POLITICAL RHETORIC
1. INTRODUCTION HB: C1&C2
THE IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL RHETORIC
No politics without persuasion
Political parties try to persuade us to vote for them, but us citizens also try to persuade
politicians into doing things we want. Politics requires choices to be formulated, options to
be weighed and decisions to be made.
Reason: uncertainty / ambiguity
If everything was clear, it would be a world without choices and there would be no need for
persuasion, but of course that’s not how the world functions; there is a lot of uncertainty.
Persuasion by speech vs. persuasion by force
Persuasion = transforming a variety of possible options into a unified judgement or decision.
• persuasion by using force: threatening violence, doesn’t feel like persuasion
• persuasion by speech: mutual understanding, shared perceptions and interpretation,
is much more powerful because you agree to be persuaded (instead of just obeying)
= really important for political actors and the dominant medium of persuasion
Persuasion is “a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their own
attitudes or behaviors regarding an issue through the transmission of a message in an atmosphere of free
choice” (Perloff, 2020, p. 24)
“Democracy . . . is distinguished as a form of governance by the extent of persuasion relative to coercion”
(Mutz, Sniderman & Brody, 1996)
The fundamental political skill?
Yes, persuading each other is the most fundamental skill in politics.
WHAT IS RHETORIC?
< Greek ‘retoriketekhne’
• Rhetor = speaker or orater
• Tekhne = art or skill
Studying rhetoric = learning the practical skills of persuasion
Studying rhetoric = how to speak and how to persuade others
Studying rhetoric = studying the persuasiveness of speech
Studying rhetoric = which kind of speech arts can be most convincing to others
Studying rhetoric = which elements are persuasive and which not and why (not)
Not limited to spoken word (oratory)
= it is the complete package that you use to convince an audience
• Written word
• Visuals (that you include in the background when you are speaking)
1
, POLITICAL RHETORIC
Many areas of rhetorical studies
E.g. law, organization studies, marketing, …
Focus on persuasion in the political realm
Relative strangers who seek our support on matters of great significance with the
purpose of achieving or keeping office, using recourses in specific ways, weakening
opponents or sustaining alliances.
Not limited to politicians inside formal institutions!
Politician refers to any individual or group (inside or outside a formal institution) that seeks
to promote a political position, they are self-appointed agents of change and innovation.
So ordinary citizens can also engage in political rhetoric (e.g. by organising a demonstration).
e.g. Steven Van Gucht, Emma Watson, journalists of Fox News (very republican), …
“What makes a political speech persuasive (or not)?”
EXERCISE
“Most famous persuasive speech in history”: Martin Luther King – I have a dream
• August 1963, activist leader of civil rights movement
• March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
• 100 years after Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln)
“Five score years ago (= five times 20 = 100 years), a great American, in whose symbolic
shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.”
Do you find the speech persuasive? Write down as many elements as possible which you
think make the speech persuasive.
• Credibility as a person: who he is; displaying eloquence, expertise, reason
• Arousal of emotion (metaphors)
• Convincing arguments
• Use of rhetorical devices
o E.g. repetitions of key phrases (I have a dream)
o E.g. allusions
o E.g. rhyme
• How he speaks: it’s almost like singing (it draws you into what he’s saying)
• His body language
• The symbolism of the place where he makes the speech
“We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not
allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.”
“No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters,
and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
“We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain
lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.”
2
, A DIVERSE RESEARCH FIELD
Different backgrounds, different questions
• Linguistics (e.g. rhetorical figures: metaphors)
• Psychology (e.g. emotions vs. the cognitive: what effects emotions have on people)
• Political science (e.g. questions of power and practices of citizenship: who can speak
in what positions and who is not seen as a political actor that can make this claim)
• Communication science (e.g. mass media)
Each with their own terminology & research methods
Difficulty: they don’t always talk to each other
This course: eclectic approach ® we borrow a little bit of each field.
RHETORIC, A CONTESTED NOTION
Words often associated with rhetoric: “mere”; “empty (promises)”; “danger”
e.g. Trump and the attack on the capitol
• Rhetoric is composed with the truth
• Rhetoric is contrasted with reality
• Can people be persuaded of anything? (violence,
misinformation)
At the same time: no democracy without free speech?
