, like the previousimage,thisonehastobeunderstoodunderthemetaphoricalparadigm.Althoughthisimageexplicitlyshowsaracistscenario,itisadeepandtoughcritiquetoracism12.Hereagain,thecognitivestructuresofourbrainsdeterminewhatweseewithintheimage.

The second group of indicators on Table 3 are those related to the interactivemeanings.Thereistheonerelatedtotheintimacyoftheimage,whichcorrespondstoafarsocialdistance.However, I identifyheretwo indicators that representsomethingdifferentsofar.This istheobliqueangleandtheofferofcontact.Theobliqueangleestablishesthedialogbetweentherepresentedparticipants(pigeonsandtheparakeetarelookingateachother) rather than between represented participants and spectators. This visual effectproducesasortofdetachmentfromspectatorstowhatisrepresentedwithintheimage.Inmyopinionthis isacrucialpointhere. Idoanalyse thisdetachmentnot like Idonotcareaboutwhat iswithin the imagebut rather this image iswrong and I do not identifywithwhatiswithinit.Itisliketheimageissomethingthatistherebuthasnothingtodowithme.Thisisthecriticalaspectofthisimage.Thisishowalternativediscoursesfunction.Theyhavea reflexive position so Image 9 has to be analysed using metaphor and critique as mainconceptual tools. The other indicator, the offer of contact, indicates or creates lessengagement with spectators than the demand of contact because there is no muchinvolvement.Thatfactmakesitalsomoredifficultforthisimage,asrepresentativeforthealternativediscourse,toreachitspurposesandcommitspectatorswiththemessage. The compositional system indicators are centred nucleus information according tothe placement of birds. This is pigeons and the parakeet carry thewholemessage of the

12Thisgraffitiwaserasedbythecouncilbecausepeoplelivinginthisvillagethoughtandunderstoodthemessageinanoppositewayastheonetheartistawasclaimingandcomplainedbysaying“thatitwastooracisttobethere”.ToseethewallbeforeandaftergototheAnnex2.

55

image together with the written cards pigeons hold. The other two, however, are alsodifferent fromprevious images. In this case there isan ideal-givencombination. It is idealbecausetheyareonthetopoftheimage(seeAnnex2)andgivenbecausetheweightfallsonpigeons(leftoftheimage)ratherthanontheparakeet.Thus,andasit isgiven, itdoesapply for common sense or lay knowledge. Additionally, being ideal corresponds to theglobal emotive imaginary regarding islamophobia. This is, in order to understand thisalternative discourse, spectators have to challenge their own lay knowledge aboutislamophobia and re-conduct their feelings and emotions attached to it to combat theimpactofthehegemonicone. TosummarizetheseindicatorsIwouldliketosaythattheonlyonethatbothimagesfromBanksyhaveincommonistheonethatcorrespondstoafarsocialdistance.Allotherindicators are diverse. Therefore, just argue that both images refer to a critique to thehegemonic discourse. Although Image 8 creates a stronger engagement and involvementwith spectators than Image 9, both impact the cognitive brain structures from spectatorsalike. Image 9 reinforces this impact with the use of text. Likewise, both images carry asymbolicmessagethatdissentfromthosefromthehegemonicdiscourse.Eventhoughthelatestsymbolicprocessisracism,itfacesitfromtheoppositeperspectivetothehegemonicone.Onitsbehalf,Image8usesthehegemonicdiscourse(theIsraeliWestBankbarrier)andit takesadvantageof it inorder toplace itsowndiscourseon iton theonehand, and tocombat the meaning of it on the other. Thus, alternative discourses are built upon thehegemonicone. LikeforthehegemonicanalysisIarguenowabouttheverticalangleandthesalientof both images. Therefore, and regarding the salient of Image 8 and 9 I stress that bothindicatorscorrespondtoaweaksalient.Althoughthereiscolourcontrast,eitherthesizeofthe represented participants, the tonal contrast or the other facets of the image likebackgroundorsharpnessdonotcreateagreatsalience.ThisiswhyontheoverallindicatorIarguethatinbothcasesisweak.Theotheroneistheanglerelatedtopower.Imagesfromthehegemonicdiscoursehaveallmediumverticalangleinrelationtospectators.Accordingtothealternativediscourse Image8hasa lowanglewhile Image9hasahighone.Ahighverticalanglemeansthatrepresentedparticipantshavelesspowerthanspectators.Ontheotherside,a lowverticalanglestandsforapowerfulrepresentedparticipantinrelationtospectators.Thishasadirectandamajorimpactonspectators.Whenthereisalowverticalangle(Image8)whererepresentedparticipantsarelooking“down”theyhavemorepowerthan spectators.However, this indicatorhas another readingor interpretation. This is therelationship between represented participants instead of the relationship betweenrepresentedparticipantsandspectators.FromthisperspectiveImage8isworthtoanalyse.Hence,pigeonsholdmorepowerthantheparakeetinthiscase.Thisissobecausewithintheimagepigeonsarelookingdowntheparakeetsotheparakeetfromalowanglelooking“up”

