Valkoisen talon kappalaiset : Yhdysvaltain presidentti-instituution viralliset puheet retorisena kansalaisuskontona

Tutkimuksen aihepiirinä on viimeaikaisen (1997-2004) Yhdysvaltain presidentti-instituution uskonnollinen retoriikka William J. Clintonin ja George W. Bushin virkakausina. Tutkimuksen tehtävä on selvittää, miten presidentti-instituutio hyödyntää uskonnollista retoriikkaa legimitaationa virallisissa poliittisissa linjanvetopuheissaan, kuten virkaanastujais- ja liittovaltion tila -puheissaan. Tutkimustehtävä jakautuu seuraaviin alakysymyksiin: 1) Millaisilla kansalaisuskonnollisilla käsityksillä ja keinoilla legimitaatiota yritetään tuottaa? 2) Ovatko kansalaisuskonnon keinot viimeaikaisten presidenttien keskeisintä työvälineistöä identifioinnissa ja erottautumisissa? 3) Ovatko kansalaisuskonnolliset teemat naturalisoituneet, luonnollistuneet? Tiivistetysti on tarkoitus tutkia viimeaikaisten presidenttien virallisista puheiden kautta, kuinka uskonto ja valtio liittyvät toisiinsa. Perusolettamukseni on, että presidentit hyödyntävät keskeisesti kansalaisuskonnollista retoriikkaa vakuuttaakseen yleisönsä ja politiikkansa. Tutkimusaineisto koostuu koostuu kahden Yhdysvaltain presidentin William J. Clintonin (1993-2001) ja George W. Bushin (2001-) presidenttien virallisista puheista, jotka on pidetty vuosina 1997-2004. Viralliset puheet ovat virkaanastujais- (Inaugural Address) ja vuosittaiset liittovaltion tila -puheet (Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union). Puheita on kymmenen ja niiden pituus on keskimäärin viisi sivua. Tutkielman teoreettinen viitekehys tukeutuu kanadalaisen uskontososiologin Marcela Cristin uudenlaiselle käsitykselle (2001) kansalaisuskonnosta poliittisena uskontona. Tämä hyödyntää kansalaisuskonnon durkheimilaista taustaa yhdistäen Jean-Jacques Rousseuaun religion civile-teesiä. Cristin mukaan kansalaisuskonto manifestoituu kahdella tavalla: sekä durkheimilaisena kulttuurisena kansalaismuotona (civil) ja rousseualaisena ideologiana (political). Nämä eivät hänen mukaansa ole toisilleen vastakohtia, vaan yhden jatkumon osia. Tutkielman metodologinen lähestymistapa on uusretorinen analyysi ja teoreettis-medologisena viitekehyksenä on sosiaalinen konstruktivismi. Analyysin perusolettamus on, että presidentti-instituution luomassa merkityksen rakennetaan sosiaalisesta todellisuutta. Instituution retoriikka suuntautuu tiettyyn sosiaaliseen yhteisöön yrittäen legimitoida mahdollisimman laajaa joukkoa politiikkansa taakse. Analyysin tuloksena huomattiin, että presidentti-instituutio hyödyntää aktiivisesti kansalaisuskonnollisia teemoja. Molempien presidentti-instituutioiden uskonnollisessa nationalismissa hyödynnetään kansalaisuskonnollisuuden sekä protestanttis-puritaanista että valistuksellista taustaa. Kyse on oikeastaan siitä,kuinka nämä puolet saavat painotuksensa. Selvää on, että molemmat presidentit hyödyntävät kaikkia kansalaisuskonnollisuuden kolmea ulottuvuutta. Molemmilta löytyy retorinen tukeutuminen transsendenssiin, moraalistinen yhteisöllisyyden vaatimus. Clintonin uskonnollinen retoriikkaa jakaantuu kahteen ulkoisesti ristiriitaiseen käsitteelliseen linssiin: lupauksellisuus ja perustajallisuus. Ne yhdistyvät hänen nimittämisissään millenniaaliseksi yhteisöksi. Bushin uskonnollinen retoriikka tukeutuu transsendenttiseen ulottuvuuteen. Hänen käsitteelisiä linssejä ovat aktiivisen Jumalan monet roolit ja ajan siunauksellisuus. (Ks. luku 8. johtopäätökset ja jatkotutkimus.) Avainsanat: Yhdysvallat, presidentti-instituutio, kansalaisuskonto, uskonnollinen retoriikka, William J. Clinton, George W.Bush

