DN35: Mapping and Countering Authoritarian Discourses

During DN35, we want to reflect on (neo)authoritarianism today, its role in public discourse, and its impact on contemporary politics. We want to map the discursive construction of the (neo)authoritarian appeal across the Global North and South, and the ways in which they can be counteracted. We welcome a wide range of methodologies and approaches to researching these issues, including critical political, psychological, and post-structuralist discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, and rhetorical analysis.

Authoritarianism is a topic with a long history in the social sciences and humanities, with many important accounts throughout the 20th century by scholars such as Hannah Arendt, Theodor W. Adorno, Erich Fromm, Zygmunt Bauman and many others. In recent years, the topic has again become an important part of scholarly reflection, given the growing presence of authoritarianism in contemporary societies. Even though contemporary scholarship can draw on 20th-century insights, the present day calls for new approaches, as authoritarianism itself is taking new forms and using new devices to win over citizens' hearts and minds. 

Neo-authoritarianism is emerging as a hybrid form of power that merges the familiar concepts of coercion and control with new means such as digital surveillance, algorithmic manipulation, and other sophisticated tools. We aim to broaden this inquiry by considering not only the technological forms of neo-authoritarian appeal, but also the micro‑level personal authoritarian dispositions, the metadiscursive framing of authoritarianism as a social problem, and the material and social infrastructures that shape the production and circulation of authoritarian narratives. Specifically, we are interested in the discursive constructions that make authoritarian appeals attractive and the linguistic resources that are recruited to promote non-democratic solutions.

For example, in times of uncertainty, when societies seek axiological and ontological stability, the radicals, extremists, and (neo)authoritarians promise stability by returning to more traditional forms of social order and rescuing the “stolen pride”. They persuade the audience through various rhetorical and eristic strategies, referring to emotions of fear, anger, shame, and resentment, or by weaponizing cultural wars, anti-gender narratives, and dreams of nativism in the public discourse. In turn, these appeals are amplified by communicative infrastructure (e.g., social media and artificial intelligence), making these problems global rather than confined to the nation-state.

By contrast, democratic movements, progressive politicians, NGOs, journalists, and activists discursively counter these narratives and discourses, but these counter-strategies. Despite being in demand, such discourses may sometimes mirror the very populism they aim to counter. By creating the opposition of “us – good democrats” and “them – bad autocrats,” they risk fueling moral panics, deepening affective polarization, and paradoxically limiting the space for deliberation and effective articulation of conflicting interests. So, how to counter (neo)authoritarianism without using authoritarian methods? 

We are interested in topics that fit (but are not limited to) the following scope:

• Authoritarian discourses, authoritarianism in discourse and discourses on authoritarianism;
• Authoritarianism of the self; elevating oneself and one’s own opinion to the superior authority, neglecting social conditions of truth production;
• Political varieties of authoritarian appeal – from far-right to libertarian stances;
• Linguistic patterns and discursive strategies in authoritarian discourses;
• Rhetoric of fear, and moral panics in authoritarian discourses and in the backlash against them;
• Populist communication styles in creating and countering authoritarian appeals;
• The role of emotions, fear, shame, grievance, and ‘stolen pride’ in political narratives;
• Advantages and disadvantages of polarization/deliberation in the context of authoritarianism;
• Resilience and countering authoritarian discourses (civic education, cultural resistance, satire, etc.);
• The role of discourse researchers, how do they talk about authoritarianism and represent it as a specific form of social and political problem;
• Digital authoritarianism – the role of social media algorithms & AI;
• Material and social conditions of authoritarianism and the production of authoritarian discourses.

The presentations are scheduled to take 20 minutes, with 10 additional minutes allocated for discussion.

Keynote speaker:

TBA

Submission guidelines:

• Abstracts should be to the length of 300–400 words without references;
• Remember to include the title of the paper, name, affiliation and e-mail address;
• Submit your abstract through the online form; 
• All conference proceedings will be conducted in English.

Panel's submission:

We accept proposals for pre-organized panels (3–4 papers). A panel proposal should include a title, a 200-400-word rationale, and individual abstracts. Please submit them via e-mail: dn35@uni.opole.pl.  

Important dates:

• Abstract submission deadline: 30 September 2026
• Notification of acceptance: 31 October 2026
• Registration deadline:  30 November 2026
• Fee payment deadline: 20 December 2026
• Conference 25-26 February 2027

Fees & Registration

We want the conference to be inclusive and accessible to researchers at all stages of their careers. Fees are calculated to cover coffee breaks, lunches, and basic organizational costs. 

Conference fee: €70
Social dinner (optional): €30
Note: Participants are required to hold an active DiscourseNet membership (€60 for 2 years).

Organization and co-operation:

DiscourseNet
University of Opole
Polish Rhetoric Society
Communication Research Section of the Polish Sociological Association 
Opole Branch of the Polish Sociological Association

Local organizational committee:

• Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska, the head of the scientific committee
• Marcin Deutschmann, the main organizer
• Robert Radziej
• Artur Cedzich

Scientific committee:

• Johannes Angermuller, Open University of London
• Stefano Boca, University of Palermo
• Marcin Deutschmann, University of Opole
• Benno Herzog, University of Valencia
• Agnieszka Kampka, Warsaw University of Life Sciences
• Adam Konopka, University of Gdańsk
• Adamantios Koumpis, University Hospital of Cologne
• Jan Krasni, Technical University of Berlin
• Amelie Kutter, European University Viadrina​​​​​​​
• Barbara Markowska-Marczak, Civitas University
• Rafał Matusiak, University of Opole
• Iwona Młoźniak, Jagiellonian University in Kraków
• Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska, University of Opole
• Magdalena Nowicka-Franczak, University of Łódź
• Jędrzej Olejniczak, University of Opole
• Magdalena Piejko-Płonka, University of Opole 
• Marzanna Pogorzelska, University of Opole
• Anna Radiukiewicz, Institute of Political Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Jerzy Stachowiak, University of Łódź
• Michał Wanke, University of Opole
• Przemysław Wilk, University of Opole

Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact Marcin Deutschmann: dn35@uni.opole.pl