Historical Representations of University Students: Post-War Discourses in the Greek Student Press

Abstract

In this article, we trace the histories of discourses concerning student identity in post-war Greece. Making use of the discourse-historical approach (DHA), textual data are analyzed in student journals published by students’ unions, factions and collectives of the University of Thessaloniki. Student identity is theorized as being constructed and negotiated in discourse, in close relation to sociopolitical context. In light of the discourse-historical approach it is assumed that the intensification of discursive strategies, such as nominations, predications and argumentations, and the reconceptualization of ingroup and outgroup dichotomy relate to student identity shifts. The findings from such an analysis detect successive shifts in student identity during the post-war period. Student identity is constructed upon the ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ dichotomy. Students sometimes self-identify as agents of change and at other times as followers or recipients thereof, while their discourse is tuned with domestic sociopolitical developments.

1. Introduction

Attending university has always been an aspiration of great importance in Greek society. It is considered to open up educational and economic opportunities, and to provide a channel of social mobility for students and their families [1,2,3]. A considerable amount of family budgets are typically spent on shadow education, an extensive network of private educational services and infrastructure that prepares candidates for admission to universities [4]. At the same time, the Greek education system as a whole is oriented to provide proper skills, sources and knowledge to those interested in entering university, leaving aside the needs of other groups of pupils. Students at Greek universities seem to be the winners of a trophy, that is, university admission, obtained after many years of painstaking efforts and success in a demanding examination crucible. One may wonder how the above affects the formation of student identity, and how the students of Greek universities construct images of themselves.

Many critical scholars have explored and identified a wide range of university students’ social identities: professional, gender, academic, ethnic, national, cultural, etc. [5]. In analyzing identity formation, the emerging literature focuses on the linguistic content and the sociolinguistic context of representations that emerge through discourses. In this vein, identity can be understood as a sociocultural and discursive phenomenon, where “representations of self and other are co-constructed through language and other semiotic resources” [6]. Given this, our analysis seeks to explore identity formations throughout the time course. A discourse-historical approach (DHA), as proposed and elaborated by Reisigl and Wodak [7], is used for analyzing and interpreting the research data. According to Reisigl and Wodak, the historical course of social processes, such as the formation of student identity, can give researchers a deeper understanding of current phenomena. Hence, identity formation is traced through the identification of similarities and differences in discourse strategies evolving over time [6].

This study aims at exploring students’ discursive representations, along with their underlying student identity, as they emerge in student newspapers and magazines published by student associations of the University of Thessaloniki from 1944 to 1969. Sociopolitical and academic conditions differed significantly from 1944—when Greece was liberated from Axis occupation and gradually entered into its civil war—to 1969, when Greek society was under the totalitarian control and authority of a military dictatorship. We therefore ask what happens to representations of student identity by the students themselves in times of critical social transformation. Our study focuses on students at the University of Thessaloniki, because of the particular characteristics of its student body during the period under study. Ever since its foundation, in 1926, the University of Thessaloniki—being the second university in the country, after that of Athens, which was founded in 1837—was typically represented in newspapers, government reports and working papers as a progressive academic institution. Within its institutional context, student activism took place, reflecting the specific priorities and concerns of students who originated from Northern Greece or refugee populations and came from the lower and middle socioeconomic classes [8].

The originality of this study is that it explores the discursive construction of student identity in Greece and its historical evolution. Moreover, based on the DHA for studying such discursive constructions, this paper aspires to result in a better understanding of student activism and involvement in social movements, in the sense that there is “a dialectical relationship between discourse and the particular social world” [9]. In her Ph.D. thesis, Theodora Tzika provides a sufficient historical account of student activism in Thessaloniki during the post-war period, drawing on historical evidence of the period, without specifically entering into identity issues [10]. Students’ activism in post-war Greece has been mainly attributed by Psacharopoulos and Kazamias [11] to the urban place of residence of the students, apart from and in relation to other dimensions of social identity, such as class or political ideology. On the contrary, according to Lampropoulou [12], political and class determinations of identity were related to students’ activism in post-war Greece, while Kornetis [13], focusing on the period of the military junta (1967–1974), highlights the dialectical relationship between culture and politics, and sheds light on cultural influences and identities that reinforced student activism. Against this background, we will study Greek student identity in its historical evolution, exploring discursive constructions in texts produced by the students themselves through their publications.

Accordingly, closely related to the selection of DHA, our research questions are:

What are the constructions of dominant student identity in the period from 1944 to 1969 and how do they relate to domestic and international sociopolitical contexts?

How do shifts on constructed student identity re-signify the ‘us’ and ‘them’ dichotomy?

What are the discursive strategies employed in the students’ discourse and how do these strategies reflect ideological stances?

2. Post-War Social Identities of University Students

Even in the early 20th century, representations of university students were often linked to the demand for social change and transformation, which over time took shape in different and possibly conflicting contexts: nationalism, anti-colonialism, socialism and fascism. After World War II, while higher education was expected to be the key to the reconstruction of society and was gradually becoming massive, new dynamics of student identity construction emerged. In post-war years, student identities were reinterpreted and reinvented. Identity formation was subject to a revision of enculturation and, in the case of western Europe, a growing manifestation of Westernization during the Cold War [14].