Farmland birds and habitat heterogeneity in intensively cultivated boreal agricultural landscapes

The biodiversity of farmland ecosystems has decreased remarkably during the latter half of the 20th century, and this development is due to intensive farming with its various environmental effects. In the countries of the EU the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the main determinant affecting farmland biodiversity, since the agricultural policy defines guidelines of agricultural practices. In addition to policies promoting intensive farming, CAP also includes national agri-environment schemes (AES), in which a part of subsidies paid to farmers is directed to acts that are presumed to promote environmental protection and biodiversity. In order to shape AES into relevant and powerful tools for biodiversity protection, detailed studies on the effects of agriculture on species and species assemblages are needed. In my thesis I investigated the importance of habitat heterogeneity and effects of different habitat and landscape characteristics on farmland bird abundance and diversity in typical cereal cultivation-dominated southern Finnish agricultural environments. The extensive data used were collected by territory mapping. My two main study species were the drastically declined ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana) and the phenomenally increased tree sparrow (Passer montanus); in addition I studied assemblages of 20 species breeding in open arable and edge/bush habitats. In light of my results I discuss whether the Finnish AES take into account the habitat needs of farmland birds, and I provide suggestions for improvement of the future AES. My results show that heterogeneity of both uncultivated and cultivated habitats increases abundance and species richness among farmland birds, but in this respect the amount and diversity of uncultivated habitats are essential. Ditches in particular are a keystone structure for farmland birds in boreal landscapes. Ditches lined by trees or bushes increased ortolan bunting abundance. Loss of that kind of ditches (and clearance of forest and bush patches), reduced breeding ortolan buntings, mainly by decreasing availability of song-posts that are important for the breeding groups of the species. Heterogeneity of uncultivated habitats, most importantly open ditches and the habitat patch richness, increased densities and species richnesses of species assemblages of open arable and edge/bush habitats. Human impact (winter-feeding, nest-boxes) affected favourably the tree sparrow s rapid range expansion in southern Finland, but any habitat types had no significant effects. At the moment the Finnish agri-environmental policy does not conserve farmland ditches as a habitat type. Instead, sub-surface drainage is financially promoted. This is a fatal mistake as far as farmland biodiversity is concerned. In addition to the maintenance of ditches, at least the following aspects should be included more than is done previously in the measures of the future AES: 1) promotion of diverse crop rotation (especially by promoting animal husbandry), 2) maintenance of tree and bush vegetation in islets and along ditches, 3) promotion of organic farming.

We Are All Georgians : The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.

We Are All Georgians: The Neoconservative Narrative on the Russia-Georgia War

In this thesis I examine the U.S. foreign policy discussion that followed the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. In the politically charged setting that preceded the presidential elections, the subject of the debate was not only Washington's response to the crisis in the Caucasus but, more generally, the direction of U.S. foreign policy after the presidency of George W. Bush. As of November 2010, the reasons for and consequences of the Russia-Georgia war continue to be contested. My thesis demonstrates that there were already a number of different stories about the conflict immediately after the outbreak of hostilities. I want to argue that among these stories one can discern a “neoconservative narrative” that described the war as a confrontation between the East and the West and considered it as a test for Washington’s global leadership. I draw on the theory of securitization, particularly on a framework introduced by Holger Stritzel. Accordingly, I consider statements about the conflict as “threat texts” and analyze these based on the existing discursive context, the performative force of the threat texts and the positional power of the actors presenting them. My thesis suggests that a notion of narrativity can complement Stritzel’s securitization framework and take it further. Threat texts are established as narratives by attaching causal connections, meaning and actorship to the discourse. By focusing on this process I want to shed light on the relationship between the text and the context, capture the time dimension of a speech act articulation and help to explain how some interpretations of the conflict are privileged and others marginalized. I develop the theoretical discussion through an empirical analysis of the neoconservative narrative. Drawing on Stritzel’s framework, I argue that the internal logic of the narrative which was presented as self-evident can be analyzed in its historicity. Asking what was perceived to be at stake in the conflict, how the narrative was formed and what purposes it served also reveals the possibility for alternative explanations. My main source material consists of transcripts of think tank seminars organized in Washington, D.C. in August 2008. In addition, I resort to the foreign policy discussion in the mainstream media.