The oil slick as seen from space (Source: Wikipedia)

The British decision to exit the European Union (EU) in 2016 came as a surprise to many. In the lead up to the referendum, nationalist discourses were successfully mobilized to promote a vote for the anti-globalisation campaign. Nationalism proved to have an ongoing appeal in our global world.

But these nationalist discourses did not come out of nowhere in 2016 nor were they solely emanating from the sphere of politics.

In a recently published paper, “‘The BP is a great British company’: The discursive transformation of an environmental disaster into a national economic problem”, I examine the relationship between discourses of corporate responsibility and nationalism in the media coverage of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Surprisingly, nationalist discourses featured heavily in reports about that disaster.

The media play a powerful role in shaping our perceptions of global issues, including environmental disasters. The media may obstruct or support interests of various stakeholders, and do not necessarily educate us in an uninterested way.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was the worst industrial disaster in US history and 4.9 million barrel crude were released into the environment. In addition to the huge immediate damage, long-term effects are as yet unknown but are likely to include oil remaining in the food chain for generations to come.

The disaster was the fault of BP (short for “British Petroleum”), a multinational corporation headquartered in the UK operating the oil well, who was found to be “primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct.”

So how did the media represent corporate responsibility in their coverage of the event?

From perpetrator to victim

Comparing UK and US media, I found that the former were less concerned with the environmental impact than the consequences for British interests and even cast BP in the role of victim rather than perpetrator. The Telegraph, for instance, headlined: “Barack Obama’s attacks on BP hurting British pensioners.” The article continued:

Barack Obama has been accused of holding “his boot on the throat” of British pensioners after his attacks on BP were blamed for wiping billions off the company’s value.

The corporation was metaphorically described as a person and depicted as vulnerable and in need of protection:

We need to ensure that BP is not unfairly treated – it is not some bloodless corporation.

It is not unusual for corporate responsibility to be obscured in the media, particularly if no individuals can be clearly identified as “bad guys”. However, British media went beyond that by casting BP as victim rather than perpetrator, and making it stand for a particularly vulnerable segment of the population, namely “British pensioners”.

As a consequence, solidarity was not rallied with the victims of the disaster but the perpetrator:

I want to see the UK government defend the company while it is under this attack.

This blame-shifting where the perpetrator turned victim meant that another scapegoat had to be found to fit the conventional narrative. In this case the head of another state, US president Barack Obama, was cast in that role. This further enhanced the economic and nationalist framing of the environmental disaster:

Although fund managers accept that BP must pay compensation for the oil spill and the damage it is doing to parts of America’s coastline, they argue that the cost to the company’s market value from the president’s criticism is far outweighing the clean-up costs.

In sum, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill was told in some UK media as a national-economic problem for Britain rather than a global environmental disaster. In the process, corporate responsibility was obscured and readers were led to see the issue as one of national threat to themselves. Reporting the news in this way aligns the readers with corporate economic interests by framing these as national interests.

This framing was then available to be mobilized in the Brexit campaign five years later.

Beyond the British case, my study is also relevant to the revival of nationalist and separatist discourses in other contexts, which similarly obscure that nationalism is entirely irrelevant to the big issues of our time as they pose existential threats to life on this planet. Like an oil spill, these do, after all, not stop at national borders …

Reference

Cramer, R. (2017) ‘The BP is a great British company’: The discursive transformation of an environmental disaster into a national economic problem. Discourse & Communication, 0(0), n/a-n/a. doi:10.1177/1750481317745744

“Sauberkeit” (“cleanliness”) – another of those key cultural concepts

Everyone who has learned a second language will have noticed that certain words and expressions cannot be translated easily from one language into another. Some ways of expressing meaning seem to be language specific or particular to a certain speech-community. When I came to Australia, for instance, I learned that people frequently say no worries in response to thanks or an apology. The literal German translation for no worries is “keine Sorge”. However, the correct response to a German thank-you is gern geschehen (“it has happened gladly”) and the answer to an apology is kein Problem (“no problem”) in the German language.

In contrast, I have never been asked whether everything is in order in an English speaking context, although this is an expression frequently used in my first language, German (alles in Ordnung?). English equivalents of the same phrase contains the words “alright” or “OK” instead of “order” (“is everything alright/OK?”). In German, we also reassure people that “everything is in order” (alles ist in Ordnung) or use an order-expression if we are in agreement with others (in Ordnung, English “alright”, “OK”). A common German saying even states that order is fundamental (Ordnung muss sein).

When similar communicative routines are expressed in different ways in different languages (or even in the same language in different speech communities), we may ask if and what the wording tells us about each linguaculture. In particular, if it is a recurring and salient topic as is the case with German Ordnung. Why is order such an important topic in the German language?