56

has lesspower.Thismetaphoricalrepresentedactionhere is fundamentaldueto itssocialimplications.That is thebiggergroup, the“normal”, thewesterncivil societyandso forthhasmorepowerthat“theother”,thestranger,the immigrantortherefugeeoranyotherminority social group. At the cognitive level the impact of power among socialminoritiesmakes it tough toconstructaglobal imaginarywheremigrantswouldeventuallyhave thesamepowerthanlocalsfor instance.Sothis isawaytoreproducethestatusquoofsocialstratificationandinequality.Image9onthecontraryhasahighverticalanglewherethetwokidsarelooking“up”.Therelationshipwithspectatorsisthatrepresentedparticipantshavelesspowerthanspectators.Thetwoboysplaced(ordrawn)atthebottomoftheimagearesubordinated to spectators. This implies a vulnerable and fragile position. Being kids thisformofembeddedpatronizingischaracteristicfromwesterncultures.Besides,thistransferstheresponsibilityoftheactiontospectatorsratherthantorepresentedparticipants.Thisisanothermanner alternative discourse impacts the cognitive brain structure of citizens. Inorder to combat hegemonic cognitive structures alternative discourses create a sense ofresponsibilityandcommitment(andafeelingoremotionattachedtothissense)ofwhatisrepresentedwithintheimage.WhenitcomestoanalysethesalienceofbothimagesIpointthatinbothcasesthissalienceisweak.Onlythecolourorthetonalcontrastcouldsupportagreatsaliencebuttheotherfeaturesofthisindicatordonotsupportit.Consequently,whatcaptures the attention of spectators is not the salience of both images but rather itssymbolicprocess.Thisisagainanotherstrategyfromthealternativediscourse,tofocusoncognitiveelements thatevokeemotionsand feelings rather than justaestheticselements.However, this does notmean that alternative discourses do not use great salience for itspurposes(ascanbeseeninthenextanalysis). Nowthatall indicatorsareanalysedIfocusonthecontextualizationofbothimagesandhighlightthemainfindings.Image8andImage9representtwocomplementarysidesofislamophobianowadaysespeciallyon the cognitiveand social arenas (including thepoliticandeconomicones).Thus, the IsraeliWestBankbarrier isasocial (or rathergeo-political)expression of western hegemony on the Middle East. In relation to the social side ofislamophobiatheparakeetrepresentsanytargetedsocialgroupthatisdiscriminatedbythecivilsocietyinaconcretecontext.TheparakeetwithinthealternativediscoursewouldstandhereforthethreewomenofImage7fromthehegemoniconewheretheyrepresentalsoadiscriminatedsocialgroup.ThisiswhathappenswithMuslimswithinwesterncountriesforinstance.Therearesmall(orbig)everydayactionsthatfosterthisdiscriminatorybehaviour.Thereareactionsfromthecivilsociety(pigeons)andactionsfrominstitutions(barrier).Asfar as the alternative discourse pretends to achieve a cognitive paradigm change, thesegraffiti invites spectators to a reflexive observation of this social phenomenon (while thehegemonic discourse does not invite to reflexion but rather to follow up with noquestioning).Oncethealternativediscoursereachesthepointofreflexionovercivilsociety