A dominant representation of the identity of university students as political actors in society was established and embedded, especially at the peak of student activism in the 1960s and 1970s [15]. In many cases, students were engaged in activism inspired by the Marxist ideology, with a focus on the redistribution of wealth and the establishment of a more equitable society. This activism had taken many forms, from peaceful protests and demonstrations to more militant forms of civil disobedience [16]. In other cases, by engaging in activism, students were demonstrating their commitment to preserving values of tradition and loyalty, which were considered essential to social peace and security [17]. Under the lens of social movement theories, university students become engaged and involved in their community, share a distinct collective identity and gain political influence, which is mainly reflected in their leaders and representatives [18].

Reflecting post-war trends towards the professionalization of occupations and the institutionalization of scientific knowledge [19], higher education was challenged by the need to enhance research activities, at the same time that university teaching had to appeal to wider audiences [20]. Academic identities became more solidified in post-war universities and in close dependence with early scientific specialization. Students were gradually represented as citizens benefitting from a public service and being committed to returning this benefit through their highly skilled occupation. Professionalism and intellectualism were considered to consist of elements of students’ academic identity and, more or less, the foundations for economic, political and social rehabilitation [21].

In terms of cultural identity formation, cultural studies have contributed interesting insights on youth subcultures and their reflection on university life during the post-war years. To some extent, youth cultural identity post-war formation could be considered as a resistance to the totalitarianism of racial perspectives on cultural identities imposed by fascism and Nazism, leading to exclusion or even annihilation [22]. Post-war youth were possessed by “a combination of teenager consumption, youthful rebelliousness and anti-establishment sentiment” [23], a cultural current which would seek a way out of the crisis of civilization through alternative forms of life and work [24]. Such a combination had been reflected in changes in consumption habits, lifestyle, music and free sex. Culture industry and the so-called mass culture shaped youth cultural identity. At the same time, a narrow conception of humanist high culture was challenged, although, among university students, those studying the theoretical documentation of the high mission of arts in the field of humanities sharply opposed such a trend. However, the organized university student unions and associations became the preeminent framework for cultivating parameters of youth culture such as youthful rebelliousness and anti-establishment sentiment. As a matter of fact, post-war youth cultural identities were manifesting a clear cleavage, separating the youth from the adult world [23].

2.1. A Historical Account of Student Activism in the University of Thessaloniki

In the case of Greece, the post-war period was associated with a significant increase in the number of university students. Student numbers more than doubled, from around 26,000 in 1960 to an estimated 58,000 in 1965 [2], an expansion that could be attributed to the mitigation of educational inequalities achieved in the 1960s [1]; yet Greek universities were remaining unable to meet the strong social demand for more higher education. Participation in higher education was closely related to socioeconomic background and was lagging behind compared to other Western countries [2]. According to Lambropoulos and Psacharopoulos [25], in 1961, participation in higher education included just 4% of the age cohort, while only 1.8% of the total population had a higher education degree. Until 1964, the university admissions process was based on entrance exams held at each university faculty, leading to a failure rate of almost 70% of the applicants. It is important to stress that university education was directly linked to the prospect of public sector employment [1,13,25]. The universities had limited autonomy in post-war Greece and were subject to the strict control of the state. In this respect, studying was intensive, academic challenges were overlooked and underserved, while university life was a real challenge for students coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those originating from poor provincial regions. Therefore, student activism was mainly focused on the issues of inadequacies in university education or on supporting foreign policy objectives [11]. Gradually, in the same period, a part of the student body strongly asserted the demand for social justice and democratization, paving the way for dynamic student protests in the early 1960s and the fall of the dictatorial regime in 1973 [13].

Similar things happened at the University of Thessaloniki, which was regarded by its students as a privileged space for expressing concerns and claims. Student activism manifested itself with dynamic claims responding to the until-then ‘dependent path’ of the Greek student movement (romanticism and nationalism). At the same time, the students of Thessaloniki had enriched that ‘dependent path’ with social dynamics which reflected on the establishment of their university: the integration of refugee and native populations, the expansion of the student body, changes in its social composition and the diffusion of socialist ideas [8]. In this context, various student unions were established, reflecting a wide ideological spectrum and competing aspirations: the ‘Students’ Association of Thessaloniki’ (1928), the fascist organization ‘National All Student Union’ (1929), the leftist ‘Students’ Companionship of Thessaloniki’ (1929), the ‘National Student Union’ (1932) and the ‘Christian Student Union’ (1933). The interwar period was dotted with intense claims and ideological confrontations of the student unions. Requests about the academic and infrastructural development of the University, examination periods, tuition fees, textbooks, food and housing and the right to assembly and association led to student activism, which was sometimes brutally suppressed by the police [26].