In a recently published article about “German Ordnung. A semantic and ethnopragmatic analysis of a core cultural value,” (Cramer, 2015) I aim to illustrate the intricate connections that exist between features of a certain language and underlying culture-specific conceptualizations. The analysis sheds new light on the German cultural core value Ordnung “order,” its relationship to other cultural themes, and its relationship to German interpersonal style. To reach a better understanding of the German core value Ordnung “order” as it relates to other German cultural themes, the study first provides an analysis of the common expressions alles (ist) in Ordnung “everything [is] in order” and Ordnung muss sein “there has to be order.” This is followed by an analysis of a social descriptor that is seemingly opposed to the all-pervasive idea of “Ordnung”, the term locker “loose.”

The article seeks to illustrate the merits of a perspective in language and culture studies that is truly culture-internal and can thus facilitate cross-cultural understanding. It does so by applying the principles of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach to semantic and ethnopragmatic description. The article is available through the International Journal of Language and Culture.

Cramer, R. (2015). German Ordnung: A semantic and ethnopragmatic analysis of a core cultural value International Journal of Language and Culture, 2 (2), 269-293 DOI: 10.1075/ijolc.2.2.06cra

Do clouds over VW equal clouds over Germany?

The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal has received significant media coverage in and outside of Germany. Besides accounts of the developments that led to the discovery of Volkswagen’s unethical behaviour, the immediate impacts on the company’s finances, CEO Martin Winterkorn’s resignation and Matthias Mueller’s appointment as the new chief executive of the firm, a focus on wider impacts of the current affair quickly emerged. Not long and concerns were raised that the unethical actions of the car manufacturer could have negative consequences for the German automobile industry in general and the German and the European economy more broadly.

This has raised a related discussion and media anxiety about the implications of the Volkswagen affair for the trademark “made in Germany”. The German Handelsblatt (Daniel Delhaes 2015), for instance, cited various politicians expressing concern over the loss of the country’s reputation:

Auf alle Fälle ist das ein riesiger Schaden für die Industriemarke Deutschland. (“This is definitely a huge damage for the German industrial brand.”)

Es geht um die Glaubwürdigkeit des Gütesiegels‚‘made in Germany’. (“It is a matter of credibility of the quality label ‘made in Germany’.”)

Both politicians anticipate negative consequences not only for VW but for national reputation, too.

How do constructions of German cultural stereotypes and self-stereotypes become visible in the media reports concerned with the Volkswagen affair? How do they relate to the car manufacturer’s misconduct and how are they aimed at influencing the general public?

A careful analysis of the current media discourse may provide some insights into the discursive construction of “made in Germany” as a “quality label” and, more generally, the discursive construction of reputation as an economic asset. The discussion will be grounded in research in communication studies and applied linguistics that examines advertising as cultural discourse and shows how notions of national identities and ethno-cultural stereotypes are constructed and reproduced through discursive practices.

Volvo campaign: Breaking up with a German

German ethno-cultural stereotypes in advertising

Intercultural advertising has been shown to valorise languages in their symbolic rather than their communicative meaning. The symbolic function of languages is to be understood in this context as “the product of intercultural social, political, economic, historical and linguistic relations between countries” (Kelly-Holmes, 2000, p. 71). In what Kelly-Holmes defines as a deep-rooted ‘cultural competence hierarchy’, “Germans have been assigned the role of car-maker/engineer and brewer” (2000, p. 71). Piller notes that foreign languages in advertising are used “to associate the product with the ethno-cultural stereotype about the country where the language is spoken” (2003, p. 175). In the case of German, these are connotations of reliability, precision and innovation, above all regarding technology.

Hence, it is not surprising that it is a common marketing strategy amongst multinational companies to use the national language of their headquarters for advertising their products on the foreign market. Volkswagen and Audi are two successful examples of global corporations based in Germany that take advantage of this strategy by using the slogans ‘Volkswagen – Das Auto’ and ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’, respectively, in print and audio-visual ads.

It is first and foremost the recognition of these words as German, rather than their literal meaning, that is important for their success. For instance, a monolingual English-speaking Australian recently cited the Audi-slogan ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ to me when he discovered that I was German. To my surprise, and despite the fact that he was able to pronounce the catchphrase quite well, he had no idea what it actually meant. I was German; the slogan was German; and that’s all that mattered.

It is not only German manufacturers who use ethno-cultural stereotypes to promote their products. A marketing campaign by the Swedish car manufacturer Volvo uses associations with German ‘efficiency’ and ‘order’ defensively to promote their own products.

