OF THE POLITICAL ACT OF UNION
IN MIHAIL KOGĂLNICEANU’S SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT
1 ARIADNA ŞTEFĂNESCUAbstract. The Union of the Romanian Principalities is analyzed in a series of parliamentary speeches delivered by Mihail Kogălniceanu (from October the 7th, 1857 to October 1st, 1859). The discursive use of the conceptual metaphors by which this political concept is often expressed construct a political gestalt. The denominational system of the Union covers four semantic zones and have an extremely uniform distribution of the lexemes. Following the structural asymmetry between the source and the target of the most frequent conceptual metaphors, we have noticed two stylistics phenomena: (a) repetitiveness or fluidity of the style (given by the fact that several abstractions were represented by the same target, i.e.
the same iconic element); (b) stylistic variety (produced by the fact that one concept (source) is given several iconic representations, i.e. it receives several targets). The plasticization of the Union as a notion in M. Kogălniceanu’s discourse is effected by conceptual metaphors and by the occultation of the links within the taxonomical hierarchy in which the concept is accomodated. Thus, this political notion is frequently associated with stabilitiy and dignity, via legitimacy.
Moreover, these emotions surround and make flexible this concept. The taxonomic distances between Union and these two emotions become inconspicuous. The argumentative movement used to present the political gestalt of the Union is that of wishful thinking.
Keywords: discourse analysis; stylistics; argumentation; political discourse;
cognitive metaphor; emotion; the imagery of the discourse; the active zones of the ideal cognitive model; modification of the concept; wishful thinking.
Mihail Kogălniceanu was one of the main political actors who negociated, and realized the Union of the Romanian Principalities, a capital event for the modernization of Romanian society.
1 This work was supported by CNCSIS-UEFISCU, project number PN II − IDEI code 2136/2008.
RRL, LV, 4, p. 381–396, Bucureşti, 2010
THE DISCURSIVE VARIETY OF THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL NAMES GIVEN TO THE UNION
I have followed the discursive behaviour of the Union as a political concept and a series of conceptual metaphors appearing in a number of speeches delivered for about two years, preceding and succeeding this Romanian history landmark that the Union represented and covering a period spanning from October the 7th, 1857 to October 1st, 1859, and I have followed them as well in the pages of the Steaua Dunării newspaper of October 1st, 18552,3 .
From the perspective of the categorization levels generally entailed by concepts – i.e. the superordinate, basic and subordinate strata –, the political and historical notion of the union is situated at the basic level, with Romania as its superordinate concept and with several „partial” or specific denominations subordinated to it, such as the strong desire of the nation, the sentiments of Moldavia, mission (appearing as misie - a slightly archaic Romanian backward formation from the word mission), creed, necessity, a.s.o.4 By contrast to the
2 Bearing the subtitle “political, literary and commercial newspaper”, the Stéoa Dunării was set up by Mihail Kogălnicenu, with a view to making public the political ideas of the age, and more particularly the idea of the Union of the Romanian Principalities – so as to help create an extensively common ideological ground.
3 The Union of the Principalities as a historical and political term is still written with a capital letter today – which reinforces its symbolic power – as it ranges at the top of the socio-political values in Romanian culture and Romanian discours.
4 Here is the whole range of terms of this kind pertaining to the subordinate conceptual level in the series of discourses made by M. Kogălniceanu during the period 1857-1859. (The list can sometimes embrace a larger context where the same denominations appear, which is why we consider this wider context relevant): [The gathering of the people] was inspired by a shared sentiment, a commonly cherished aspiration: the longing to secure our national being (33); the prophecy [...] is fuliflled (33); what we would aspire to do (37); we are bent with a strong will upon being a European society [...] (38); the mission („misia”- an archaism!) that we feel has been entrusted to us (48); social renewal/change (51); we feel called upon to make a reform (51); the most ardent aspirations of a wretched country (51); the Union of the Principalities (60); the Union of the sister kingdoms (60); the ardent longing in our hearts (60); the need experienced by all the members of our nation (60); the ardent desire of a nation eager for its own revival (67); the aspirations that we cherish (84, 85); ardent aspirations that Moldavia entertains [spelled out publicly before all Europe]
(87); the country’s truest desire (93); the ardent desire that courses in our veins (93); our aspirations of the most general interest (96); the country’s aspirations projected upon the future organizations of the Romanian Principalities (102); the more than difficult mission [archaism!]