The period of Axis occupation of the country was marked by the enlistment of a part of the student body in the liberation struggle. Of great importance were the actions of the ‘Cultural Club of the University of Thessaloniki’ (EOP), which was exclusively made up of university students. The EOP developed into a cultural core of the University of Thessaloniki and the local community, and, through the publication of the magazine ‘Beginning’, it proclaimed the vision of its pioneers for social justice and the social function of the arts in post-occupation Greece. At the same time, the formation of the Unified Panhellenic Youth Organization of the university gave a chance to students to participate in civil or rebel armed resistance movement by fighting against occupying forces. In the occupation period, many students were arrested and tortured, and over 70 lost their lives in the struggle against the occupiers, while several dozen Jewish students, members of the city’s populous Jewish community, were victims of the Holocaust [27].

Immediately after the liberation, students focused on demanding national unity, peace, social welfare and justice and true education. The student movement entered a new phase with the beginning of the civil war in 1946. While the actions of the left-wing students became weaker, the nationalist students made their presence more noticeable, cultivating an initially concealed and later overt anti-communism. Leading the way in this direction was the ‘Educational Union of Nationalist Students’, which claimed to become de facto the only politicized student union of the University of Thessaloniki, for as long as the civil war lasted. In the first post-war years, the fascist rhetoric of the interwar period was enriched with the idiom of nationalism, which essentially led to the imposition of a gloomy climate, the publication of declarations of ideological renunciation by students, the arrests of others and their referral to extraordinary military courts. At the same time, a “certificate of conformity” was established as a technology of discipline. The political attitudes of candidates or current students became a criterion for exclusion from the university and its procedures. The democratization effort that took place in the country in the period 1963–1965 was linked, for students, to an initial euphoria and manifestation of expectations regarding contributions to social change. These expectations were soon dashed, however, by the imposition of a military dictatorship in April 1967, as controlling the university and its students was placed high on the agenda of its authoritarian rule [10].

In such a historical and political context, the post-war student body was enculturated in the mainstream public discourse of national-mindedness (ethnicofrosyne). The hegemony of national-mindedness, a moralistic and nationalist ideation, was associated with pseudo-patriotism, anti-communism and intolerance and identification of the ideological ‘other’ as an internal enemy. It was a punitive national-mindedness, which raised significant barriers for post-war young people who sought change and social transformation [28].

2.2. Research Assumptions

Based on the above, it can be assumed that, in the period under study, student identity formation processes revolved around discursive frames, considering the historical context. Discursive constructions of students’ identities are expected to have been dictated by the periodic outbursts of national-mindedness (ethnicofrosyne) and its transitory challenges. From this point of departure, we assume that intervals before the outbreak of the Greek civil war (1944–1946) and the imposition of the dictatorship (1962–1966) contributed to distinct identity constructs, compared to dominant discursive strategies of the period. Pursuing this line of thought in terms of a discourse-historical approach, we expect that alternation in discursive frames is inherent to the intensification of discursive strategies, such as nominations, predications and argumentations; that is, constructions of the student identity are branched into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ and are enriched with characteristics and qualities that distinguish ingroup and outgroup students.

3. Discourse-Historical Approach

Having as a research purpose the study of student discourse in specific historical moments and not over time, we chose the DHA as a methodological framework in our study, which explores how different discourses evolve in changing socio-political and -historical settings [7]. Departing from the premise that discourses are historical and subject to changes that can be understood with regard to their context, the DHA is problem-oriented; it focuses on genres, discourses and texts on a particular issue, using a combination of linguistic, historical and sociological analyses to interpret discursive changes in relation to sociopolitical change [29]. Essentially, in DHA, researchers are called to conduct a triangulation of linguistic, social and historical data, in order to understand how language reflects cultural values and political ideologies [30]. Wodak [31] herself indicates that triangulation should be modeled “across four heuristic ‘levels of context’: (i) the immediate text of the communicative event in question …; (ii) the intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses …; (iii) the extralinguistic social … and environmental … variables and institutional frames … of a specific ‘context of situation’; and (iv) the broader socio-political and historical contexts which discursive practices are embedded and related to”. DHA has been chosen as the methodological framework for an additional reason; namely, its appropriateness in exploring constructions of discursive identities. It is considered as being able to deal with questions regarding these identities and why they emerge, while also exploring how these identities are communicated [32].

3.1. Material for Analysis

The material for analysis consisted of newspapers and magazines that were published on the initiative of the student youth of the University of Thessaloniki in the period of 1944–1969. Student youth had been organized in student associations of the university faculties, student factions and collectives, based on their specific interests or pursuits. Due to the extensive number of related publications, we focused on newspapers and magazines published in the periods 1944–1946 and 1962–1966, which manifested multi-faceted discursive constructions of student identity. At the same time, as declarative of the dominant identity constructions in the light of national-mindedness, student newspapers published in 1955 and 1969 were also chosen for analysis. In particular, the following newspapers and magazines have been analyzed:

• The magazine “Beginning” (Ξεκίνημα in Greek), which was published in February 1944, subtitled “Fortnightly Literary and Scientific Magazine of the Cultural Club of the University of Thessaloniki” [33].
• The magazine “The Student Torch” (Φοιτητικός Πυρσός in Greek), subtitled “A fortnightly scientific and literary magazine of the Educational Union of Nationalist Students”. Ten issues were published, from May 1945 to March 1946 [34].
• The magazine “The Student” (O Φοιτητής in Greek), subtitled “Fortnightly student magazine”. It was published from March to August 1945 by the same left-wing editorial group that had published the magazine “Beginning” [34].
• The magazine “Student Letters of Thessaloniki” (Τα Φοιτητικά Γράμματα της Θεσσαλονίκης in Greek), published from March 1955 to December 1959 by a student union association named “Edifying Student Union of University of Thessaloniki”.
• The magazine “All-students’” (Παμφοιτητική in Greek) was released in the period between 1955 and 1958, by the second student association at that time, the “Student Union of University of Thessaloniki”.
• The “Bulletin of the Students’ Association of the Polytechnic School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki” (Δελτίον Συλλόγου Φοιτητών Πολυτεχνικής Σχολής Aριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης in Greek), which was published in four issues, from December 1962 to May 1963.
• The newspaper “The Student World. Monthly student review” (O Σπουδαστικός Κόσμος. Μηνιάτικη φοιτητική επιθεώρηση in Greek). It was first published in February 1963 and its last issue was published in June 1966. It echoed the ideas and values of leftist students.
• The fortnightly student newspaper “Student World” (Φοιτητικός Κόσμος in Greek). It was published by the Student Union of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and it openly supported the principles and methods of the dictatorial regime of the period. It was published continuously from March 1969 to the beginning of 1970.

We prioritized articles demonstrating discursive constructions of identities, while texts were thereafter grouped into types of discursive strategies, such as nominations, predications and argumentations. Our results are based on data derived from 42 extensive texts, extracted from a set of student publications studied and analyzed as follows.

3.2. Analysis

To highlight the discursive strategies used in constructing students’ identities, the study applied the three-dimensional DHA model. Our analysis started with identifying the specific contents or topics of discourses on student identity. The identification process was applied throughout the material of the student newspapers and magazines and resulted in the selection of 42 texts that indicated discursive strategies related to constructions of identity. We identified four broad identity constructions that were detected in differing contexts and periods; students as: (i) social reformers and agents of change, (ii) defenders of national-mindedness, (iii) social and political activists, and (iv) submissive recipients of the state authority.

Then, we investigated discursive strategies within discourses. Reisigl and Wodak [7] proposed a categorization of discursive strategies into five patterns: nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivation and intensification. Nomination or referential strategies relate to labeling; creating sameness or difference between ingroup and outgroup membership through tropes (synecdoche, metonymies and metaphors) or lexical choices (verbs and nouns). Predication assigns stereotyped evaluative (positive or negative) attributes to social actors. Predication constructs an “us and them” dichotomy through positive self-presentation and negative other presentation. It is implemented through relative clauses, prepositional phrases, adjectives and appositions, etc. [7]. Positive or negative attributes ascribed to ingroups and outgroups are justified through argumentation. Argumentation strategies are considered to be employed where a statement has to be justified. They consist of claims established on topoi (of usefulness/advantage, of justice, of responsibility, of danger and threat, of history, etc.) and fallacies (appeal to authority, to force or threats, to popularity, personal attack, etc.). Another discursive strategy is called perspectivation, which relates to the speaker’s or writer’s level of involvement in the discourse and his/her position. Finally, intensification and mitigation strategies relate to discursive modifications which make the argument more or less intense [7]. The present paper examines the nomination, predication and argumentation strategies alone, to reveal the student identity discursive constructions. Essentially, we focused on detecting discursive strategies constructed in relation to the following questions: (i) how are students and their actions named and referred to? (ii) What attributes, qualities and features are ascribed to students and other (ingroup or outgroup) social actors? (iii) What are the arguments employed?

In the final stage of analysis, we examined in detail the linguistic devices used (metaphors, synecdoche, metonymies, anthroponyms, proper names, deictics, adverbs and verbs that add emphasis to a statement, etc.). Linguistic devices are considered as a means of linguistic realization procedures; that is, they help to realize both topics and discursive strategies [31].

3.3. Sample Analysis

Because of space restrictions, we present below a sample of analysis scrutinizing, under the lens of DHA, discursive strategies such as nomination, predication and argumentation. Accordingly, we restricted this sample analysis to only two texts, which function as a guide towards the methodological process adopted for elaborating the set of the 42 texts of our study. The first text, originally published in Greek at the end of the Axis occupation of Greece, comes from the student magazine “Beginning”, launched in 1944. It is an extract from the opening article in the first volume of the magazine, where students developed their vision and priorities after liberation (

Table 1. Nomination, predication and argumentation strategies (“Beginning”, 1944).