It’s a good and important thing in a democracy: everyone is allowed to
voice their concerns and to give or express their opinion (free speech).
ð Then where does the scepticism come from?
The discomfort with rhetorical speech has a long history, it’s not a recent phenomenon.
RHETORIC WAS CENTRAL TO ANCIENT DEMOCRACY
Greece, 500 BC
From aristocracy to democracy
• Demos = people
• Ekklesia = assembly
Highly participatory system
To be as citizen in this system was regarded as an honor that bestowed important duties
upon the individual. The status of being a citizen comes with obligations: it was expected
that if you were included as a citizen, you had to participate and be active (fight and die).
Inclusion of ‘all’ people in citizenship = males (18+) whose families originated from Attica.
Rhetorical skills were important
There was a high regard for the powers of oral persuasion. There were smart people who
took advantage of it, and anyone accused of breaking the law had to defend himself in
person, so it was important that you knew how to speak and defend yourself.
3
,“Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well: even those
who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics – this is a
peculiarity of ours: we do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own
business; we say that he has no business here at all.” (Thucydides)
Teachers: sophists
Learned people how to speak, instructed people in the techniques of persuasive rhetoric’s.
They merely taught people how to feign knowledge and were not genuine philosophers.
• Sophos = wisdom
• e.g. Gorgias, Protagoras
Culture of oral transmission
Different views of classical thinkers (not everyone liked it: Plato)
PLATO
Rhetoric is empty and dangerous
The techniques that the sophists are teaching us do not align with the truth.
• It can persuade most people of anything
o a ‘rudderless boat’
o “sophistries”: tricks to convince people about something that is often not true
• Can do bad instead of good
o An expert in rhetoric can persuade to do something bad instead of good
o e.g. the death of his mentor Socrates: he had to drink poison because he
‘corrupted the youth’. Plato was a bit traumatized because Socrates was a
good and wise person who was actually very good at persuading people.
Belief in one moral “truth”
There is only one truth and only some of us can see this truth.
• Allegory of the cave: we are somehow stuck in a cave. What we see is only the image
of projections of the real world. Only some of us can leave the cave and can see
things in their pure form.
• Only a small elite can see it and other people are guardians to protect them.
“The Republic”: Plato’s ideal republic
• Society should be based on reason
• Strict division in citizens to their class: philosopher-kings; guardians and traders
Ideas were later criticized (e.g. Popper: origins of ‘totalitarian’ thought)
You defend the fact that some people have all the power and others have nothing to say.
You control society and limit their freedom in the name of a utopian vision of perfect order.
More sympathetic reading: argument for alternative type of rhetoric (dialectic)
No matter what the argument is, political actors think about what the people want them to
say. Plato says that you shouldn't only persuade people (rhetoric), but you should go in
dialogue with them (dialectic: whose purpose is to demonstrate the truth of things).
ð cf. technocracy today: separating complex public choices from the public and handing
them over to an elite of representatives and experts to critically evaluate the policy.
4
, ARISTOTLE
Student of Plato
More positive reading of rhetoric
Speech and persuasion have an undoubted, practical role in sustaining the political
community and rhetoric could therefore be regarded as an acceptable ally of philosophy.
• Man is a ‘political animal’
What distinguishes us from other types of animals is that we communicate moral
ideas with each other.
• ‘Good life’ is life in accordance with community (vs. Plato: natural state) and speech
and persuasion (rhetoric) are an important part of that.
® the “good life” could mean a number of things to different communities
® the purpose of the polis is to attend to the good life of the families and
communities (teleological: all things develop in order to fulfil their purpose)
Rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning (dialectic)
He rejects the sophistic view of rhetoric (simply about persuasion). Instead, he insists on
aligning rhetoric with dialectic.
• How should the best case be put, given the argument, evidence, audience, …?
• Best case is not always clear, sometimes there is uncertainty
“The art of rhetoric”
Book he wrote about which kinds of arguments you can make and various dimensions of
speech (see classical rhetoric for a classification of the different aspects of rhetorical study).
