Constructing collective identities and solidarity in premiers’ early speeches on COVID-19: a global perspective

Epidemics and pandemics are transnational phenomena that spread along networks of trade and travel, but COVID-19 unfolded on an unprecedented global scale, producing a unique shared experience due to near-simultaneous lockdowns worldwide. Despite globalization, early national responses (e.g., border closures, restrictions on aid within borders) challenged notions of global solidarity and foregrounded nationalism alongside solidarity as central concepts in pandemic discourse. The study asks how this macro-event was localized through discourse, examining initial statements by leaders in 29 countries across four continents to highlight similarities and differences in constructing in-, out-, and affiliated groups. The research interrogates how solidarity (horizontal and vertical) is linked to discursive constructions of groups and which imagined community—the national or transnational—dominates solidarity constructions in the data, and why.

The paper situates political discourse as collective decision-making requiring legitimation grounded in shared values and understandings, with socio-cognitive representations (SCRs) constructing and contesting collective entities (states, nations, governments). Crisis discourse is understood as discursively constructed around perceived threats that elicit urgent responses, with previous research showing crises’ local, country-specific manifestations despite global triggers. Solidarity is theorized as multifaceted (human, political, social, civic) and both horizontal and vertical, ranging from institutionalized (state-driven) to informal forms, and varying across contexts and times. Nationhood is seen by some as a principal form of human solidarity, while others note tensions between global solidarity and strengthened nationalism during COVID-19 given nation-states’ public health responsibilities. Nationalism is treated as heterogeneous (civic vs ethnic; virulent vs banal), best understood via inclusion/exclusion dynamics. The pandemic highlights intertwined nationalism and transnationalism: nation-states enact concrete measures while transnational institutions (e.g., WHO) and circulating shared protocols foster cosmopolitan responses. The study draws on the socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis (Koller; van Dijk), discourse space and proximization theories (Chilton; Cap), and argumentation theory, focusing on how in-, out-, and affiliated groups are discursively bounded through values, norms, and emotions. Contextualization follows Fairclough’s macro/meso/micro model, acknowledging geopolitical contexts (e.g., rising populist nationalism, trade protectionism, migration controls) that shape discursive constructions.

The study employs a socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis informed by argumentation theory, nationalism studies, discourse space theory, and proximization. It analyzes how leaders’ speeches construct socio-cognitive representations of in-, out-, and affiliated groups, and how these constructions legitimize political actions during the initial pandemic phase. Context is modeled at macro (social/institutional), meso (participants, roles, genre), and micro (textual) levels following Fairclough. Data comprise the first official statements (speeches or press conferences televised nationally) by presidents or prime ministers in 29 countries across four continents, mostly delivered within two weeks of the WHO’s 11 March 2020 pandemic declaration. Official transcripts from government websites were used; multimodal features (gesture, facial expression) were excluded to focus on textual analysis. Speeches were in 25 languages (four in English); examples were translated into English for analysis. The leaders are treated as empowered metonymic spokespersons of their governments. The corpus was convenience-sampled, with more texts from Europe. Analysis focuses on metaphorical framings (e.g., pandemic-as-war, pandemic-as-movement), pronoun usage, group labeling (in-, out-, affiliated), and references to institutions and professions to infer solidarity types (vertical/horizontal) and national vs transnational imaginaries. All analyzed speeches are available via OSF (https://osf.io/ug2y5/).