Text	Nominations	Predications	Argumentations
	People	Students as social actors
	the «Beginning»
	students
	scientist, artist
	we
Inside the small student community, you will find people with a fiery soul and a restless spirit, living intensely and investigating the problems of their time; people anxious, crushed, restructured, accepting Art and Science as redemption and guides to more solid and civilized times than ours. […] Τhe “Beginning” will be the mirror to the student soul, a creation of necessity around Art, made possible by a huge movement observed in all University schools by tomorrow’s scientists. The fertile fields are sown, and rich harvests are predicted. Thirsty for books, music, poetry, our students embraced the new spiritual awakening with the vigor of youth. […] A beacon of light from the rich vitality of a generation that did not forget the higher destiny of the scientist and artist, amidst the difficult conditions of today’s war. And we ‘ll follow the path of hard effort and endurance with a smile on our lips and a song in our heart. We are sure that we will find a reward.	metaphors verbs nouns metaphors metaphors metaphors verbs metaphors verbs verbs metaphors synecdoche verbs	Passionate, restless crushed restructured art lovers scientists courageous hopeful	Claim 1. Students live intensely and investigate the problems of their time (topos of responsibility). Claim 2. Students accept art and science as redemption and guides to more solid and civilized times than theirs (topos of humanitarianism). Claim 3. Students embrace the new spiritual awakening with the vigor of youth (topos of advantage/usefulness). Claim 4. Students are a generation that did not forget the higher destiny of the scientist and artist, amidst the difficult conditions of war (topos of advantage/usefulness).

). The second text comes from the journal “Student World”, published during the colonels’ dictatorship in 1969. It echoes the views of the students who made up the university students’ union and, as such, enjoyed the support of the junta government (

Table 2. Nomination, predication and argumentation strategies (“Student World”, 1969).

Text	Nominations	Predications	Argumentations
	The Revolution
	The leader
	Believers and fighters
	Opponents and disloyal people
	All Greeks
	Non-participants
	The fight
The purpose of the Revolution, as it is apparent in the declared worldview of the leader, is also the stimulation of the national idea and consciousness. Its implementation depends on proper planning and joint effort. About proper planning there is no room for dispute. Joint effort is expected. The Revolution has been a milestone splitting the Greek forces vertically. … Believers and fighters belong to the forces of the Nation. Opponents and disloyal people have no place in the Greek territory. … All Greeks should join this path. In these critical moments there is no room for abstinence. Non-participants are considered traitors. Turncoats are considered cowards. Slander must yield its place to noble rivalry. The fight is not individual. It is a struggle of the Panhellenic people for salvation, for national independence.	Verbs metaphors verbs verbs verbs verbs nouns	traitors cowards	Claim 1. The Revolution is intended as the stimulation of the national idea and consciousness (topos of savior/of authority). Claim 2. Its implementation depends on proper planning and joint effort. Claim 3. The Revolution has been a milestone splitting the Greek forces vertically. Claim 4. Believers and fighters belong to the forces of the nation (fallacy of composition). Claim 5. Opponents and disloyal people have no place in the Greek territory. Claim 6. In these critical moments there is no room for abstinence. Non-participants are considered traitors. Turncoats are considered cowards (fallacy of threat). Claim 7. The fight is not individual. It is a struggle of the Panhellenic people for salvation, for national independence (topos of savior, fallacy of popularity).

).

In the first abstract, two of the main social identity pronouns are ‘we’ and ‘students’. Nomination strategies tend to create sameness between the student body of the university, identifying a single common group of social actors. Linguistically, togetherness is established by tropes such as metaphoric expressions, which move the argument forward. Student identity is qualified only by means of positive predications, such as being ‘passionate’, ‘restless’, ‘crushed and restructured’, ‘art lovers’, ‘scientists’, ‘courageous’ and ‘hopeful’. Students as social actors are labeled positively, regardless of their ideological, political and academic qualities. Argumentation strategies justify the positive attributes ascribed to the students by a number of claims relying on the topoi of advantage/usefulness, humanitarianism and responsibility. The above extract reveals that the university students, on account of their erudition in science and art, are identified as imminent social reformers of the post-war era.

The second text is built upon the construction of ingroup and outgroup identities; a dichotomy that permeates the student body with the criteria of legality and submission to the dictates of an authoritarian regime. The delineation of ingroup and outgroup membership is constructed linguistically through a clear dichotomy of the student body between the believers and fighters (ingroup) and opponents and the disloyal (outgroup). These are divisive impersonal nominations, reflecting the supposed dominant power relations in the Greek society; the ingroup is linguistically constructed to be related to All Greeks while the outgroup is related to the non-participants. At the same time, concrete nominations are the Revolution and the leader. The repeated use of verbs denoting obligation (should join, must yield), as well as commitment (it is apparent, belong, have no place, there is no room), is considered important in terms of analysis. The strategy of predication is employed here, to identify negatively outgroup students as traitors and cowards. A focus on argumentation schemes reveal specific topoi and fallacies justifying savior and authority, which are used to justify the truth and normative validity of claims such as the advantage to all the citizens and the salvation of the nation. Respectively, fallacies of composition, threat and popularity are used for the construction of the domestic enemy. They are used to instill fear in and regulate the behavior of ingroup students, while supposedly justifying the displacement and marginalization of outgroup students. However, several claims are constructed without showing any need to convince the addressees.