57

thehegemonicunderstandingofislamophobiastartsfallingapart,oratleastcitizensshouldstart questioning it. If it does not reach the reflexive point it occurswhat happenedwithImage9. This is peopledonotunderstand the critical aspectof the graffiti so the councilerasesitfromthewallithasbeenpainted.Thisillustratesthebattlebetweenthehegemonicand the alternative cognitive brains structures. Another key element here is the fact thatalternative discourses need a hegemonic one that give sense to it. This iswhywithin thealternative discourse it must be somehow the hegemonic one also represented (whilehegemonic does not). It is notable then that alternative discourses use other visualindicatorstoachieveitsgoals.4.2.2.AiWeiwei’simagescontentanalysisSelected images from this artist are quite different from the previous ones. The coredifferenceisthattheyarenotgraffitibutrealimages.Nevertheless,theseimageshavetobealsoanalysedwithin themetaphoricparadigm.Table4displays the indicators I centremyanalysison. The first image is thus Image10.Here, andaccording to the representationalstructure, there isa symbolicprocesshelpandassistance.Using refugees’ lifevest jacketsand placing them at the Konzerthaus of Berlin, the Chinese artist claims an institutionalresponse to this social phenomenon.Again,within this scenario, the alternativediscoursepretendstoimpactcitizens’cognitivestructuresusingadiversewaythantheBritishartist.Weiweiseeksthroughthelifevests(thatarecarriersofthemaininformation)andthroughthemajestyoftheBerlinOperaHousetheengagementandinvolvementofspectators.ThefactthatWeiweiseeksthisplacementforitsartpieceisnotrandomatall.BerlinisthecapitalofthemostpowerfulcountrynowadaysinEurope(analsooneofthemostinfluentworldwide). There is also the fact that the artist chooses a building that represents orinvolveshigh-classandsocialelitesrelationships.ThatmeansthatthereisasortofafixedcognitiveprejudicewithOperaHouseworldwide.OperaHouserepresentstheelites’culturaland even relational scene. Thus, the artist tries to awake and change cognitive brainsstructuresfromsocialelitesalsoandnot justfromcommoncivilsociety.Alsothecolumnssupporting life vests must be analysed. A column is one of the most solid structures inarchitecture.Theyarerobustandsolid.Theyaretheperfectbasestobuildupon.So,whenthe Chinese artist covers these columns he establishes a direct link between a materialinstitutional base (represented by the column) and an ideal or moral social need(representedbythelifevests).Inmyopinionthatmeansthatareinstitutionstheoneswhohastosupporttheweighofthissocialphenomenon.Itmustbeaninstitutionalresponsetothisfacetofislamophobia.Thereareothersubservientelementswithintheimage,however.These elements are two marble lions on the front of the Konzerthaus and the adjacentbuildings too. There is also a mechanic platform with some employee on it, presumably

58

working on the art piece. Unfortunately, these subservient elements do not add muchmeaning or information to the image itself besides some physical and aestheticalarrangement. Thus, and according to this argument the representational structure in thisimage influences more than the interactive one. This is why in the interactive meaningstherearenoindicatorstoanalyse.Table4.ContentvisualdescriptionindicatorsforalternativeWeiwei’sdiscourseimages

Source:Self-elaboratetablebasedonWang’smethod&Harrison’sdefinitionsofindicators*Itisnewinbothcasesbecausealthoughtherepresentedparticipants(lifevestsinImage10)arenotontherightoftheimage,theyrepresentanissueorproblem

Thecompositional system iskeyherealsowith therepresentational structure.Thisimage refers to an ideal and new social phenomenon where the nucleus information isconcentrated on the red-orange life vests. It is an ideal situation because it appeals toemotionsand feelings related to the refugees’ situationon theMediterranean.Almost allwesterncitizensareawareaboutthehumanitariandramaofrefugeessinkinganddying intheMediterraneancomingfromtheMiddleEastandSub-SaharanAfrica.Itisalsonewasitshowstheglobal issuenowadayswesternsocietieshavewith therefugees’crisis.Also lifevests concentrate the whole information of the image. They become the fundamentalmessage of it. The sumof all five indicators on the one hand, and the lack of interactivemeaningsonesontheother,makesthisimageapeculiarone.Moreover,theartistusestheprominenceofthecognitiveaspectofthealternativediscourseinthelastindicatorIhaveto

59

talk.However,Ianalysethesalienceofthisimage(likeinthepreviousanalysis)attheendtogetherwithImage11. ToremindthemainaspectsofImage10justnotethatonefirstdisparitywiththerestofimages(eitherfromthehegemonicdiscourseorforthealternativeone)isthatthisimagehas no interactive meanings indicators to consider. That fact does constitute anothercharacteristic from the alternative discourse. This characteristic is there is no imperativeneed to establish any contact or any powerful relationship betweenwhat is representedwithintheimageandspectators.Thisissoduetothesymbolicattachmentoftheimageontheonehandandthecognitivelyfocusedfeatureofthealternativediscourseontheotherthathavealmostthewholemeaningoftheimage.Additionally,thelocationoftheimageisalso relevant here. The columns of the Konzerthaus Berlin (and the building itself), anemblematicGermaninstitution,servetoholduptherefugees’lifevestssotheybecomepartofthediscoursetoo.