- Out-group construction: Across speeches, the virus is discursively personified and constructed as the main out-group, most commonly through PANDEMIC AS WAR and PANDEMIC AS MOVEMENT metaphors that frame the virus as an enemy entering national space. Leaders call to fight/defeat the virus at the national level; explicit global framing of the fight is rarer (e.g., Spain). - Exceptions: Brazil’s President Bolsonaro rejects enemy framing, likening the virus to rain or a “little flu,” prioritizing economic concerns. Few speeches othered specific nations; notable exceptions include the U.S. framing of a “foreign virus” (blaming China and the EU) and Serbia portraying the EU’s solidarity as absent while praising China. - Internal othering: Exclusionary solidarity targets internal rule-breakers and opponents. While most countries (23/29) did not yet explicitly mention quarantine violators in first statements, some (Czech Republic, Serbia, Argentina) explicitly stigmatized and threatened sanctions. Others implicitly valorized responsibility and discipline, casting irresponsible behavior as out-group. - Ambivalent groups: Opposition parties, some businesses, and media were variably framed across countries—sometimes as out-groups (e.g., Mexico, Cuba for media; Brunei warning businesses) and sometimes as in-/affiliated groups (e.g., Ghana and Cuba aligning with business for national resilience; media as partners when disseminating verified information). - In-group construction: Nations are cast as teams (nation-as-team), emphasizing vertical solidarity (government-population) and horizontal solidarity (interpersonal/intergenerational). Inclusive pronouns (we/us/our), demonyms, and appeals to shared values (responsibility, solidarity, courage) construct unity and legitimize collective action. Key in-groups include governments, healthcare workers, experts/scientific institutions, the army (less frequently), families, and specific age groups. - Elderly and youth: Elderly are explicitly referenced as vulnerable in a majority of speeches (18/29), with calls for protection and intergenerational responsibility. - Affiliated groups: Constructed at geographical (neighbors, Europe, the World) and institutional levels (WHO, EU, other alliances). Solidarity often entails assistance/aid rather than deep cooperation, reinforcing existing geopolitical alliances and national strengths. WHO is cited as international authority (e.g., Cuba, North Macedonia) or selectively referenced (e.g., Brazil) to legitimize national strategies. - Overall pattern: A major consensus exists on constructing the virus as the out-group; in-group and affiliated group constructions vary more by national discursive practices and contexts. Solidarity types prioritized include vertical nation-based solidarity, exclusionary solidarity against rule-breakers, horizontal solidarity (family/intergenerational), and transnational solidarity.

Findings address the research questions by showing that solidarity is primarily constructed through a national imaginaire: leaders position governments and populations as a unified in-group (nation-as-team) mobilized against a common enemy (the virus). Vertical solidarity legitimizes governmental authority and measures, while horizontal solidarity personalizes responsibility through families, elderly, youth, healthcare workers, and experts, thereby reinforcing compliance and social cohesion. Exclusionary solidarity against internal rule-breakers strengthens in-group norms. Regarding competing imaginaries, the national imaginaire dominates initial crisis discourse due to the genre (heads of government addressing national audiences) and the nation-state’s institutional role in public health. Nonetheless, a transnational imaginaire appears through affiliated groups (neighbors, EU, WHO, “the World”), typically framed in terms of aid and symbolic cooperation rather than shared governance. Limited othering of foreign nations (with notable exceptions) indicates a rhetorical preference to unite domestic audiences. These dynamics reveal how pandemic discourse repurposes existing social groups to manage a new crisis, aligning solidarity with nationhood while acknowledging global interdependence.

The study shows a family resemblance across premiers’ early COVID-19 speeches: leaders overwhelmingly construct the virus as the out-group via war and movement metaphors, and nations as unified teams, prioritizing vertical solidarity grounded in nationhood and layered with horizontal (family/intergenerational) and selective transnational solidarities. Internal othering of rule-breakers reinforces norms and compliance. Affiliated groups (neighbors, EU, WHO, “the World”) typically receive expressions of assistance/aid that reaffirm pre-existing alliances and national strengths rather than deep cooperative frameworks. Exceptions (e.g., U.S. and Serbia’s external othering; Cuba’s historical adversary framing; Brazil’s denialist stance) reflect distinct political contexts. Situated within broader geopolitical tensions (e.g., U.S.–China), national constructions of solidarity intersect with deictically organized geopolitical knowledge, complicating in-/out-/affiliated group dynamics. The corpus and comparative approach provide a foundation for future analyses of COVID-19 discourses across additional countries and later pandemic phases.

- Sampling and coverage: Convenience sampling with over-representation of European texts limits generalizability across regions; some continents are less represented. - Genre and timing: Analysis is restricted to first national statements shortly after WHO’s pandemic declaration; findings reflect early-stage crisis discourse and may not capture later evolutions. - Modalities: Reliance on official written transcripts excludes multimodal features (tone, gesture, visuals) that could influence meaning and reception. - Translation: Many speeches were translated into English for analysis; nuances may be affected by translation. - Comparative context: Due to space, no systematic comparative analysis of political systems or democracy indices was undertaken, constraining macro-level contextualization.