(103); longing inscribed in blood, in our veins (93); unimpeachable necessity (93); our grand, resuscitating longing (104); the resurgence of united and autonomous Romania (104); the Union is something natural, lawful, pressingly necessary (107); our national desire (107); our great, eternal, regenerating desire (107); longings cherished by the entire nation (108); the only means to ensure the country’s prosperity (108); the keenest aspiration of the entire nation (108); sentiments that inspire the minds of our brothers living on the other side of the Milcov River (110); our ardent longing delayed by ghostly fears (110); sentiments entertained by Moldavia (114); the eternal longing (114); the great longing (114); Romania’s revival (114); the Union which has become our creed (116); Romania’s resurrection (116); this great longing of our Romanian nation (114); the edifice of our nationality (116); honourable mission [archaism] (119); great honour (119); the
regular taxonomic hierarchies – which order several items of knowledge and which distribute knowledge at the superordinate, basic and subordintate levels, respectively, by transfers from the generic, hyperonymic meaning, to the referential, and ultimately to the particular meaning, the hyponymic one, (as in the blatantly clear case of furniture → chair → kitchen stool) – the discursive taxonomical hierarchy formed around the Union does not observe this formula. In the chain of terms represented by the sequence [the Union of the Principalities → desire → sentiments → longing → creed], (constituted on the basis of the list specified in the note three) we can notice the passage from the initial, literal denomination (the Union of the Principalities), to denominations which are increasingly metaphorical (longing, creed). The system of terms that served for the lexicalization of the Union as a concept also constituted in the parliamentary practice is, in the first place, more dynamical, by comparison to a scientific taxonomy proper – and, secondly, it is more controversial than a scientific taxonomy, since it is constrained by the subjectivity and the power relations existing between the orator and the professional politicians. By the standard of bona fide taxonomical hierarchies, such as, say, the division of the branches of muscles, which permit ordering knowledge, which are faithful descriptions and essentialized representations of a part and parcel of reality – the discursive taxonomical context of the political concept the Union, formed in the 19th century, represents something slightly different, since it is a signification universe that develops gradually, in an illocutionary manner, by means of several discourse practices. Being illocutionary in nature, i.e. resting upon the creation of things with words in an institutional frame, the discursive taxonomy of the Union as a concept following in the steps of Austin’s work superimposes itself over an external state of things and tries to model and modify history (the social and historical reality). The relationship between the concept and the denotation is not biunivocal, as in the typical taxonomies, but, owing to the prospective orientation of the central notion that the political Union represents – together with its other denominations – quite often it aims at creating a reality and to influence or model the flow of opinions.
As regards the dynamism of the conceptual paradigm [with Romania (at the superordinate level) – the Union (at the basic level) – (the ardent) desire (of the nation) (at the subordinate level)], in time, the paradigm becomes enriched, more
Union is God’s voice (119); through the union, our vices are transformed into virtues (119); the land of promise (120); in Moldovia, the Union is not something connected to enthousiasm, but to judgement and logic (120); the great truth (146); the crown of the great reforms (116); the political religion of the Romanian nation (146); the necessity of the Union (146); the country’s expectations (148); the Union of the Principalities under the rule of a foreign prince is now construed as the palace of the Romanian nation (148); the new order of things (147); we have to observe a law regulating a supreme necessity in our lives (147); the political religion of our nation (150); the Union was the pressing order of the day (248); the political religion of our nation (249); sacred religion (249); a course of action that brings happiness and strength to a country and enriches it (249) (cf. Sources).
precisely, its current paradigmatic form is [Romania – the Small Union and the Big Union (the basic level) – the ardent desire of the nation].
In Mihail Kogălniceanu’s discourses, the literal denomination, the Union or the Union of the Romanian Principalities is in competition with the metaphor (ardent) desire. The Romance word deziderat (desideratum), whose circulation is selective and pertains to the scholarly register, as well as, probably, to the register of the political language - is felt to be less metaphorical than ardent desire, and since it came into use later5, it could not compete with ardent aspiration. But it might well be in a position to compete with ardent desire in the political language register.
Being derived from the psychological word a dori (to desire), the noun dorinţă in the phrase dorinţă vie (ardent desire) takes upon itself the semantic characteristics of the verb, namely [state open for completion] and [weak possession] (Manea: 71; 73). In the noun, there can be noted certain semantic mutations by comparison to the verbal etymon. On the other hand, in the semantic analysis of psychological verbs, verbs of wishing and emotive verbs are firmly distinguished from each other, and the latter are characterized by the semantic profile [directioned state] and [weak possession]; this distinction may be effaced in the discursive use of the noun desire, when the latter comes closer to the semantic zone of emotion. The syntagmatic combinations of the metaphor certify a strong sense of possession, both through the genitival constructions and through the occurrence of the possessive pronoun determiner: the ardent desire of the nation, cherished longing of our hearts; Moldavia’s most ardent/keenest desire; a longing that can be felt coursing in our veins. Similarly, the [open for completion] seme gains emphasis in the discourse when the utterances which have the Union as their semantic centre frequently trigger an expectation implicature: the wish-fulfilment expectation (cf. the keen aspirations of a wretched nation; the aspirations of a nation that is bent on its own revival, a golden dream a.s.o.). Consequently, in the investigated discourses, we will meet with such signification values as the idea of strong possession, of intensity, necessity, the expectation implicature, a perspectivist angle in regarding political concepts through a particular time- orientation and through the orientation in respect to others, including the supreme divinity; these are signification values to be met with in the entire denomination sphere of the political concept of the Union in the investigated discourses;
consequently, they confer to the concept a particular kind of plasticity:
• (intensity) warming up to the very same sentiments, to a single ardent aspiration; the most ardent aspiration of the entire nation (Kogălniceanu:
111; 110); our most intensely cherished aspiration (Kogălniceanu: 27; 116);
5 The neologism deziderat (desideratum) is not attested in N. A. Ursu and Despina Ursu, or in DER. This might imply the fact that the Romanian word deziderat was not in use at that time.