The last image I analyse here is Image 11. That one corresponds to the emulationfrom the artist of a three years old Syrian kid Aylan Kurdi died in theMediterranean likeotherhundredsandhundredsofpeopleescapingfromwar,hungerandpoverty.Accordingto table 4 on the representational structure indicators demonstrate how the body of theartist is the carrier of meaning and the symbolic process embedded within the image isdeath.Thisimage,fromametaphoricalperspective,hasanimpressiveimpactonspectatorsdueto its intimate linkbetweenthesourcedomainandthetargetedone.Weiweihasthesameposition that theboywhenhe is found. The imageof the little Syrianboy is at thecoverofalmosteverynewspaperormagazineallovertheglobe.TVnewsshows italso. Itseems (apparently) tobean inflexionpointwithin therefugee’scrisis.AllEuropeanUnionmembers take thisoccurrenceas theultimateand last tragedy they canafford.After thisdeathsomethingmustchange.Thus,theinertbodyoftheartistisabullettocitizens’brainscognitive apparatus or structures. Again, alternative discourse images attempt to makepeople reflect about a concrete social reality, islamophobia and its consequences in thisoccasion. Thesecondgroupofindicatorsarethosefromtheinteractivemeanings.Thus,inthisimagethereisconcontactalthoughthereisahumanbeingonit.Itislikethatbecausethe

60

subjecthasitseyesclosedsothereisanyinteractionbetweentherepresentedpersonandspectators.Thereisafrontalhorizontalanglewithinafarsocialdistance.Thiscombinationfostersstrongengagementwithspectators,especiallybecauseontheonehandthepositionofthebodyevokesonspectatorsthesamefeelingsthattheyhadwithlittleAylanKurdi.Ontheotherhand,allsubservientelementswithintheimage(thebeach,treesattheback,andtheground itself) recreateaterrificscenariothat involvesspectators’emotionsdeeply.BydoingsoWeiweiemphasizesontheconsequencesof thisglobalprocessofmigration.Theengagementisthenfullyemotive.Moreover,oncetheartistreachesthepointofemotionalengagementit isprettytoughtolookouttheimageitself.ThisisoneofthemostrelevantimagesIhavepickedupformyanalysisasitreallytransportsandinvolvesspectatorstooneof the deepest dimensions of institutional islamophobia. There is a neat clear messagebehind.Themessageis:institutionalEuropeaninactionleadstodeath.

Thelastgroupofindicatorsarethoserelatedtothecompositionalsystem.Herethecombinationofindicatorsisrealandnewontheonehand,andthelyingbodyisthenucleusinformation.Beingtheartistatthebottomoftheimagerepresentsafactualandinformativescenario that together with the new indicator it refers to an issue (the refugees’ crisis).Although thebody is the informative nucleus, in this image subservient elements like thesee,theseashoreandthetreesatthebackofitcontributetothewholemeaningintensely.That fact, linked to the new indicator, gives spectators a plausible image or scene thatidentifiesandexpressesthesocialandhumanitariandramaofthiscommunity.Furthermore,theisolationoftheartistitselflayingfacedown,inmyopinion,isaresignedposition.ThatisWeiweidoesnottrulythink(oratleastitisprettydifficult)thatthepresentsituationabouttherefugeecrisisisgoingtochangeorimproveasfarasthispositionincarnatessubmissionandlittlehope. All indicators analysed so far from Image 11 prove how the alternative discourse,again, concentrates on the cognitive structures of spectators. Thus, this image displaysanotherfacetofislamophobiathathastodowiththewayinstitutionsdealwiththissocial,politicalandeveneconomicissue.Theimageseeksanemotionalresponsefromspectatorssoit impactswesterncivilsociety.Bydoingso,theartistfosteracriticalsocialresponseinterms of civil action and institutional pressure. Furthermore, it shows a real problematic

