Duelling Discourses: A Rhetorical Device for Challenging Anti-Asylum Sentiment in Western Australia

Abstract

Opposition to Australia's resettlement of refugees has received considerable focus in discursive research; however, limited attention has been paid to how such opposition is challenged through talk. Existing anti-racism studies indicate a tendency to construct perspectives in support of welcoming newcomers as arguments against hegemonic viewpoints: a phenomenon known as “duelling discourses”. To explore the applicability of this concept to discussions about seeking asylum, this research employed rhetorical analysis alongside a critical discourse paradigm to examine how 24 Western Australian voters voiced competing perspectives about asylum seekers. Further demonstrating duelling discourses, the sample routinely discussed seeking asylum in a dialogic manner, orienting their positions as direct arguments against constructions of asylum seekers as illegal immigrants, economic migrants and “bogus refugees”. This article discusses these findings and considers their implications for both critical discourse and anti-racism scholarship.