Universidad de Chile

Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades

Licenciatura en Lengua y Literatura Inglesas
Discourse Analysis
Prof. Ana Burdach
October 16th, 2020
Analysis of visual representation in Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have A Dream”
Ana Peña
Linda Tapia
Marlenne Huilcaman

Abstract
The current essay presents Theo Van Leeuwen Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of Martin
Luther King's speech "I Have a Dream” in socio-political context. The study investigates how it
lies on the basis of application of Van Leuween version of CDA in the speech focusing on the
visual representations of discursive displays and social actions, and how they influenced the
speech's delivery. In detail, the paper will highlight King’s discourse context of production,
reactions, scenario, and all kinds of material actions to build his famous perception of identity,
relationship, and politics. Along those lines, it develops terms like social, cultural and political
inequalities in the light of text and framework.
Keywords​: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Social Actors, Social Actions, Visual
representation, Socio- Political perspective, Racial discrimination.

Problem statement and reason for doing the analysis

Many authors agreed that discourse is not only a communication tool but a device to spread
and defend the ideology of someone or a group of people. Along that line, a speaker manages to
generate particular purposes through voice quality effects, facial expression, postural gestural
systems, and the social environment. One of the main reasons for doing this research is that we
consider Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) not only focused on linguistic elements, but also
concerned with the context behind the discourse. Therefore, during this study we will focus on the
social processes and practices presented in speeches in light of ​Theo Van Leeuwen Critical
Discourse Analysis​. In other words, we aim to address the role of visual representation in
discourse and social life.
In order to do so, we decided to analyze Martin Luther King’s "I have a dream" discourse,
which has been considered one of the greatest speeches of all time. The speech came in a period
of racial tension of political turmoil when blacks or “negro” were discriminated by the U.S.
government. The speech was delivered in honor of the Lincoln memorial on August 28, 1963 in
front of ​250,000 people at the 63’ march on Washington for jobs and freedom with goals such as:
desegregated public schools and redress of violations of constitutional rights. The core of King’s
speech was to claim for a peaceful coexistence between black and the white citizens of America,
along with the wish of repositioning the blacks into the American society in a non-violent way.
1
 Martin Luther King’s speech “I Have a Dream” has been analyzed repeatedly. However, visual
representation features of discourse analysis have not been further applied to this speech. There
are several aspects considered non purely linguistic that worked together to make this speech one
of the most listened thought the history, for instance: ​the social distance (keeping the audience
close or away), the social relation or how his position reflects power over the audience, the social
interaction he maintained with the audience, the individualization or generalizing of the audience,
the dress code or categorization according to the audience and speaker’s culture, the exclusion of
things when the speech is delivered, among several others. ​Moreover, we believe it is worthy of
lengthy study as we can, on the one hand, learn speech writing skills, and on the other hand,
develop a model of context-dependent relations in which the contribution of non-linguistic actions
shape the entire units of discourse.
Finally, the CDA of the selected speech highlights the relationship between visual
representations and ideology construction. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to make
clear how Martin Luther King managed to spread his voice and become a national emblem in
front of Washington DC and, in this manner, he challenged Americans’ black role in the country.
The analysis of the study relies heavily on the persuasive nature of the speech. Thus, expose the
way King stimulates the audience by using others aspects besides language to acknowlege
freedom and fight against the racial discrimination.
Based on the background of the study presented, we formulate the following research problems:
How important are visual representations in Martin Luther King speeches? Is the ideology
presented in Martin Luther King's speech framed through social actions or actors? How do
notions like ​exclusion, roles, specific and generic, individuals and groups, and categorization are
presented in MLK speech? Research questions and objectives are detailed in the following
section.

Research question​(s)
1. Is the delivery of the speech by Martin Luther King meant to promote certain ideologies?
2. How does Luther King, as an influential change agent, encourage or not a positive
discourse to their listeners? What visual markers are used as tools to achieve the
objective?
Objectives (General and Specific):
General objective:
1. To analyze through the viewpoint of Critical Discourse Analysis the speech delivered by
Martin Luther King at the Lincoln Memorial.
Specific objectives:
1. To apply the perspective of Theo Van Leeuwen in relation to the perpetuation of social
actors through visual representation, in the context of Critical Discourse Analysis.
2. To identify markers that may shred light on how social actors are realized through a
certain discourse.