61

using the new-real combination of indicators. The fact that the real picture of the deadSyrianboydidrunworldwidethroughnewspapers,magazinesandTV,sothathelpstothefull metaphorical understanding of this image. It is also notable the involvement andengagementthisimagecreateswithspectatorsthroughitsemotionalaspect. Atthispoint,andtokeeponthestructureoftheanalysisIwouldliketotalkabouttheothertwoindicatorsfrombothimagesIhavenotmentionedyet.Thesearetheverticalangleandthesalience.NotefirstthateitherImage10orImage11havethesamesaliencestructure. This is, theyhavebothagreat salience. In the first case the colourof life vestsbeing orange-red (mostly red) corresponds to the colour of blot. This parallelism and thecognitiveassociationandemotionalresponsetothiscolourmakethisfeaturetobecomeapowerful and central one. The other image does play with the black and white colourcombinationanddegradationtoachieveasortofintenseanddeepatmosphereontheonehand but also a cold and somehow impersonal one on the other. It is a gloomy socialphenomenonunderthisperspective.Alsothelightsonthelionsandthelightbetweenthecolumnsandthebuildingitselfoperatemakingthelifevestsvisuallyevenmoresaliencedueto the increaseof lightand tonal contrast. Furthermore, theuseof colour inboth imagesgivesthemasenseofrealitythatvalidatesthewholemessageandmakesitplausible.Whenit comes to thevertical angle, Image10hasnovalueon this indicator. This is sobecausetherearenorepresentedparticipantsthatcouldestablishthisangle.Onthecontrary,Image11 has a medium vertical angle. That is it evokes an egalitarian powerful relationshipbetweenrepresentedthepersonandspectatorssothemessage,theproblem,thesolutionandspectatorsareatthesamelevel. It is time now to contextualize both images from Weiwei in the present social,politicalandeconomicconjuncture.Asalreadymentioned,islamophobiahasmultiplefacets.Some of them have to do with the social response to institutional actions. Alternativediscourses that come from civil actors (either individual or collective) attempt or try todeconstruct the hegemonic one. Both images are related to the same crystallization ofinstitutionalized islamophobia. Image10 transfers thecivil society’ complain regarding therefugees’crisistothesocialspheretargetingthecognitivearena.Image11isanemergencycall to western national and supranational institutions to stop looking away from thishumanitariandrama.Forwesterninstitutions,andtobeabletodosomethingaboutthesemigrant flows towards western countries, it is mandatory to focus on the roots of thisphenomenon. It is mandatory here to understand the economic synergies behind thesemigrant flows. It ismandatory also to look at the political situation of the countries theycomefrom.Unlessthereisalsoacriticalapproachtobothfacts,toconcentrateonthefinalconsequence(whichismigrationitself)willbenotenoughtosolvethisglobalizedproblem.Thisrequiresincreasingofalternativesdiscoursestoimpactthecognitivearenaofthissocialfact. This requires emotional responses attached to concrete ontological realities such as

62

that one of islamophobia. While Image 5 from the hegemonic discourse displays theinstitutional response to thesemigrant flows, images fromWeiweiexpectanotherkindofinstitutionalaction.