• (intensity and orientation in respect to the present tense) the ardent longing of the day (Kogălniceanu: 127);
• (predominantly past orientation) eternal longing (Kogălniceanu: 104; 116; 114);
• (future orientation) the promised land; the country’s expectations; we have to enforce the commandments of a law spelling a supreme necessity for life (Kogălniceanu: 27);
• (double orientation, to the past and the future) prophecy (Kogălniceanu: 32);
• (orientation in respect to others) the intense longing of Moldavia [uttered before the whole of Europe] (Kogălniceanu: 87; 108); sentiments that inspire the minds of our brothers living on the other side of the Milcov River (Kogălniceanu: 110).
Given the fact that the contextual presuppositions are numerous and the denominations of this entire political conglomerate are metaphorical as a rule – while also being of the generic type –, the discursive use of the metaphors is such as to fail in expressing in a sufficiently precise way the particular elements of the entire political gestalt it refers to6. The denominational system of the Union as a political concept in the period under study covers four semantic zones, has an extremely uniform distribution of the lexemes and the transfer from one field of signification to another is effected through certain borderline terms constituted by the lexical contribution of both zones:
the Union desire
wish zone
sacred zone
interest zonethe
emotional zone
emotion happiness longing aspiration in the general interest
national longing the most ardent desire heart-felt desire golden dream eternal longing salvationist longing everlasting desire
ardent necessity law, reform, change necessity pressing issue truth
way for prosperity gaining riches the common good gaining strength feelings
honour
honourable mission
sacred religion prophecy mission
ressurection (revival) creed
Fig.1
6 The loose metaphoric use of the concepts is specific to several functional styles, being quite frequent in legalese and in political discourse; it lies, among others, at the root of the controllable ambiguity effects and is responsible for the impression given to unwarned receivers that the sense is fluid or evanescent. Consequently, when pondering in the margin of the political discourse, the unexperienced, though benevolent, receiver may easily get the impression that the orator would know better what it’s all about!
The generic and at the same time metaphorical denominational system of the Union as a political concept advances from the conceptual zone of desire towards the interest semantic zone through the borderline term aspiration in the general interest (Kogălniceanu: 95; 223). But the major direction of conceptual development is from the wish zone towards the emotional zone, through the bridging terms heart-felt desire, the most ardent desire, golden dream (Kogălniceanu: 93; 249); it is from the same central wish-zone that another direction of signification appears: the direction of the sacred which makes itself felt through terms whose sense lies at the intersection of the two domains: eternal longing, salvationist longing, everlasting desire.
CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES AT THE METAPHORICAL EXPRESSION LEVEL
Understood as cognitive processes, conceptual tropes are discreetly reflected in the language and enter our discursive routines. For example, in the case of the metonymy of the toto pro pars kind, the trope goes unnoticed. (He hit me; Is America at war?)7 (Kövecses: 100).
Since they are not special stylistic aspects, but mechanisms of thinking, conceptual tropes – frequently appearing as catachreses − are a stable means for making notions more intuitively accessible and they give conventional form to the emotional overtones of the political concept(s) (Stefănescu, 2010)8. In the political discourse, conceptual metaphors represent a means of gaining access to the underlying social and discursive imaginary (Charreaudeau:162), which is, at the same time, a hidden source of inspiration which makes the text unfold, and the cause of the intuitive attraction exerted by the political text upon the receivers.
The studies about the conceptual metaphor have noticed its structural asymmetry. This has to do with the fact that, in accordance with a scenario which matches our physical and cultural experience, the developments of the target enrich the cognitive representation of the concept.9 A text that contained the metaphor of LIFE as being A JOURNEY may develop as follows: In his life’s journey he came upon all sorts of people and met with several snags on the way, but managed to
7 In addition, conceptual tropes may represent the only neutral way in which the denoted reality can be expressed (for which, see the need for a special context, a certain relationship with the interlocutor, so as to express the same state of facts He hit my chest with his fist).
8 This is one of the aspects connecting emotion to the conceptual metaphor. The other aspect, which does not concern us here has to do with the conceptual expression of the affect by conceptual metaphors (cf. FURY is a HGH TEMPERATURE; Lakoff / Johnson).
9 For example, the cognitive metaphor – LIFE is a JOURNEY – consists of a source, which is here an abstract entity (here, life), and a target, which is the concrete entity (journey). Other specific terms of the scenario are setting, cognitive model, scenario, script, cultural model, gestalt (cf.