2
Theoretical background
The framework we are going to use is “Visual representations and social actors” of Van
Leuween (2008) that is a chapter of “Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse
analysis”, an adaptation of his own work. For practical purposes regarding the extension of the
present work, we are going to summarize the main points provided in Van Leuween (2008)
theory.
The different interactions between written text and image are described from Van
Leuween (2008) as complementary but not equally influential: “Semiotic divisions of labor are
historically and contextually specific. (...) visualizations are seen as the most complete and
explicit way of explaining things, and words become supplements (...) .Elsewhere, visualization
remains pervasive". Thus, the central point is played by the visual representation of discourse.
Van Leuween also portrays the interpretation of the relationship between Discourse and
visualizations from a more concrete view, providing us an illustrative example: "In newspapers,
the words tell us what the politicians did, the images, capturing a fleeting moment, show them, for
instance, as either vigorous and in control, or slumped back, seemingly defeated” (Hall, 1982;
quoted by Van Leuween, 2008).
Quoting to Roland Barthes’ works (1973-’77), Van Leuween described how the lens
shows what was actually at moment they were captured in an image, yet those images can be
interpreted by different viewers, however, visual images bring their own type of associations
depending of their geographical origin as popular values, and ideas of the culture which are
interpreted by the viewers without the producer intervention as it is illustrated by Van Leuween
(2008) in the example provided where a cover of a journal showing variety of races was
something without value for a person but a dream of inclusion for a minority. (Barthes, 1973;
quoted by Van Leuween, 2008).
Regarding the relation between the people in the image and viewer, Van Leuween (2008)
described them in 3 categories: Social distance, social relation, and social interaction. The first
one entails the sense of closeness according to the amount of distance that is portrayed within two
or more people, being the “closer friends or dearest” and thus, people will keep their distance with
persons they are not familiar with, or that do not trust them. The second category is social relation
and deals with power. Consequently, if someone is in a higher position or looking someone down
it represents a degree of power compared to the others: horizontal position or face to face
interactions exhibit a similar status relation. Finally, the third categorization refers to social
relations and the interaction within the one that is behind the lens. Here, if the speaker looks right
to the lens, the interaction with the audience is stronger, meanwhile, if the speaker does not gaze
upon the audience, it could represent they were “offered to our gaze as a spectacle for our
dispassionate scrutiny” (Van Leuween, 2008).
In regards to this, three main aspects play an important role, which are: distance, angle and
gaze; these 3 aspects are combined to show the level of exclusion. Following this idea, there are