V.CONCLUSIONAfteranalysingallimagesrepresentingthehegemonicdiscourseontheonehandandthosefromthealternativeoneontheother,Iwouldliketobrieflydrawsomeconclusions.Thus,inrelation to the hegemonic discourse data evidences the fact that a great salience and amedium vertical angle (the one related to power) contribute to catch citizens’ attentiontargeting its cognitivebrains structures.Thewaypower isembodiedand relocatedwithinthese imagesaffects thesocialandthe linguisticarenasanddetermines the impactof thehegemonicdiscourseamongwesterncitizens.Thisiswhythesocialandthelinguisticarenasarekeytogivemeaningtothehegemonicdiscourse.Theuseofconceptslikethreat,globalmenace,andinternationalsecurityamongothersbecomeamantraforsocialelitesthroughmassmediacorporationsandgovernmentstoconsolidatethetermislamophobiainwesternsocieties and populations.Moreover, all images have a demand of contact and a frontalhorizontalangle.Thesetwoindicatorstogetherestablishastronganddurableengagementand involvementwith spectators, so I can corroborate the second hypothesis. This has asubstantial impactonwesterncivilsociety’sglobalimaginarywhenitcomestounderstandwhatislamophobiais.Accordingly,andfocusingonotherindicators,Images5,6,and7haveacentrednucleusofinformationcarriedbytheNATOsoldiers,theMuslimcartoon,andthethreewomenrespectively.Theseinformationalindicatorsaresolidandclearsotheyconfirmthefourthhypothesis.Thereisalsothefactthatall imageshavethereal-newcombinationso islamophobia becomes a plausible and factual social issue. Additionally, the symbolicprocessofthehegemonicdiscourseprotectsandreinforceswesternvalueslikedemocracyand freedomand ituses themasaweapon to legitimize the islamophobicdiscourse itselfandtocreateaglobal imaginarywhere“theother”(Muslimpopulation)attemptstothesevalues so they are a constant threat to our western civilization. Under these premiseswestern governments and social elites spread this hegemonic discourse and civil societyaccepts, supports, and disseminates it with no questioning at all. Thus, all these actionscrystallizeinthemilitarizationofpublicspacesandtheconstantsurveillanceonthestreetsforinstance.Itbecomesthusthedefinitiveachievementfromwesternelitestokeepcitizenscontrolled. Therefore, the utmost achievement from these elites is to create a cognitivestructure thatmakeswestern citizens believe and think that these constantmonitoring issomethingnecessaryanddesirablealthough itcomeswitha looseof individualandglobalfreedom. This message is so cognitively embedded in western citizens brains that thiscognitivestructurebecomesthemaintargetforalternativediscourses.

63

Ontheothersidedatafromthealternativediscoursesuggestsaccordingtoselectedindicators that symbolic processes and the salience of selected images are the ones thatcapture spectators’ attention. The use ofmetaphors to attack western citizens’ cognitivestructuresisthemainweaponalternativediscoursesuse.Thus,Banksy’simagesfocustheirimpact on its symbolic processes,whileWeiwei’s ones also incorporate the salience to it.Thereareotherimportantindicatorstotakeintoaccount,however.Thesearesomeofthecompositionalsystem.Mostimagesfromthealternativediscourserespondtothebinomialstructurerealandnewwhicharebasicallyinformativestructures.Asfarasthistendencyisnot found inallof them, Icannotratify thethirdhypothesis.Moreover,andanalysingthesocial distance and the vertical angle the engagement and involvement these imagesgeneratewithspectatorscannotbeexplainedthroughtheseindicators.ThisiswhyIhavetorefute the firsthypothesis.Additionally,noneof these imagesuses thevertical angle (thepowerful one) to increase its impact on subject’s cognitive structures. Nor do they focustheirimpactonspectatorsthroughthecontactindicator,althoughBanky’sImage8demandsthiscontact.Thereisalsothefactthatalternativediscoursesinvitetoareflexiveandcriticalreading or approach of what they represent. This is an important feature of alternativediscoursesbecauseasImage8exemplifiescivilsocietydoesnotalwaysreachthisreflexiveand critical constructive point. The main consequence of it is that the message of thisalternative discourse is misunderstood. On the contrary, when Weiwei appeals toinstitutionalactionregardingtherefugees’crisisinImage10attheBerlinOperaHouseusingrefugees’ life vests spectators capture the message instantly. By doing so, alternativediscourses pretend to impact western civil society’s by targeting cognitive structures tomakepopulationunderstandandanalyse islamophobiadifferently.Thus,andalthoughtheinteractivemeanings indicators arenot as robust as those from thehegemonicdiscourse,thealternativediscoursefosters itsengagementandinvolvementwithspectators,apartofitssymbolicprocessanditssalience,bytargetingalsothehegemonicdiscourseasalinguistictool.Thatis,alternativediscourseisalsobuilduponthehegemoniconeanditgetspartofitsmeaningfromit. Main findings from this analysis are then that alternative discourses must targetsubjects’ cognitive brains structures to fight the impact in western societies of thehegemonicone.Moreover,itdemonstratesthatislamophobiaisapolysemicartefactthatissocial, political and economic context correlated. Thus, international relations such asglobalized capitalism, supranational organizations and cultural features impact the globalimaginary regarding islamophobia. Selected images also evidence the need for furtherresearchthatestablishesabroadcomprehensiveviewofwhatcivilsocietyandinstitutionsmust do in order to overcome this global threat. These images prove something else,however. They assert also the need for a reflexive approach to this social phenomenonratherthanjustaninformativeone.Unlesswesternsocietiesareabletocriticallyapproach