Kövecses: 64).
pass them by. When he got to the end, he was happy and tired. In the examples we are about to give in what follows, we shall sometimes resort to sketching the development of a conceptual metaphor in M. Kogălniceanu’s discourses.
In the parliamentary discourses investigated, we have noticed two complementary situations that have a bearing upon the language of the texts. The first one is a situation in which we could sense a greater variation in the source when there existed convergence in the target; in other words, there were several abstractions represented through the same target, viz. by the same iconic element.
The convergence of the representations unifies the imagery of the discourse and confers it fluidity, since it introduces in the text a certain amount of repetitiveness in the imagery, though the images may represent different things for each of their occurrences.10 In the sources examined, the metaphor THE PERSON was used for rendering ten concepts more intuitively accessible: COUNTRY (with its lexicalizations country, principalities, nation, the Romanian people, Romania, the Romanian nationality), PROPERTY, THE CONGRESS OF PARIS, THE ELECTIVE ASSEMBLY, THE UNION, AUTONOMY, SOCIAL EVIL, IDEAS, CALUMNY, OPINION. By the same token, EDIFICE is the palpable representation of several concepts: REFORMS („the innerly reforms”), SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, UNION, NATIONALITY, SOCIETY, and THE FUTURE.
The second situation is one in which there is a great variety of representations of a single concept, in other words, it is a situation with a whole lot of diversity in the target and with convergence in the source. This includes the notion of the Union, which is structurally differentiated into several metaphors. The Union means DESIRE and A CROWN, both of these belonging to a PERSON who is situated AT THE END of A ROAD which represents A JOURNEY11; the Union is also A MARRIAGE12, A SUBSTANCE13, AN EDIFICE14, A PARADISE15,
10 A different behaviour of the trope is to be found in the artistic discourse, where the variety of the metaphors presupposes a great number of iconic targets corresponding to the same number of conceptual sources – even if the identification of the “notions that the metaphors stand in for” is not always easy, which creates a searching problem.
11 The aspiration “towards whose exquisite fulfilment the Convention of August the 7th is paving the way ” is the Union (Kogălniceanu: 108).
12 “The boons begotten through the union of these two peoples are not to be overlooked”
(M. Kogălniceanu, quoting from art. 425, chapt. IX of the code of organic regulations; in op. cit.: 28)
13 “We have voiced the truest aspirations of the country, of which the highest one that is now coursing in our veins... is the Union of the Principalities” (Kogălniceanu: 93).
14 “that all the foundations of our new edifice have been laid and, verily, on its gable is its name inscribed already” (Kogălniceanu: 110).
15 “Let us unite Moldavia with the Wallachian Principality, let us put up a big, sturdy fence around a sterile plot of land; o, may this place be fenced in – and then, even though it be not tilled and sowed with seeds, lo and behold! the winds will come this way and the birds of the sky and they shall bring the seed of blossoming trees and flowers on the wing; and soon will there spring here a flower, there, a little tree, at first, then the trees will grow and, in the shade of the undergrowth, we shall smell flowers and we shall have a big, beautiful orchard growing; birds will be heard singing in the trees
GOD’S OWN VOICE; also, it can be compared with A SHEAF OF (tied) STICKS16. The more complex the political concept, the more up to date and the greatest its argumentative role, the more it is conceptualized in various ways – in short – the more numerous its representations, the greater its iconic targets.
Stylistically speaking, the multitude of representations of a single abstract notion brings a larger iconic variety to the cases of conceptual convergence17 (cf. fig. 2a,b).
The country The Idea The Union
The Elective Assembly BEING
Property Calumny The Idea Social Evil
Fig. 2a
The country The aspiration The edifice Marriage
The union The sheaf of sticks
Paradise God's voice The end of the road
SUBSTANCE
Fig. 2b
and people will make merry under the cool bowers, giving grace to God and to the kings blessings”
Kogălniceanu: 34).
16 “[ Unionists] make firm stay – for they are like to several sticks which, being tied together, cannot be torn easily, as they would be, if they were kept asunder” (Kogălniceanu: 52).
17 Yet another example is the metaphor of the HIGH TEMPERATURES which apply to concepts from the sphere of emotions, standing for INVOLVEMENT (Kogălniceanu, cf. Sources: 4), REVOLT (Kogălniceanu, cf. Sources: 4), PROTEST (Kogălniceanu, cf. Sources: 4) AND PATRIOTISM (Kogălniceanu, cf. Sources: 4).
The reason why a concept is analogically represented in a complex way, through several cognitive metaphors, is that each iconic representation says something different about the notion, and the entire metaphorical class has a structuring role for the concept. The metaphor of desire / aspiration is, for the Union, subordinated to a metaphor that has priority: the metaphor of THE PERSON, thus establishing a coherence link with another central category of the discourses, namely the idea of the country, of the Principalities, of the nation (the country is a human being, it has a strong desire – namely the Union).