How does all this relate to the Volkswagen scandal?

Volkswagen as a symbol for German cultural core values

Media reports about the Volkswagen scandal draw on the same ethno-cultural stereotypes of technological advancement and high quality:

A lot of Germany’s present economic success is based on engineering expertise, specialised technology and expensive heavy machinery sold to fire up China’s factories. […] But “Made in Germany” is supposed to be a quality trusted brand worth paying money for. (bbc.com; McGuinness 2015)

“Made in Germany is quality and trust. Now that trust is lost,” said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer of the University of Duisburg-Essen. (autonews.com; Chambers 2015)

Thereby, the media reinforces the positive connotations with German national culture but, at the same time, mounts the argument that the company’s misconduct is threatening exactly these. This argument is strengthened by means of a link that the reports establish between Germany, “made in Germany”, the corresponding ethno-cultural stereotypes and Volkswagen itself. Autonews (Chambers 2015), as well as the German Handelsblatt (dpa 2015), provide good examples:

The great success of the export nation of Germany rests on the quality label ‘Made in Germany,'” said Marcel Fratzscher, head of the DIW economic institute in Berlin. “VW stands for this German quality — for perfection, reliability and trust.

Ob Volkswagen, ob Deutschland verlorenes Vertrauen zurückgewinnt, entscheidet sich auch bei der Aufarbeitung des Skandals. (“How the scandal is dealt with will determine whether VW and Germany can regain trust.”)

In examples such as these, Volkswagen is put into place as an emblem for the positive associations with Germany and “made in Germany”. But not only that: striking in these and the preceding excerpts is the recurring association with ‘trust’ that is put into place alongside the ethno-cultural stereotypes commonly connected with Germany and also Volkswagen. It seems to do two things. First, it enables the media, and the referenced commentators, to strengthen the argument that the positive connotations with German products have been challenged by the company’s wrongdoing. The use of ‘supposed to be’ in the second BBC comment indicates that one cannot be entirely sure whether the label “made in Germany” still stands for good quality. One of the commentators goes even further by saying that trust has already been ‘lost’. Second, and possibly even more important, it allows for a reinforcement and maintenance of the ethno-cultural stereotypes. It is not the quality that is ‘lost’ in the eyes of commentator Dudenhoeffer but the trust in this quality. In this way, quality is implicitly constructed as the dominant connotation.

What is achieved by introducing trust into this discourse?

Volkswagen. Das Auto.

The nation brand and Germany’s reputation are constructed as greater than just the sum of cultural values associated with the nation. ‘Reputation’ ties the belief in a certain moral standard to the cultural values which, only then, attain relevance. Therefore, trust issues regarding the positive cultural stereotypes must arise if a company like Volkswagen, which stands for the country’s reputation, acts against these moral standards. This construction of ‘reputation’ allows the media to paint Volkswagen as a ‘black sheep’ and to elaborate about possible nationwide consequences of the emissions scandal without saying that assumed high quality, reliability and precision of German products may no longer apply. That Volkswagen is the one to blame is also strongly expressed by the title of a Handelsblatt article:

Volkswagen und der “Anschlag auf den Standort Deutschland. (“Volkswagen and the ‘attack on Germany as a business location’.”)

“Anschlag” (“attack”) even has connotations of terrorism on the part of Volkswagen.

In sum, ‘reputation’ is an economic asset and a crucial aspect of Germany’s economic success. To minimize the risk of losing this national reputation a former national emblem can quickly become a villain.

The way in which language is used in the media coverage of the Volkswagen emission scandal has transformed a corporate issue into a nationwide cultural concern. Ethno-cultural stereotypes are not only questioned but also reinforced.

Media and political discourse are powerful institutions. However, they only constitute one side of the medal. If and how the receivers of their messages will be influenced by them, can only be seen in the long run. Since ethno-cultural stereotypes have slowly grown over time and are deep-rooted in people’s minds, it remains anyone’s guess whether the Volkswagen emission scandal will change people’s associations with Germany and German products.

References

Kelly-Holmes, H. (2000). Bier, Parfum, Kaas: Language Fetish in European Advertising. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 3(1), 67-82.

Piller, I. (2003). Advertising as a site of language contact Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 170-183 DOI: 10.1017/S0267190503000254
Further reading

Chambers, M. (2015, September 22). Diesel scandal at VW threatens ‘Made in Germany’ image. Autonews.

Delhaes, D. (2015, September 23). ‘Made in Germany’ ist in Gefahr. Handelsblatt.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (2015, October 4). Volkswagen und der „Anschlag auf den Standort Deutschland“. Handelsblatt.