4. Results

By examining discourses regarding Greek student identity in the post-war era through the DHA, this study detected four different identity constructions in differing contexts and periods. In addition, discursive strategies and their evolution in changing sociopolitical and historical settings are pointed out.

4.1. Students as Social Reformers and Agents of Change in the Mid-1940s

On the verge of the country’s liberation from the occupying Axis powers, or even in the aftermath of WWII, students are represented as social reformers and agents of change. The results highlighted below were derived from three journals (“The Beginning”, “The Student Torch” and “The Student”), published by the students at the University of Thessaloniki in 1944 and 1945, respectively.

All three are characterized by nomination strategies that promote togetherness, collectivity and solidarity. The only case of ingroup demarcation is found in the left-wing ‘The Student’, when referring to “students with progressive, anti-fascist, democratic ideals”. Students are represented as social actors; the verbs used to denote students’ dynamic processes and actions are as follows: live intensely and investigate, embrace, commit, do not forget the higher destiny, restore, create and lead the way.

Alongside nomination strategies, university student identity is given meaning through positive attributes combined in verbal and nominal predications: passionate, restless, crushed and restructured, art lovers, scientists, courageous, hopeful, a key factor of the creative forces of the society, a vibrant, creative and progressive pulse, the joy of life, etc.

Key argumentation strategies for legitimizing the process of social action are implemented through specific topoi, such as humanitarianism, responsibility, sameness and advantage or usefulness. The dominant narrative concerning the representation of student identity in that particular juncture goes beyond ideological positions and academic directions. It is clearly inclusive and is based on university students’ expertise in science and art. It is also constructed in relation to an emotional disposition, based on some key characteristics and rights of youth that make them competent to lead social change.

Therefore, according to the research data, in the mid-1940s, students were engaged in science and art discourse, heralding the change to a more civilized and prosperous world. Indeed, they identify the social change with themselves. Their leading role is a prerequisite for the improvement of the world, as eloquently stated in the following quote: “Science, art and in general our education are the means that will bring us closer and get to know the world and our people better, to love it and strive for its improvement. Science and art give us strong bases and deep foundations on which we will support the building of a better and higher civilization” (“The Beginning”, 1944:2, p. 17).

4.2. Students as Defenders of National-Mindedness in the Mid-1950s

In the 1950s, Greek society was dominated by the consequences of the fratricidal civil war. In such a context, university students reproduced the discourse of the winners of the civil war, prioritizing national-mindedness as a core qualification of student identity. Two student publications were examined (the magazines “Student Letters of Thessaloniki” and “All-students’”), which expressed the positions of the student unionists of the University of Thessaloniki. Greek irredentism, the historical contribution of the Greeks to the cultural heritage of mankind and social and cultural issues and news around the actions and demands of the students at the University of Thessaloniki are the most common subjects in the articles of these two magazines.

The texts are dominated by nomination strategies aiming at the discursive formation of national identity, defining, at the same time, an ingroup. The ‘we-group’, the students, play an important role in the texts, while there is no reference to outgroup students. Somehow or other, during that period, there were mechanisms in action that did not allow students who were not assessed as national-minded to access the university. On the contrary, in these texts a new dichotomy between ’Us’ and ’Them’ emerges. The “We” includes the student world, which is fighting for unity and the promotion of its demands. The “Them” reflects adults, who have the authority to make decisions: “the responsible treatment of these problems will be made by the selected representatives of religion, science and the State. But we ourselves must pose them” (Student Letters of Thessaloniki, March 1955). Students are more actively involved in national issues. Verbs such “took the lead in the national struggle”, “promote national aspirations” and “are aware of the pursued national goals”, contribute to the construction of a student identity that prioritized the national duty.

As far as predications are concerned, explicit comparisons and similes are used to identify the students as continuers of the national intellectual tradition (“Greece is destined to create through struggles, to exert powers unceasingly manifesting excellent works. Continuing this role, our students make us optimistic for the future”, ib.id.). Evaluative traits attributed to students are exceptionally ethnocentric, if not nationalistic: “leaders of our eternal race”, “the best future of the country” and “pioneers in the struggles for national integration”.

The topos of history is the dominant strategy of argumentation, indicating a historical legacy of the race and duties derived therefrom. As aforementioned, argumentation strategies are used to justify the properties of a projected identity. In the texts being studied, nationalist discourse produces claims concerning the historical destiny of the race, the nation’s spiritual superiority and the necessity of fulfilling national aspirations; except from topos of history, these are justified by reasonable argumentations, such as the topoi of responsibility, of priority and of national uniqueness, and less reasonable, such as the fallacy of composition, which is a widespread strategy in nationalistic discourse [35]. As it is expressly stated, nationalist discourse provides the meanings of a student image that is dictated by the course of history and the high destiny of the nation-state: “Our student youth is destined to become the leader of the nation. The latter is a great honor, but it is also a great responsibility for any Greek. Students are called not only to preserve what the previous generations prepared, but also to promote it. [...] Certainly, each individual as a person has its own value. However, the fabric of his/her personality was created for him/her by the national community within he/she was born and grew up” (“Student Letters of Thessaloniki”, 1955:1, p.2).