The end of the road metaphor – an extension of the metaphor of the journey – evokes the beloved person who is there where the traveller is led on his way; it is, therefore, part of a conceptual scenario, possibly one that implies idealized love and which is applied here to the notion of the country, that – as we saw earlier – is metaphorically seen as a being (see fig. 2a). Other occurrences of the metaphor support the idea that this trope is subordinated, rather, to the scenario evoked by the metaphor of the person – which means it pertains to the conceptual imaginary of a country seen as A PERSON – not as an autonomous trope for the historical notion of the Union.
THE ACTIVE ZONES OF THE IDEAL COGNITIVE MODEL
The condition for a metaphor being successful is, according to G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, that it should contribute to comprehending one aspect of the concept.
Metaphors develop discursively in keeping with the referential components of the target. In the subjacently created representations we should not look for logic but for overall coherence. This creates a universe of signification that is analogous and parallel with the discursive signification in the foreground. Thus, then, is the concept COUNTRY expressed by the metaphor of THE PERSON that has a heart which „beats like the heart of a single man craving for rights, for nationality, for the Union”, which „leaps with enthusiasm” at this thought; its desire is for the Union; it is a person „downtrodden by all the peoples”; it has just shed „the agony of past evils” (Kogălniceanu: 32; 33); the Principalities are „two daughters of the same archetypal mother” (Kogălniceanu: 119); and when „at the head of the country” a caimacam was appointed (and here the allusion is to Nicolae Vogoride), this was received as “ a smack that Moldavia had never forgotten” (Kogălniceanu:
119). Similarly, the country „has a sense” that things are not as they should be and
„longs” for a radical social transformation, but how this could be brought about
„she is unable to tell us” and „she is not ready for reforms” (Kogălniceanu: 51).
But the Principalities are „thirsting for legitimacy, stability and national dignity”
(Kogălniceanu: 107).
Heart, face, thought, body, malady, begotten (daughters), the sensation of thirst and a whole range of sentiments (longing, enthusiasm, sense of loss, uncertainty, sufferance, humiliation) are some active zones of the person metaphor applied to the country as a notion. Thus is it that a certain image of the concept is configured in the discourses – with the dysphoric affect given pride of place. To these is added the metaphor of the tree. The Principalities are „two branches on the same bole” (Kogălniceanu: 119) – which implies the idea of unity. Consequently, the very notion of the Union can hardly have a logical character in this discursive space, since it does not indicate a sum or a logical conjunction, but is constructed as a natural, genetic unity. Those zones are activated in the target which, in view of their trans-discursive correspondence, create the implicature of the urgent satisfaction of expectations, in other words, the implicature of the need to complete the given situation in order to replace the dysphoric range of sentiments by their opposite. The legs, arms, neck, shoulders and womb, in lieu of the head, heart, soul and thinking, hunger instead of thirst – which are zones capable of being activated in the target of this cognitive metaphor – would have had more difficulty in being associated with the range of dysphoric sentiments above mentioned; consequently, it would have been more difficult to become coherent in respect to the semantic logic of the completable state entailed by all this metaphorical representation and in respect to the metaphor of desire, the most frequent metaphor in Kogălniceanu’s discourses of this period.
The metaphor of the country oppressed by its wretched state, but entertaining full hopes of regeneration is answered, in an echo, by the Biblical metaphor of the Romanian people resembling Lazarus come back from the dead (Kogălniceanu:
119). The tightness of the analogy even lends to the sequence the status of an allegory18.
THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE METAPHORICAL REPRESEN- TATIONS CAN BRING ABOUT MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONCEPTS
Previously, we have spoken about the following aspects:
(a) Related concepts have the tendency to be represented by the same target (cf. the REFORMS, the POLITICAL SITUATION, the SOCIETY and the NATIONALITY are an EDIFICE) (Kogălniceanu: 84; 86);
18 The „Romanian” people is the „new Lazarus”, having lain asleep „for threescore ten years”
a prey to „sleep as unfathomably deep as death”. The Treaty of Paris, which is „the new saviour”, summoned him with these words: „Arise and follow me.” and Lazarus rose, shedding the „shrouds away from himself” and emerged as „a young nation, full of life and brimming with futurity”
(Kogălniceanu: 33).
(b) the iconic convergences and divergences;
(c) the process of activation of some special zones from the ideal cognitive model. This last phenomenon is responsible for the capacity of metaphors to
“echo” each other, in other words to become coherent. For instance, the political and social wrights are the clothes which had been torn off form a body. The conuntry is the person who suffered this.
During this „camouflaged” syntagmatic assortment, which sometimes covers very large discursive expanses, it is possible to get modifications of concepts. For example, a conceptual approximation obtains between the abstract notion of the Union and the notions of dignity, legitimacy or stability – owing to the fact that they are represented iconically in a similar way, as SUBSTANCES:
the Union „has impregnated our national blood” (Kogălniceanu: 93) and the
„dignity”, legitimacy and stability can „quench the thirst of our country”
(Kogălniceanu: 107). The tendency is to associate them even further, we have full liberty to associate them in view of their mode of representation. In the taxonomical order, we witness the changes appearing in the distances among concepts – resulting in the flexibilization of some concepts – here, the flexibilization of the socio-political Union concept. In this way, the Union as a concept originating in an intrinsically logical formation, comes closer, in M.