64

islamophobia, theywill not achieve any pleasant solution for any of the implicated socialgroups. Both civilizations must use their institutional capabilities and civil society’swillingnesstocometoabetteranddeeperunderstandingofeachothertoreachthepointofapeacefulandrespectfulcoexistence.VI.DISCUSSIONAthispointIwouldjustliketosuggestsomequestionsthatcouldeventuallybedevelopedin further research. Although this content analysis is useful to understand how bothhegemonicandalternativediscoursesimpactdifferentaspectsofwesterncivilsociety,thereare questions that this content analysis cannot respond. Thus, it would be interesting tobetterunderstandhow islamophobia spreads throughwestern societies to investigate themechanisms andmethods both discourses use to achieve their purposes. There is also adiscussionhereaboutwhatvaluesmustbeimposedandbywhichcivilization.Inaglobalizedworld processes of cultural assimilation impact almost all western societies. The waygovernments and social elites deal with this phenomenon determines how civil societyaccepts and interacts withMuslim (but also other cultural realities) population. Being allhumanbeings,whywesternvaluesandbeliefsaremorelegitimatethanMuslimones?Whobenefits fromthisconfrontation?Dowemustacceptandtake forgrantedwesternvalueswithoutquestioning them?Doweasawestern societywant to feel freeor secure?Doesislamophobia strengthen our own fears? Do we have to reconsider our own values? Totargetaconcretesocialgroup,Muslimsinthiscase,asthesourceofoursocial,politicalandeconomic problems is not to face our own weaknesses. To blame “the other” for ourincapacity tomanage socially and institutionally a globalizedmulticultural societywill notaddress a solution but rather it will foster social conflict, political divergence, a fight foreconomicresources,andeventuallyleadtoaglobalizedwarwhereweallloose.Valuessuchas democracy and freedom aremandatory in future societies. However, other values likeempathy, respect and solidarity among civilizations are also fundamental to eventuallyfosterthegrowthofaglobalizedcivilizationwhereallhumanbeings’wellbeingisatthecoreof coming societies. In order to achieve this, institutions, civil society, corporations andgovernmentsmustworktogetherinasustainableenvironmentwherehumansandnatureinabalancedwaycoexist.

65

VII.BIBLIOGRAPHICREFERENCESAbu-Lughod,L. (2002).DoMuslimWomenReallyNeedSaving?Anthropologicalreflections onCulturalRelativismanditsOthersAmericanAnthropologist104(3):783-790Barthes,R.(1980).Lachambreclaire.NotesurlaphotographieBatu, B. (2012). An Overview on the Field of Semiotics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesVolume51,2012,Pages464-469.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.190Bauman, Z. (2001). Liquid Modernity. Contemporary Sociology (Vol. 30). doi:10.2307/3089803Beck,U. (2009).WorldRiskSociety. InACompanion to thePhilosophyofTechnology (pp. 495–499).doi:10.1002/9781444310795.ch88Berger,P. (1967).Luckmann.T. (1966)TheSocialConstructionofReality:ATreatise inthe Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, 40, 240. doi:10.1017/S0022216X08004689Calabrese,O.(2012).Lafotografíacomotextoycomodiscurso.“Notasobresemióticadela fotografia”Castells,M.(1996).Laeradelainformacion.EconomiaSociedadYCultura,1,1–29Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society MANUEL CASTELLS. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266. doi:10.1177/0094306111425016kCastroNogueira,L.etal.,(2008).“Epidemiologiadelasrepresentaciones:unaaproximación cognitivistaalacultura”,en:¿Quiéntemealanaturalezahumana?,Madrid,Tecnos, pp.109-122Durkheim,E.(1982).WhatisaSocialFact?InTheRulesoftheSociologicalMethod(pp.50– 59).doi:10.1007/978-1-349-16939-9_2FerrésiPrats,J.(2014).LaspantallasyelcerebroemocionalFoucault,M. (1976). Vigilar y castigar. Nacimiento de la prisi{ó}n (6a. edici{ó} a Espanya, 1988).Madrid:SigloXXI.InVigilarycastigar.Nacim.laprisi{ó}nFoucault,M., & Hurley, R. (1978). The history of sexuality, vol. 1. Thewill to knowledge. HistoryofSexualityGarfinkel,H.(1967).StudiesinEthnomethodologyGiddens,A.(2009).Sociología.AlianzaEditorial6ªediciónGramsci,A.(1971).PrisonNotebooksSelections.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy,16, 1–573.http://doi.org/10.1080/10286630902971603Harrison,C.(2003).VisualSocialSemiotics:UnderstandingHowStillImagesMakeMeaning. TechnicalCommunication,50(1),46–60(15)