4.3. Students as Social and Political Activists in the Mid-1960s

As a rule, Greek historiography emphasizes the leading participation of students in mobilizations that broke out in Greece from 1962 to 1966. Greek university students demanded the modernization of education and democratization of society. Those who participated in mobilizations essentially opposed authoritarianism and the systematic degradation of education that had been implemented by right-wing governments throughout the 1950s. Consequently, the student mobilizations took on a character of political and social activism, aiming at radical changes in Greek society [10]. Aligned with the period, the texts we studied construct an identity of students as social and political activists. The results noted below came from two journals, “The Bulletin of the Students’ Association of the Polytechnic School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki” (1962) and “The Student World. Monthly student review” (1963–66).

Nomination strategies employed by the authors of the texts differ significantly from the findings of previous decades. The ingroup is indicated by “We”, which sometimes is specified in “the students” or the “the youth”. Verbs like struggle, judge, demand, politicize, defend for democracy, take to the streets and they mercilessly beat, serve the construction of the students’ activist identity. At the same time, the linguistic construction of an outgroup, that of governmental and institutional officials, is obvious. That abstractly nominated outgroup is attached to verbs such as don’t care, teach, scheming and disrupt, which highlight the failure of those in charge to serve the interests of society and the new generation.

Notably, such a transition in student identity from one decade to another presupposes contestation and new meaning attribution in embedded concepts through student discourse. While the former is mainly attempted in emerging argumentative strategies, the latter is implemented through predication strategies. Students contest the dominant political and social rationale by attributing negative characteristics to outgroup members. Governmental and institutional officials are accused of being submissive, indifferent, quibblers, schemers, obscurantists, defendants, violent and unfair. In the opposite way, students are represented as united, determined, nationally beneficial, participating in an unprecedented struggle in the Greek student history, prosecutors, not absurd and not anarchic.

As expected, in the texts of this period, a tension of claims and argumentative strategies is detected. Claims attempt to justify the unavoidable activism of students. Activism is founded on the necessity for young people to seek solutions for chronic unsolved problems, to improve their life prospects and society as a whole, to create conditions for a better education and to ensure better prospects for Greek citizens ahead of the country’s imminent accession to the European community. Justifications are prominent in a student discourse overwhelmed by the topos of responsibility. The topoi of emergency and advantage or usefulness are also detected, while the topos of national usefulness, which is also detected (“Our struggle is national. We ask for tolerable study conditions, essential education and complete scientific training, in order to meet tomorrow’s duties and obligations towards the nation. We believe that education is the best national defense and the most profitable national investment”, “The Bulletin of the Students’ Association of the Polytechnic School of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki”, 1962:3, p.12), could be considered a bridge to the student audience who had internalized the dominant nationalistic discourse of the previous decade.

4.4. Students as Submissive Recipients of the State Authority in the Period of the Colonels’ Dictatorship

The perpetrators of the coup d’état of 21st April 1967 had tried to justify its enforcement, among others, as being due to the moral depravity and anarchy which had supposedly dominated young people [13]. Fatefully, within an authoritarian and punitive regime, political activist discourse was completely prohibited. A submissive discourse emerged instead. Students appointed by the regime in student unions undertook the construction of the new discourse and gave new attributes to student identity. Given the strict control over press circulation, the only journal we examined for this period was the “Student World”, the official publication of the Student Union of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

The studied texts construct a new dichotomy between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. Nomination strategies delineate the ingroup in close relation to the support of the dictatorial regime. In fact, the ingroup constitutes a subgroup of submissive subjects. The whole group is linguistically constructed around the repeated noun Revolution. At the same time, the choice of the noun the leader denotes the hierarchical relationships of the ingroup and signifies a personality cult. An abstract outgroup also emerges under nomination strategies, which is constructed discursively by the criterion of non-acceptance or controversy of the regime. The dichotomy between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ now permeates the student body itself.

Identifying students as submissive recipients of the state authority, and even more, delimiting the outgroup within an institutionalized group, involves predication strategies that serve marginalization or even displacement. Outgroup students are accused as traitors and cowards, anarchists, depraved and ideologically astray. Reasonably, ingroup students are attributed with national-mindedness, responsibility and moral superiority (believers and fighters, nationally beneficial, fighters for national independence).

Of particular interest are the selected argumentation strategies. In most cases, claims are not followed by justifying arguments. Conceding to claims without argumentation is compatible with the challenging nature of the totalitarian regime. Accordingly, claims such “The Revolution has been a milestone splitting the Greek forces vertically”, “Opponents and disloyal have no place in the Greek territory” and “The leader of the revolution makes the welfare of the new generation his first priority”, are so taken for granted that they become axiomatic assumptions. After all, claims such as “in a way that does not allow any misinterpretation”, “there is no room for dispute” or “no concern for the future is justified” also arise as a postulate, declaring authoritarianism. On the other hand, topoi (of savior, of authority) or fallacies (composition, popularity) are rarely enlisted to in order to justify stereotypical attributions to ingroup and outgroup students.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