3
three different strategies: distanciation, —not like us, use of distance—; disempowerment—below
us—, and objectivation—for our scrutiny. (Van Leeuwen, 2008) .
The author also analyses “Visual representations and social actors by depicting people
which entails five sublevels of analysis which are: exclusion, roles, specific and generic,
individuals and groups, and categorization. Exclusion deals with not including some type of
people for racial, believes, or any other differences from picture or image. The concept of roles
analyses the situation by who is the agent and the action, which can be something rooted by
cultural or for discriminating reasons as it is demonstrated in the Van Leuween example where a
black child “is being baptized: this was common in the many pictures of missionary activities
which used to circulate, and perhaps still do in certain circles”, portraying how the agent and the
passive state is attributed depending on social prejudices. Specific and generic viewpoints deal
with how the representations are made, if they represent the individual or a group of people. A
trending example that is quite adequate nowadays would be all the Mapuches are socially
resented or just one person who happens to be Mapuche is resented about something in Chilean
society context. Van Leuween (2008) expressed this as a key factor for racial discriminational
discourse. Individuals and groups category of study refers to how you can differentiate within a
group of people or make them alike. It is explained and exemplified by Van Leuween (2008)
when he stated that "In the Gulf War photographs, it was often the posing of the soldiers which
homogenized them and diminished individual differences''. The final categorization is the
standard attributes that carry items of dress or hairdo as head scarves and hijabs. Thus, clothes or
hair items that are attributed to a culture conveys the values of it, positive or negative.
Besides this, we are going to employ two different types of strategy analysis used for the
same author, being one of them exclusion from “representing social actors”. Exclusion, one of the
several factors Van Leuween (2008) studied, are the elements not mentioned on a text that for
different reasons are considered as irrelevant information or data that is already known either as
strategies to set up a vision of the world (positive or negative) or protect someone’s reputation.
The author expressed that backgrounding, which is another form of realizing exclusion, deals with
giving partial information, but other is avoided and then the reader has to infer what is missing,
yet, we cannot be sure about it. (Van Leuween, 2008). On the other hand, the second type is
focused on the text: generalization and individualization that deals with how the participants are
mentioned in the text by grouping them or by individualizing them which enable the readers a
grade of value as it is explained by Van Leuween (2008): “In middle-class-oriented newspapers,
government agents and experts tend to be referred to specifically, and “ordinary people”
generically (...). In working-class-oriented newspapers, on the other hand, “ordinary people “are
frequently referred to specifically”.(Van Leeuwen, 2008). That is, the manner we portray a group
or individuality affects the effect of a certain discursive instance.

Methodology

4
 In this qualitative case study, we wondered if the visual images in the video of the speech
“I have a dream” of Martin Luther King had some impact in his worldwide spreading ideology.
Thus, to be able to analyze this speech with efficiency, we selected a section of the whole video
we considered to be the most representative in base to what was portrayed and said in the video,
after that we analyzed what was reflected in the video and contrasted with the speech itself.
Hereunder we will summarize method of analyze, and data collection by listing them as it
follows:

1. Data information: I have a dream speech’s video by Martin Luther King in Washington, USA,
1963.
a. Time of the section selected of the video: from the minute 5:25 to the minute 6:00
b. Source: it was obtained from 2k studios’ YouTube channel

2. Analyzing method: It was used Visual representations and social actors’ theory created by
Van Leuween (2008) which had two types of perspectives:
a. The image and viewer interactive viewpoint which includes three factors:
​i. ​Social distance or how people show how much they are comfortable around

other persons by keeping them close or away.

​ii. ​Social relation or how the person position reflects power positions by being in a

horizontal or eye’s potion.

​iii. Social interaction or how is the interaction between the audience and the one

who is being focused by lens interact by the use of the same lend interaction with
the person that is in front of it.
b. Depicting people that entails 5 factors:
​i.​ ​Exclusion, which focus on the missing person in the image.

​ii.​ ​Roles, which basically means who is affected by the action and did the action.

iii. Specific and Generic, this characteristic points out to the individualization or
generalizing people.
​iv. ​Individuals and groups which are basically focused on if the researcher can

set people apart in the image or all of them are blurred together.
​v. ​Categorization or the way in which people categorize other individuals by

order of how they dress, and hairdos they use according to their culture (It usually
is generated for a cultural confrontation which was being set up by appearances).

3. Another type of analysis was needed in this research that was aimed at the speech which was
taken from “social actors framework” of Van Leuween (2008), however, for purposes of this
analysis we only selected two of various categories for studying social actors. The selected
elements to analyse were as it follows:

a. Exclusion or what was missing in the text, and

5
 b. Genericization and Specification or how people are described by means of classes
or as individuals.
One of the main problems of the study was narrowing down the aspects to evaluate as well
as what section and length of the video would be more efficient to approach given that for reasons
of time we were not able to analyze the whole video, and as a consequence of this, we would like
to encourage to other researchers to study if what is portrayed in the background of a speech as
visual image aided the message for the speaker or contradicted it. It would be a quite interesting
area to research in this day and age where we are bombarded by visual images with sounds the
whole time.