66

Heracleous, L. (2006). Discourse, Interpretation, Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Chapter2:InterpretiveApproachestoOrganizationalDiscourse(28- 54)Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilization? Foreign Affairs. http://doi.org/10.2307/1252166Inglehart, R. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among WesternPublics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.ISBN0-691-10038-1Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading Images The Grammar of Visual Desing. Chapters1and2.Routledge.doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Krieger,P.(2004).LadeconstruccióndeJacquesDerrida(1930–2004).AnalesdelInstituto deInvestigacionesEstèticas,Nº84:179-188Lakoff, G. and Johnson,M. (1980).MetaphorsWe Live By. Chicago, IL: The University of ChicagoPress.ISBN0-226-46801-1Lakoff, G. (2011).No pienses en un elefante. Lenguaje y debate político. p. 1-29 Editorial ComplutenseMartin, J. (2002). That visual turn. Journal of Visual Culture 2002; 1; 87 DOI: 10.1177/147041290200100108Mundó, J. (2006). Filosofía, ciencia social y cognición humana: de la folk psychology a la psicologíaevolucionaria.Papers80,p.p.257-281Potter,J.(1996).RepresentingReality.Discourse,RhetoricandSocialConstruction.Chapters 1to4.SagePublications.London.U.KPutnam,R.(1993).MakingDemocracyWork:CivicTraditionsinModernItaly.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress.Schmid, A. (2012). “Bridging the Gap: Image, Discourse, and Beyond – Towards a Critical TheoryofVisualRepresentation.”QualitativeSociologyReview8(2):76-89vanDijk,TeunA.(2004).Discursoydominación.EnGrandesConferenciasenlaFacultadde CienciasHumanasNo.4,febrero.Bogotá,UniversidadNacionaldeColombia.Pp.5– 28Wallerstein,I.(1974).TheRiseandFutureDemiseoftheWorldCapitalistSystem:Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500007520Wang, J. (2014). Criticising images: critical discourse analysis of visual semiosis in picture news.CriticalArts,28(2),264–286.doi:10.1080/02560046.2014.906344Wodak,R.,Meyer,M.(2003).Métodosdeanálisiscríticodeldiscurso.GedisoeditorialWodak,R.(2006).Mediationbetweendiscourseandsociety:assessingcognitiveapproaches inCDA.DiscourseStudies,8(1),179–190.doi:10.1177/1461445606059566

67

7.Web-graphicreferencesImage1:Terrorworldwidehttp://www.wnd.com/2014/05/new-age-of-terror-islam-metastasizing-worldwide/Image2:IslamterrororIslamicTerrorismhttp://acdemocracy.org/the-volcano-of-islamic-terrorism/#prettyPhotoImage3:GuantanamoBayprisonershttp://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/will-obama-use-executive-order-close- guantanamo-bay-n524821Image4:Graffiti“Muslimsgohome”http://www.barenakedislam.com/2010/02/13/muslims-go-home-graffitti-spray-painted-on- a-mosque-is-now-a-hate-crime-in-tennessee/Image5:Socialarena:NATOConnectedForcesInitiativeshttp://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_98527.htmImage6:Linguisticarena:Westernfreedomofspeechhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/next-charlie-hebdo-cover-unveiled/Image7:Cognitivearena:PoliticsandSocietyhttp://vridar.org/category/religion/islam/Banksy:Image8:UnwelcomeInterventionhttp://banksyworld.blogspot.com.esImage9:Pigeonsandparakeethttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-29446232https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BanksyAiWeiwei:Image10:LifevestattheKoszerthausBerlinhttp://www.thisiscolossal.com/2016/02/ai-weiwei-konzerthaus-refugee-life-vests/Image11:Artistlaysonthebeachhttp://www.widewalls.ch/ai-weiwei-syrian-boy-photograph/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ai_Weiwei

68

VIII.ANNEXAnnex1:LauraBushspeechhttp://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011117.htmlAnnex2:Banksygraffitiremoved