Overall, our results confirm that significant shifts in dominant student identity occurred during the post-war period. However, new emerging discourses reflected existing patterns of dominance, rather than challenging them. University of Thessaloniki student discourses seem to be tuned to domestic sociopolitical developments. Notwithstanding, when such developments become a palpable reality, students sometimes self-identify as agents of change and some other times as followers or recipients thereof. It seems that such self-identification is crucial; it reflects the dominant identity characteristics and their ideological references; at the same time, it redefines the ‘us and them’ dichotomy and the ingroup and the outgroup demarcation rationale. Our findings reveal that the ‘us and them’ discursive dichotomy becomes a safe haven when building and generating a positive collective identity, while it is associated with intensification of argumentative strategies [36]. Regarding the ‘us and them’ dichotomy, it is noteworthy that its empirical content changes in relation to the successive shifts in student identity. When the ‘us and them’ dichotomy is implemented under the authoritarian regime of a dictatorship, it permeates the student body itself, constructing the domestic enemy among the university students. Our results also indicate that discursive strategies are realized in close relation to social and political attitudes. More specifically, discrete argumentation strategies operate throughout the agency discourse, compared with topoi and fallacies, which are activated when student identity unfolds into nationalist discourse. Instead, hybrid student texts of the mid-1960s, which show a combination of agency discourses with those of nationalism, reveal changing identities reflecting an evolving social change [36]. Next, the results are discussed and interpreted with respect to the research questions posed, also from a DHA perspective.

5.1. Shifts in Dominant Student Identity Patterns Reflecting Domestic Sociopolitical Transitions

Different patterns of student identity are conveyed in the studied texts. Students are represented as social reformers and agents of change in the aftermath of WWII, defenders of national-mindedness in the first years after the civil war, social and political activists during an attempted democratization of the country in the mid-1960s and submissive recipients of the state authority in the period of the colonels’ dictatorship. The escalation of agency and activism in student identity discourse is followed by a long-term ripple effect of discursive national introversion. Thus, the discursive degradation of agency as a student identity feature is offset by the exaggeration of national identity over identities such as social class, scientific and academic identity, etc. This finding is reflective of the sociocultural context in post-war Greece, where efforts to bring about social change were treated as a national threat and were discredited by the politics of nationalism [27]. Against this backdrop, we assume that shifts in student identity reflect domestic sociopolitical transitions. In general, aside from the mid-1960s, as we will attempt to demonstrate below, they are not a result of social change, nor do they cause it. Within their own respective years, identity shifts functioned as a result of processes taking place in the central political scene of the country. Meanwhile, given the worldwide student political activism in the 1950s and 1960s [24], it is obvious that post-war student identity constructions at the University of Thessaloniki ran counter to international trends, probably with the exception of the mid-1960s, once again.

5.2. Constructing Student Identity upon the ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ Dichotomy

Discussing the results on the constructions of the ingroup and outgroup employed in discourses sheds more light on the manifold context and practices of student identity formation. In the mid-1940s, there is no outgroup demarcation, while the texts promote togetherness, collectivity and solidarity. The ingroup consists of the students as a whole, who are represented as competent to lead social change. In the mid-1950s, the ingroup consists of the student world. The discursive construction of the outgroup identifies, positively, an abstract adult world. In the mid-1960s, the ingroup is indicated by “We”, “the students” or the “the youth”. The outgroup consists of the adults, specifically those with institutional jurisdictions, who are represented as uniformly negative. Completely different is the construction of the ingroup and the outgroup in 1969, when a dichotomy between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ permeates the student body itself, and keeping up with the dictatorial regime constitutes the criterion of demarcation. The student ingroup, as social actors, is represented in detail in the mid-1940s and mid-1960s. Respectively, the student outgroup, in 1969, is precisely identified and more differentiated than the student ingroup. In general, predication and argumentation strategies become more intensive and detailed, whereas a significant shift in identity construction occurs [9]. The studied texts in the mid-1960s are representative of the above. At the same time, they also differ in demarcating dominating adult persons as an outgroup, liable to control and accountability. In this light also, it is concluded that construction of the student identity in the mid-1960s does reflect distinct practices compared to the other cases studied here.

5.3. Discursive Strategies and Hybridity in Times of Social Change

Studying student discourse in the post-war period reinforces the premise “that texts are historically linked and that both discourse and historical contexts impact on the selection of linguistic features” [31]. Authoritative discourse relates to argumentation strategies structured in the discursive topoi of history, responsibility, savior, national uniqueness and authority and in the fallacies of composition, threat and popularity, as well. At the same time, compatible with the challenging nature of an autocratic regime, claims are taken for granted and not followed by justifying arguments. On the other hand, agency discourse relates to the topoi of humanitarianism, responsibility, sameness, advantage or usefulness and national usefulness, as well. The latter constitutes a discursive hybridity that can be traced back to the mid-1960s, during an ongoing social change in Greek society [28]. It also reflects an ideological as well as cultural shift of student identity, that, despite the repressive policies of the dictatorial period, contributed to the uprising against the colonels’ autocratic regime a few years later, in 1973, which was instrumental in ending the over-7-year military junta in Greece [13].