LEGITIMISATION

Legitimisation is a dynamic process of discursive representation carried out by individual and collective social actors to maintain their public image and assert power. Social actors who employ legitimisation in power-seeking discourse aim to enhance their moral and emotional appeal, presenting their decisions as inherently right and morally justifiable. Since legitimisation is constructed through discourse, it takes the form of a legitimacy narrative, which typically highlights strengths and downplays weaknesses by appealing to logos, ethos and pathos. These rhetorical elements – logos (logic and reason), ethos (credibility and ethics), and pathos (emotion) – are embedded in the legitimacy narrative, tailored to the specific context and the purposes of persuasion.  Regardless of contextual differences, social actors seeking to legitimise themselves strive to integrate rational, ethical and emotional appeals, portraying their exercise of power as logical, morally justified and emotionally acceptable.   

As a discursive strategy, legitimisation is widely used to uphold and exert authority while garnering public support and acceptance. It can manifest in both explicit and implicit forms.  Explicit legitimisation focuses on positive self-representation, justifying actions, decisions and reinforcing the authority of the social actor. In contrast, implicit legitimisation often involves shifting the narrative toward a negative portrayal of others, commonly referred to as delegitimisation. When explicit and implicit strategies are employed together, the resulting legitimacy is harder to challenge and has greater persuasive impact.  

Empirical studies of legitimisation reveal the ambivalent biases underlying justifications for stereotypes against various social groups. Over time, these justifications can evolve into naturalised legitimising myths, contributing to greater societal polarisation and a fragmentation of social cohesion.

Chouliaraki, Lillie and Norma Fairclough. 1999. Discourse in Late Modernity: Re-thinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 

Chen, Emmeline S., and Tom R. Tyler. 2001. “Cloaking power: legitimizing myths and the psychology of the advantaged.”  In The Use and Abuse of Power. Philadelphia: Psychol. Press: 241-261.  

Fairclough, Norman. 1985. Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(6), 739-763. 

 Ford, Rebecca, and Cathryn Johnson. 1998. The perception of power: dependence and legitimacy in conflict. Sociological Psychology Quarterly (61), 16–32.  

Foucault, Michel. 2010. The archaeology of knowledge: And the discourse on language. Random House. 

 Gal, Susan, and Kathryn A. Woolard. 2014. Constructing languages and publics authority and representation. In Languages and Publics: 1-12. Routledge. 

Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress. 1993. Language as ideology. Routledge. 

Kay, Aaron C., and John T. Jost. 2003. “Complementary justice: effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive.” Journal of personality and social psychology 85(5), 823. 

Krosnick, Jon A., Visser, Penny S., and Joshua Harder. 2010. The psychological underpinnings of political behavior. In Handbook of social psychology: 1288–1342. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002034.  

Lakoff, George. 1991. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf. Peace Research, 25-32. 

Reyes, Antonio. 2011. Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society 22(6): 781–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927.  

Sears, David O. 2003. The psychology of legitimacy. Political Psychology (25), 318–23.  

Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review Psychology (57), 375-400.  

Van Leeuwen, Tristan. 2007. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & communication, 1(1), 91-112.