The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique global experience, triggering both nationalistic and solidaristic responses. Unlike previous global crises, the near-simultaneous worldwide reaction to the pandemic created a shared experience across nations. This study investigates how this macro-event was localized through discursive means. The near-universal initial national-oriented reactions (e.g., border closures, restrictions on aid) challenged the idea of global solidarity, highlighting the significance of nationalism and solidarity in pandemic discourse. To understand this localization process and to identify similarities and differences across responses, a comparative analysis was conducted on the initial statements of 29 leading political figures from four continents. This analysis is grounded in Koller's (2012, 2014) concept of in-groups, out-groups, and affiliated groups. The study examines how political discourse, as collective decision-making, legitimizes courses of action and constructs socio-cognitive representations of collective entities (states, nations, governments). COVID-19 crisis discourses are viewed as crisis discourses, characterized by urgency and widespread responses to perceived threats. Existing research on crisis discourse and globalization processes, particularly concerning the global financial crisis and previous pandemics, informs this analysis. The study's theoretical framework emphasizes solidarity as a complex and multifaceted concept, encompassing horizontal (interpersonal, intergroup) and vertical (rulers-ruled) dimensions, as well as institutionalized and informal forms. The concept of nationalism is explored in its various forms (civic, ethnic, aggressive, banal), recognizing the interplay between inclusion and exclusion. The intricate relationship between nationalism and transnationalism during the pandemic is further considered, acknowledging that while nation-states play a central role in crisis management, the pandemic itself necessitates cosmopolitan responses and the formation of transnational imaginaries alongside national ones. The study addresses the research question of how the pandemic crisis discourse affects solidarity and its association with nationalist discourses, focusing on the interplay between horizontal/vertical solidarity and in-group, out-group, affiliated group construction, and the dominant 'imagined community' (national versus transnational) shaping solidarity.

The paper reviews existing literature on crisis communication, globalization, solidarity, and nationalism, drawing on various theoretical perspectives. It examines the discursive construction of crises, emphasizing the role of socio-cultural and political factors in shaping local interpretations of global events. The authors discuss the concept of solidarity as a complex phenomenon with various dimensions (human, political, social, civic), forms (horizontal, vertical, institutionalized, informal), and linguistic realizations. They highlight the interconnectedness of solidarity with nationhood and the debates surrounding global versus national solidarity in times of crisis. The literature on nationalism differentiates between various types and degrees of nationalism, emphasizing the crucial role of inclusion and exclusion in shaping national identity. The paper explores the complicated relationship between nationalism and transnationalism, noting how the pandemic highlights the interplay between national and global responses. The theoretical framework combines the socio-cognitive approach to discourse analysis with argumentation theory and nationalism studies to examine how political leaders constructed solidarity and nationalism in their early COVID-19 speeches.

The study employed a comparative analysis of the initial statements (speeches or press conferences) delivered by 29 leading political actors (presidents or prime ministers) from 29 countries across four continents (Europe, Americas, Asia, Africa). The corpus was created using a convenience sampling method, acknowledging the overrepresentation of European countries due to researcher availability. The speeches were delivered shortly after the WHO declared the pandemic. The analysis focused on the textual micro-level of these statements, acknowledging the absence of multimodal features such as facial expressions and body language. The speeches were translated into English for analysis. The researchers adopted a socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis. The analysis focused on the social construction of political identities and the argumentative legitimation of political actions. Fairclough’s three-dimensional model (macro-level social and institutional context, meso-level participant roles and practices, micro-level text) guided the analysis. The macro-level considered the political culture and systems, acknowledging limitations in conducting a systematic comparative analysis due to space constraints. The meso-level identified political speeches as a heterogeneous genre focused on legitimation of political actions through evidence, authority, and truth, particularly relevant in crisis contexts. The micro-level analysis used the socio-cognitive approach to examine socio-cognitive representations (SCRs) – socially shared knowledge, beliefs, norms, values, attitudes, and expectations – inferred from the texts. The researchers analyzed the construction of in-groups, out-groups, and affiliated groups using Koller's framework and discourse space theory, paying attention to the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. The analysis examined the use of metaphors, pronouns, noun phrases, and other linguistic devices to reveal how political leaders constructed solidarity and nationalism within the context of the pandemic.

The analysis revealed several key findings regarding the discursive construction of collective identities and solidarity in the studied speeches. The virus was consistently portrayed as the primary outgroup across most speeches, primarily through the use of war and movement metaphors. This construction positioned the virus as an enemy to be fought and defeated, framing the pandemic as a national struggle. Exceptions included the Brazilian president, who downplayed the severity of the virus. The nation-state was frequently constructed as the primary in-group, with the population portrayed as a team working together to combat the virus. This construction fostered a sense of vertical solidarity, with citizens expected to trust and comply with government directives. Several types of solidarity were identified: vertical solidarity based on nationhood, exclusionary solidarity against rule-breakers, horizontal solidarity amongst families and generations, and transnational solidarity. While most speeches showed consensus in constructing the virus as an outgroup, the construction of in-groups and affiliated groups varied significantly across contexts. Internal out-groups were identified in several countries, including opposition figures and those who did not follow government guidelines. Ambivalent constructions of businesses and the media were observed, with their portrayal as either in-groups or out-groups depending on their alignment with governmental strategies. Affiliated groups typically comprised neighboring countries, international organizations (WHO, EU), and other nations, often based on geographical proximity or previous relationships. The construction of affiliated groups often reinforced existing geopolitical alliances and foreign policy objectives, demonstrating a complex interplay between national and transnational solidarity. Exceptions to the pattern of national solidarity included speeches that focused on specific external enemies (e.g., Trump's criticism of China and the EU), showcasing the variability in nationalist sentiment and strategy.

The findings demonstrate the complex and multi-layered nature of solidarity and its interaction with nationalist discourses during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The consistent construction of the virus as a common enemy fostered a sense of national unity and vertical solidarity, with government leaders mobilizing populations to comply with their directives. The use of war metaphors reinforced this framing, emphasizing the need for collective action and cooperation. However, the analysis also highlights the variability in the construction of in-groups and affiliated groups, reflecting the diversity of political systems and contexts. The existence of internal out-groups underscores the potential for internal division even within the context of a shared national crisis. The simultaneous emphasis on both national and transnational solidarity demonstrates the inherent tension between national interests and the need for global cooperation in managing a global pandemic. The variability in how different leaders constructed their in-groups and affiliated groups reveals the diverse strategies used to mobilize support and legitimize governmental actions, showcasing the flexible and dynamic nature of solidarity and national identity construction in times of crisis. The study’s findings contribute to the understanding of the discursive mechanisms shaping social responses to global crises.

This study reveals the complex interplay between national and transnational solidarity in the early COVID-19 pandemic responses. The consistent portrayal of the virus as an outgroup facilitated the construction of national in-groups, promoting vertical solidarity between governments and populations. However, variations in the construction of in-groups and affiliated groups highlight the diverse approaches to managing the crisis. Future research could explore the evolution of these discursive strategies over time, the impact of specific policy measures on the perception of solidarity, and the role of media in shaping public understanding of the pandemic. Further research should also examine how other global crises influence the construction of solidarity and national identity.

The study's convenience sampling method, leading to an overrepresentation of European countries, limits the generalizability of the findings. The focus on textual analysis excludes multimodal aspects of communication, which could provide additional insights into the construction of solidarity and nationalism. The limited temporal scope (initial speeches) prevents the analysis of how these discursive strategies evolved throughout the pandemic.