| This dissertation presents a theory that language and power are corporative and applies it to communications of the 1992 Los Angeles Rebellion/Riot. Using a textual analysis I document the existence of a primary language which illegitimized the event by constructing it as immoral, illegal terrorism conducted by (mostly black) "thugs" and "mobs," and an alternative language which attempted to undermined the primary language and legitimize the event as a multiracial response to state oppression, class inequality, and systematic racism. This analysis explains how the primary language was structured around themes of "riot," individualized violence, and irrational behavior, while the alternative language was structured around themes of "rebellion," institutionalized violence, and purposeful political action. It also documents that the primary language, communicated largely through corporate mass media both black and white, legitimized state, business, and white power, while denying legitimacy to alternative languages that challenge these powers. The alternative language did the opposite, and was communicated largely through alternative mass media and frequently-ignored forms of communication, such as graffiti, visual arts, and personal communications. In addition, the primary language relied mainly on business, governmental and police sources while neglecting the accounts of participants and critics of existing power relations, whereas the alternative language relied mainly on participants, residents, and critics.;Based on this research, the dissertation argues in support of three primary conclusions. (1) There are two overlapping but antagonistic languages through which the 1992 Conflict was communicated--a language of dominance that illegitimized it and a language of resistance that attempted to legitimize it. (2) The dominance language was articulated primarily by and for those in positions of structural power, whereas the resistance language was articulated largely by and for those not in such positions. (3) Mainstream media articulated and circulated the dominance language, simultaneously marginalizing the resistance language. My research also demonstrates, however, that while the marginalization of resistance language is generally effective and thorough, thereby demonstrating the power of dominance language, recuring events like those in Los Angeles in 1992 reflect the durability and adaptability of resistance language in America. |