Results and Analysis

In general terms, the "I have a dream" discourse by Martin Luther King is highly likely to
be interpreted through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis. It has a crucial role in culture since
it can be considered as a representation of the aspirations of millions of people around the globe
who aimed to achieve an equal society. In order to enrich the discussion, Van Leuween's
perspective on the visual representation offered interesting viewpoints of this highly referred
speech.
Firstly, social distance from a literal point of view is overall as expected with certain
differences in certain contexts of delivering the speech. The speaker is above his public mainly
for practical purposes in order to reach a large audience, accompanied by various men who are
mainly dressed the same and overall, they share a race. This group is placed at the same level that
Luther King and in general, they seemed to be an homogeneous group who gives the unity sense
to the discourse. Symbolically, this is potentially useful to achieve the intended atmosphere: while
Luther King is the voice of individuals who seek recognition, they are all the same when it comes
to human rights and empathy. Indeed, close interactions such as hugs can be observed throughout
the visual imagery of the discourse as a reaction of unity among the immediate hearers of the
discursive instance, which may be a clear indication of the short level of distance between them
expressed there and obeying to that specific context. When referring to social relations, the angle
of the camera remains nucleus. In this specific discourse, the use of the camera angle is stable: the
portrayal of Martin Luther King is horizontal and he is never focused from a higher or lower
level. The sense of the speech then is well reached and accompanied by this decision. When we
watched the video, we identified an emission of a message from a group being represented
horizontally, not an individuality highlighting himself. The third crucial aspect is social
interaction, which is often related to the amount of visual encounters the speechmaker does and
how in this way he is involving us. Particularly, MLK delivered the discourse looking to the mass
of people who were listening to him. This direct way of social interaction creates a logic of union
of an oppressed group interacting with a representative figure, while the other level of spectators
is left outside of the picture.

6
 From the minute 5:25 to 6:00 and regarding the three factors above, we can note certain
features in relation to distance, angle use and social interaction. First, social distance can be
labeled as close as the members and therefore, hearers of the speech are sharing space while
assisting the discourse. All of them are close to each other. Indeed, MLK is not alone or separated
from the mass, as he is in companion with a number of men that are placed next to him. The use
of the angle is key: in the first seconds the camera is focused in Luther King, while it slowly starts
to go up to the sky and finally in order to focus on the people listening to him and their reactions.
The concentration of the camera on individuals horizontally gives us the sense of unity of
thousands of different types of people for the same reason: equality. In addition to this, there is a
strong connection in terms of visual interaction between the public and MLK. In this part, the
delivery of the speech is accompanied by images of the public and the signs they are carrying
expressing approval to what he is saying. Overall, there can be observed people from all walks of
life, which support the message given by Martin Luther King.
In relation to the five sublevels of analysis proposed by Van Leuween, exclusion can be
fruitfully analyzed from a description of the people who appear in the minute 5:25 to 6:00 of the
video, we can appreciate that within the close circle that appears with Luther King there is
possible to assume a level of exclusion towards white people, even when they appeared within the
public, although, they seemed to be few within them, this may be explained for being a black
movement which was little by little reaching white people sympathy. Also, this movement is
aimed to reach equality, but it is impossible to dismiss the fact that there is a tendency to attack a
certain race compared to the reality of others. In complement with this, roles as they were
understood by Van Leuween (2008) cannot be appreciated in the fragment of the video, however,
we can say that there is a role of communicator of Luther King, supported by the ones belonging
to his inner circle who spreaded this message, and the receptors of the message who was a variety
people with different backgrounds and life experiences. It was quite interesting to see how the
category of specific and generic could be put in use in this scene because it could not be
appreciated as a racist use of it given that there were black faces in the background who lost focus
in comparison with Luther king. Due to the context, it may be interpreted as a uniformity in terms
of equality, and as a reinforcement of the message rather than the usual message of their lack of
importance, thus, according Van Leuween (2008) they should not be in foreground, but in this
case, being in the background does not mean to be valueless. Same explanation can be done for
individuals and groups, however, here we have to the say that, even though the men behind
Luther King are uniformed using proudly kufus, an African white hat (​AHMADU, 2005) and they
do not seem to be blurred with the other people, they are showed as their own person who
impulsed the idea, and message that black people are invidious and not soulless bodies used for
hard work. Then, categorization is present, but it is not supporting the reinforcement of prejudices
related to black communities nor exaggerating them. Instead, it often reflects the variety of
members participating in the discourse. In addition, for the Luther King’s speech we could say
that individualization highlighted the message of “I have a dream”, as according Van Leuween's

