The Rhetoric Of Anchoring And Conditional Inclusion: Ethos, Pathos, And Logos In Media Discourses On Polish Migration In Scotland

Aneta Duda

doi:10.29284/2yp01953

Authors

Aneta Duda Department of Social Science, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29284/2yp01953

Keywords:

Migration discourse; Polish migration; Scotland; media framing; digital diaspora; ethos, pathos, logos; migrant representation; public discourse.

Abstract

Migration is not solely an economic or demographic process—it is also a communicative, emotional, and rhetorical phenomenon. Within public discourse, migrants become not only objects but also subjects of narration, engaged in struggles over recognition, legitimacy, and the right to voice. The discourse of migration thus represents a contested arena where different modes of persuasion, rationalization, and emotional registers of belonging intersect. The purpose of this article is to examine how distinct forms of ethos, pathos, and logos emerge within discourses on Polish migration to Scotland—both in mainstream media representations and in grassroots digital communication. The analysis identifies two contrasting rhetorical formations: 1) The rhetoric of anchoring, observed in Facebook groups of Polish migrants in Scotland, characterized by emotion, communality, and everyday morality; 2) The rhetoric of conditional inclusion, dominant in Scottish mainstream media, marked by technocratic rationality, institutional ethos, and controlled affect.

These rhetorical registers construct radically different visions of the migrant: on the one hand, as an active participant in a community of care and emotion; on the other, as an object of regulation and management. The study draws on two complementary datasets: 1) Digital Anchors, Diasporic Spaces – 852 posts from four Facebook groups of Poles in Scotland (2025); 2) Measuring Frames, Tracing Couplings – 165 articles from The Herald, Daily Record, and The Scotsman published during 2004–2016 and 2024–2025.

References

[1] Aristotle, Rhetoric, W. Rhys Roberts, Trans. New York, NY, USA: Modern Library, 1954.

[2] C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN, USA: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.

[3] S. Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh, U.K.: Edinburgh University Press, 2004.

[4] Z. Papacharissi, Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 2015.

[5] N. Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2010.

[6] A. Grzymała-Kazłowska, “Social anchoring: Immigrant identity, security and integration reconnected?,” Sociology, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1123–1139, 2016.

[7] R. Wodak, The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London, U.K.: Sage, 2015.

[8] T. van Dijk, Discourse and Power. New York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

[9] M. Foucault, Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, Eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1991, pp. 87–104.

[10] R. Brubaker, “The ‘diaspora’ diaspora,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2005.

[11] A. Georgiou, “Diaspora in the digital era: Minorities and media representation,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 693–712, 2013.

[12] L. Chouliaraki and M. Zaborowski, “Voice and community in the 2015 refugee crisis: A content analysis of news coverage in eight European countries,” International Communication Gazette, vol. 79, no. 6–7, pp. 613–635, 2017.

[13] B. Anderson, “Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism,” London, U.K.: Verso, 2006.