Kogălniceanu’s discursive universe, to a moral value: to dignity, and it becomes especially appealing to the imagination. We measure the distances among notions by means of the inferences which can be established between them. The Union, the most logical of the concepts, presupposes the idea of conjunction between at least two entities – which has prompted us to consider that it is situated at one of the poles of the cline upon which all the other concepts are placed in gradual succession. On entering a space of historical and political deliberation, the abstract notion of two equal entities uniting suffers a first flexibilization of its abstract sense. This flexibilization is discussed, exhibited and valorized when it is subjected to the ideologization of the concept. From a social and political perspective, the immediately following abstraction after the Union is legitimacy.
A strong inference relationship obtains between the two of them. Stability is a direct implication of legitimacy, and dignity is possibly a weak discourse implicature of stability.
UNION → (strong inference) LEGITIMACY → (inference) STABILITY → (weak inference i.e. implicature) DIGNITY
Fig. 3a
Fig. 3b
The similar metaphorical representation of these four notions, as SUBSTANCES, makes the distances between them become tenuous, and it makes insignificant their taxonomical disposition. In addition, if we take into consideration the fact that the most frequent metaphor for the Union is the desire one, we can see that the emotional potential of the the concept is huge, and that this abstraction is as it were
„watter-logged” with emotion. Thus, the flexibilization and plasticization of the Union as a notion in M. Kogălniceanu’s discourse follows variegated paths: it is effected by conceptual metaphors and by the occultation of the links within the taxonomical hierarchy in which the concept is accomodated.
THE WISHFUL THINKING TYPE OF ARGUMENTATION
Conceptual metaphors are one modality of understanding, representing and making imaginatively accessible or plastic an abstraction about which, in some cases, we cannot talk literally, but only indirectly, through lexicalization, with words that are not literally used (Lakoff / Johnson). The question as to whether there are any concepts which we can understand otherwise than analogically, namely without the mechanism of the metaphor, only through experience and direct comprehension, has received a rather negative answer – since it has been shown that any experience is cultural as well (Lakoff / Johnson). Notions such as country, principalities, Union, property a.s.o. are cultural gestalts - and we see the cultural level as hierarchically superior to the political; also, the cultural gestalt preferably, and for the sake of expressive economy, lends itself to metaphorically conceptual expression. We do not want to say either that the Union of the Principalities which was, for the political elites of that period, the dominant political notion, modern and recent only found analogical expression. On the contrary, it has a richly literal expression – which is the equivalent of the ideology underlying the action. We have already shown above, in a schematic way, what the
de facto act of Union presupposed. In an unwavering manner, M. Kogălniceanu calls everybody’s attention to the Union and installs it ideologically in several discourses. The political space of the time proves to be very complex: it is both a producer of ideas and symbolic values, and an implementing agency (Charraudeau:
235−237).
In view of the fact that the political gestalt of the Union in the course of the year 1857 met many of the conditions imposed, and since it was possible to envisage the fulfillment of the act, the desiderative thought mechanism can be detected under different forms, first of all in the form of the desire denomination – where this metaphor has an intensive value, expressing the idea of a state open to its immediate fulfillment. Yet another form, maybe not one of the most important, but quite symptomatic for our discussion here, is that of the wishful thinking strategy. As a way of presenting political gestalts, the argumentative movement of the wishful thinking type is characteristic primarily for a political space bent on imposing ideas; but in our case not all the conditions are certain. Here are a number of wishful thinking expressions: „I am fully confident that the executive board has done everything in its power to mediate this issue” (Kogălniceanu: 46); „Therefore, Gentlemen, I believe that I am not deceived in respect to your sentiments if I launch a protest in the name of the whole Assembly” (Kogălniceanu: 47); „I shall retain my faith and hope that my idea will triumph” (Kogălniceanu: 52); „If – in recognition to my efforts for the benefit of my country – history will retain two lines’s worth of records in my honour, I am sure it will do me justice in saying that I have never been in rebellion, but that I have always desired, and I am still desirous to secure order through progress” (Kogălniceanu: 84).
The optimistic view that he projected over the course of events – here regarding the act of Union and its realization and everything connected to it – could almost prompt us to say that he was placing between brackets the time factor in a kind of populist strategy. But this is not the case here. Kogălniceanu’s perspective was not restricted to formulations like the one above – but it promoted a political gestalt which had been under way for some time and was grounded in an ample, variegated axiological system and in a series of principles that enabled him to build a strategy whereby he was couching the members of the political class so as to boost their sense of responsibility; also, he was helping them to develop towards what we could term the strategy of understanding the adversary. We can therefore state that in M. Kogălniceanu we have to do with a wishful thinking formator.