7
theory, individualization is used for expressing the idea that not all of them are equals, not all of
them are bad people, and finally for the black people using their traditional hairdo shows
appreciation by their roots, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of, then it reinforced the
feeling of cultural pertinence.
In sum, Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech has a great potential to be analyzed
through the Van Leuween's Critical Discourse Analysis point of view. In terms of visual
representation, it clearly serves a clear objective: unity. This state of meaning is supported in
social tools such as distance, interaction and distance, complemented by the five subsections of
analyses presented before. Particularly, this influential speech uses the visualization as a tool to
achieve its communicative purpose efficiently, thus allowing itself to create a consistent visual
atmosphere for the deliverance of the message.

Conclusion
In order to summarize the analysis of the "I have a dream speech" of Martin Luther King,
we state that visual representation plays a main role with the deliverance of the discourse, being
crucial when focusing on the effects that the particular speech has had until this day and age. We
mainly concentrated on the Van Leuween theory of analysis, framed on the Critical Discourse
Analysis' research area and found markers such as the use of the camera angle, the amount of
visual interactions, the distance between participants and the conceptualization of groups in
opposition to individuals, as potentially as any other discourse analysis instance. The results
showed how the deliverance of a certain discourse can be incredibly influenced by its visual
representations.
Particularly, we can draw as a main conclusion that from image and viewer interaction,
the point of view, the angles of the camera and how Luther is located between their pairs support
his speech for creating a visual background that magnified the feeling of his speech goals that in
this case was the sense of unity and the search for equality. Moreover, the role of visualization
should not be considered as secondary when analyzing a specific case and its importance can be
equal to the other categories of research.

Projections or further research

Considering that this work has been restricted to the visual representations of discursive
displays, we highly recommend to anyone who might be interested in Critical Discourse Analysis
to take part in the pieces of research existent. One of the main reasons should be its potential to be
analyzed, as well as its influence among the community. We are aware that racism must be
addressed respectfully from a responsible point of view and therefore, the complete addressing of
the subject matter, including the CDA perspective, might be useful for the ones of us seeking
equality. In addition to this, we encourage researchers to pay attention to the whole video in detail
in order to reach a complete analysis of the visualization aspect of the speech. Results may vary

8
or complement the ones found here and any possibility that allows to enrich the discussion on this
historical case is always welcome.
Furthermore, we believe that much of the greatness of this speech is tied to its historical
context and that it is a topic that goes beyond the scope of this study. Racism and inequality are
subjects that need to be assisted. Thus, we suggest a context based article that highlights the very
construction of the script, along with Van Leuween’s remarks about the timing of social practices.

References​.
AHMADU, N. (2005). The Sun News On-line. Retrieved 12 August 2020, from
https://web.archive.org/web/20100326195403/http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/features
/fashionbeauty/2005/jan/14/fashion-beauty-14-01-2005-004.htm
​2k studios. (2011,July 19th) Martin Luther King Jr. - I Have A Dream (Subtitulado en
español). Youtube.​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_TUUqD3xcE&feature=youtu.be
​ merican rhetoric.com
​Luther King.(M. 2019) April 2nd.​ I have a dream.A
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
​Van Leuween,T. (2018). Representing social actors. In N. Couplan & A. Jaworski, C. (Eds)
Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis.​ (pp. 28-32 & 35-36)
​Van Leuween,T. (2018). The Visual Representation of Social Actors. In N. Couplan & A.
Jaworski, C. (Eds) ​Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis.​ (pp.
136-148)