Cybersecurity Discourse: A CDA of Western Perspectives on Cyber Threats

This paper argues that the discursive practices surrounding cybersecurity are infused with ideology and often deviate from principles of objectivity and accuracy. The research offers a critical analysis of three speeches delivered by government officials from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Using the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the study draws on Van Dijk’s concepts of local and global meanings, Wodak’s and Fairclough’s approaches to intertextuality, and Van Dijk’s ideological square. The findings reveal that by framing the cybersecurity narrative within a criminal context, Western powers position themselves as arbiters of justice. Cybersecurity threats are depicted as ongoing and immediate, with progressive forms and emotionally charged language amplifying their urgency. Intertextual analysis shows that discourse on cyberspace leverages past terrorist incidents and current geopolitical conflicts to induce fear and stoke animosity toward particular social groups. The analysis uncovers a problematic use of military terminology, despite the absence of actual warfare in cyberspace. Nation-states are personified as culprits, with cyberattacks construed as manifestations of their desire to undermine democracy and impose global dominance. This overarching narrative invites critical scrutiny, as it reveals a deepening polarisation between the West and East that aggravates long-standing geopolitical divides. As this language shapes our understanding of reality, such divisions risk transforming imagined threats into self-fulfilling prophecies. Ensuring terminological precision and conceptual clarity is therefore essential to recognising and resisting the manipulative potential of cybersecurity discourse.