In what follows, we shall make quick reference to the principles of M. Kogălniceanu’s behaviour rooted in desiderata and creeds. Starting from the general idea that politics is the art of addressing an as large audience as applicable, winning its members over and making them adhere to one’s own ideas (Charradeau: 187), the formulations which indicate that the adversary has been fully understood are meant to reassure people: „I can understand the concerns of those who are opposed to the 9th article” (referring to the granting of rights to denizens whose religion is Christian”; (Kogălniceanu: 52); „I can understand, therefore, this gentleman’s hostility to me” (Kogălniceanu: 83).
M. Kogălniceanu also resorted to a more complex tactical move than the preceding one, namely to the responsibilization of the political class. With this in view, he set out to build a discourse of tradition evoking a golden age in history by contrast to a history of grievances. The topos of the apostolic mission of the political class appears quite frequently. „We feel called upon to make reform.”, just as the Apostles were called by the Saviour to spread faith (Kogălniceanu: 51); „The prophecy is about to come true” (Kogălniceanu: 33), a prophecy that the voyvod Stephen the Great made on his deathbed; „the Union is God’s voice”, and when God wills a nation’s good, he sends the nation „enthousiasmus”; this enthousiasm along with the „energy and prudence of the men of state” will empower us and we shall see „the land of promise”. At the same time, he said, the politicians of the day will be able to give advice to future generations,”though dead” and from their tombs (Kogălniceanu: 120−121).
In addition to the topos of the apostolic mission of the political class, the consensus strategy appears quite strongly marked in his discourses. Sometimes the appeal to agree is made in the name of an underlying argument of the wishful thinking type, in which the effect of optimism is due to a mystical certitude which says that „what was not possible for men to achieve, God will be able to achieve”
(Kogălniceanu: 423). Political discourse resorts to further things than injunctions meant to secure agreement: it provides examples that lead to the imaginary universe of tradition. The Romanian political and historical imaginary considers that the element which has the strongest cohesive function is sufferance. Tiny identities divide people19, and so does the strident pealing of the so-called „belfry patriotism”20, but sufferance solders different people’s conscience. In the same register, in the order of the natural elements, waters divide – and see here the Romanian symbolic power of the Milcov or Prut Rivers, for example –; mountains make bridges, have uniting and saving power, they even have the function of „a tabernacle”, just like Noah’s Ark, that gave shelter to our people during the invasions of barbarian tribes (Kogălniceanu, cf. Sources: 5; Boia 145−177). The fact that M. Kogălniceanu demands that the headquarters of the Central Commission – the main instrument of administrative unification – be in Focşani, a locality situated on the Milcov River, is more than emblematic for a political period characterised by profound changes in the political and social domain, but also manifest changes in the conceptual and imaginary domain.
19 “Gentlemen, let us not permit narrow-minded ideas lead as down a narrow path. The belfry patriotism with its strident pealing was responsible for the loss of many a renowned country. Greece fell because its citizens would not unite under its fluttering standard that could recall the glory of ancient Greece. They preferred to stick to their own habit of fighting each other being just Spartans, Athenians or Thebans.” (Kogălniceanu: 53)
20 This speaks of a political position strictly founded on Orthodoxism and Romanianism, a position conducive to the fear of losing one’s national character should political rights be granted to all the Christian denizens. This term could be seen to have a further historically contextual sense in M. Kogălniceanu’s discourses.
CONCLUSIONS
Ideology develops the political concept of the Union, and the parliamentary discourse renders it more imaginatively appealing, by creating usual metaphors and reducing the distances among this kind of discourse and the emotional zone. The powerful emotional charging of the central notions – two of which we have referred to here, the idea of the Union of the Principalities and the idea of the country –, the recourse to the imaginary of tradition and to universal values, together with the need of promoting modernity, all these are markers of a Romantic kind of political discourse.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berindei, D., 2009, Portrete istorice ale românilor. Domni, regi, eroi, cărturari, oameni politici, literaţi, Bucureşti, Compania.
Boia, L., 1997, Istorie şi mit în conştiinţa românească, Bucureşti, Humanitas.
Charaudeau, P., 2005, Le discours politique. Les masques du pouvoire, Paris, Vuibert.
Kövecses, Z. (ed.), 2006, Language, Mind, and Culture. A Practical Introduction, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.
Ciorănescu, Al., 2002, Dicţionarul etimologic al limbii române, [DER], Tudora Şandru Mehedinţi, Magadlena Popescu Marin (ed.), Bucureşti, Editura Saeculum I. O.
Lakoff, G., M. Johnson, 1980, Les métaphores dans la vie quotidienne, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit.
Manea, D., 2001, Structura semantico-sintactică a verbului românesc. Verbele psihologice, Bucureşti, Arhiepiscopia Romano-Catolică de Bucureşti.
Ştefănescu, A., 2010, “Emoţie şi impoliteţe în discursul şi interdiscursul condamnării trecutului comunist totalitar din România”, in Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu (ed.), Dialog, discurs, enunţ.
In memoriam Sorin Stati, Bucureşti, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.
Ursu, N. A., D. Ursu, 2006, Împrumutul lexical în procesul modernizării limbii române literare. II.
Repertoriu de cuvinte şi forme, Iaşi, Editura Cronica.
Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, K. Liebhart, 2009, The Discursive Construction of National Identity, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
SOURCES A.
Kogălniceanu, Mihail, 1974, Opere, I, Dan Simionescu (ed.), Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
Kogălniceanu, Mihail, 1983, Opere, III, Oratorie I, 1856−1864, Vladimir Diculescu (ed.), Dan Beridei (introduction), Bucureşti, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România.
B.
[The Editorial Programme of the Newspaper] „Stéoa Dunării”, the 1st Octobre 1855, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, I, p. 233−238.
„The Aspirations of the Country in Respect to the Future Organization of the Romanian Principalities” (Dorinţele ţării asupra viitoarei organizaţii a Principatelor Române”), the session of October the 7th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 25−31.
„On the Union of the Principalities” (Discurs asupra Unirii Principatelor), the session of October the 7th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 32−34.
„Discourse about the Weighty Problems that Are to Be Solved by the Assembly” (Discurs cu privire la problemele mari ce trebuiesc rezolvate de către Adunare”), the session of October the18th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 37−39.
„Discourse on the Confiscation of the Assembly «Bulletin» by the Government („Discurs cu privire la confiscarea de către guvern a «Buletinului» Adunării”), the session of November the 9th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 46−48.
„Discourse on the Granting of Rights to the Denizens” (Discurs cu privire la acordarea de drepturi politice pământenilor”), the session of November 12th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 50−66.
„Speech about the Issues to be Debated in the Assembly” („Intervenţie cu privire la problemele ce trebuiesc luate în discuţie de către Adunare”) the session of November 18th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 66−68.
„Discourse on the Relationships between the Tenants and Landlords” („Discurs privind relaţiile dintre ţărani şi proprietari”), the session of December the 18th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 83−92.
„Speech on the Diplomatic Notes Sent by the Sublime Porte, bringing charges against the Assembly and for Sending a Letter of Thanks to the Great Powers for their Attitude to the Romanian Principalities” („Interventie în legătură cu notele diplomatice trimise de Înalta Poartă, în care se acuză Adunarea, şi „and şi cu trimiterea unei adrese de mulţumire către marile puteri pentru atitudinea pe care o au faţă de Principate”) the session of December the 20th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 92−93.
„Discourse on Improving the Living Conditions of the Monastic Laymen and of the Body- Ecclesiastic” („Discurs cu privire la îmbunătăţirea situaţiei clerului mirean şi monahal”), the session of December the 20th, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 93−102.
„Record of the Minutes of the Assembly Closing Session and of the Public Thanks for the Warranting Powers” („Actul de încheiere a lucrărilor Adunării şi de recunoştinţă către puterile garante”), the session of December, the 21st, 1857, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 102−105.
„Address in Support to the MP Mandate of Prince Grigore Sturdza ” („Intervenţie în care susţine valabilitatea mandatului de deputat al prinţului Grigore Sturdza”), session of December the 31st, 1858, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 106.
„Appeal to Be Erased from the List of Monarchical Candidates” („Cerere de a fi şters din lista candidaţilor la domnie”), the session of January the 3rd, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 107−108.
„Petition to the Assembly to Make Inquiries about the Opportunity of the Moment for the Union”
(„Petiţie prin care cere Adunării să cerceteze dacă momentul este oportun pentru Unire”), the session of January the 4th, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 108−109.
„Proposal / Petition Demanding that the Romanian Monarch and the Central Committee Do the Utmost to Unite the Principalities” („Prounere în care cere ca domnul şi Comitetul central să facă toate eforturile în vederea Unirii Principatelor”), the session of January the 4th, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 109−112.
„Discourse on the Day of Alexandru Ioan Cuza’s Election” („Discurs la alegerea lui Alexandru Ioan Cuza”), the session of January the 5th, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 112−114.
„Address to the Elective Assembly of Bucharest, Proposing to Summon the National Assemblies at Focsani” („Adresă către Adunarea electivă din Bucureşti în care propune întrunirea Adunărilor la Focşani”), the session of January the 28th, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 116−117.
„Response Addressed to the Crown in Response to the Message Issued” („Adresa de răspuns la mesajul tronului”), the session of January the 28th, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 114−116.
„Discourse to the Elective Assembly of Bucharest Subsequent to the Election of the Monarch Alexandru Ioan Cuza” („Discurs ţinut în faţa Adunării elective din Bucureşti după alegerea domnitorului Alexandru Ioan Cuza”), the session of February 17th, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p. 118−121.
„Discourse on Article 1 of the Constitution Draft” („Discurs referitor la art. 1 din proiectul de Constituţie”), the session of July the 31st, 1859, in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Opere, III, p.
146−154.