Disclaimer: exclusive notion of ‘citizen’
It’s necessary for an audience to hear different sides of an argument and to make a
judgment based not on higher principles of truth, but on the weight of evidence.
• Cf. importance of ‘enthymeme’
= a technique where you don’t make the full argument, but you assume that your
audience already shares a certain amount of knowledge and values with you.
= reasoning from commonplace understandings that can usually be taken for granted
e.g. “we should eat less meat for climate change” (you don’t give the explanation
about what climate change is and how we can prevent it by eating less meat).
ß the audience must be a community of likeminded people
• Degree of permitted disagreement is limited
Who could participate in the political life was still very limited in order to avoid a
reaction to a narrow idea. It should not be too inclusive because it would destabilize
the system as it was: only male citizens who had wives and slaves were allowed.
5
, CICERO
Great orator of the Roman world
No democracy, but speech was a central part for speakers to win over their audience.
Treatises on rhetoric (e.g. “De Oratore”)
He also made an instruction in how to be a good speaker (more practical, less philosophical).
Like Aristotle, refuted sophism where rhetoric could be used for any purpose
• Understanding of topic comes first; then follows good speech
• But he himself was pragmatic (= rational, down-to-earth, realistic) and prepared to
adapt his arguments to whatever seemed likely to protect the republic.
Persuasion is not about techniques but about the talent to adapt
A good speaker is someone who perfectly feels what is needed in what situation. The ideal
orator has a strong understanding of his topic, and can persuade his audience with reason,
authority and emotion combined.
RHETORIC DIMINISHED WHEN MODERN STATE EMERGED
Centralized, powerful authorities make decisions for the people
Laws to be obeyed without discussion (monopoly of violence)
Subordination of citizen assemblies to rules. Public speaking and the rhetorical arts
continued to have a part to play, but they were severely limited in the public realm.
Two thinkers (Hobbes and Rousseau)
• Contrasting interpretations of sovereign state
• Similar perception of danger of rhetoric and the need to limit its effects
HOBBES
“Leviathan” (1651)
Pessimist about nature of human beings
The ‘natural condition’ of mankind is one of uncertainty & competition driven by passion /
appetite. Humans cannot be trusted to peacefully reconcile their common needs & desires.
• Capable of reasoning (not like animals) but just don’t usually do it
• But different interpretations of the same event (e.g. violence versus justice)
No shared morality: humans just follow their passion and act in their own interest.
Rhetoric leads to even more confusion and misunderstandings
• e.g. metaphors: one person interprets a metaphor different than another person
• vs. ‘Perspicuous words’ (= language that is clear and easy to understand)
They could not agree on basic definitions and vocabulary that a stable community requires.
6
,Rational thing to do: one-time “social contract”
“It’s in my best interest that I give my power to a higher authority who can decide what’s
best for me and other people as well”.
Individuals put survival above their preferred interpretations by appointing a supreme
power to bring civil piece and to decide the key definitions of civil vocabulary. Once agreed
as a legitimate power however, the sovereign is free to decide the laws and determine the
liberties of its citizens.
ð The state is the dominant voice in an otherwise crowded environment of interpretations.
ROUSSEAU
“Social contract” (1762)
Humans are ‘naturally good’ but modern society made them selfish and competitive
Modern society had blurred their view of knowing what the good thing is to do.
Return to harmony through agreement among citizens
Reorder society in such a way that reduces the dissonance between the public and private
worlds: a political community where citizens constitute the body of the sovereign.
• State is not a distant Leviathan
No external authority
• Collective citizen body remains in charge
= a self-governing community
• Obey the “General Will” (internal motivation): which we all know is the best for us
= the collective interest as determined by the citizens themselves.
Submission to it is not handing power over to someone else to dictate but to align
one’s private interests with those of the community as a whole (moral freedom).
General Will: not developed through rhetoric
It would be better if citizens did not communicate at all. Deliberations is less a process of
argumentative speech and more the outcome of internal reasoning from the standpoint of
the General Will.
Persuasion is essentially non-argumentative and appeals to the individual’s conscience.
Persuasion is not convincing each other but just knowing what is good without even
speaking about it by consulting the ‘secret voice of conscience’.
“Long debates bespeak the ascendance of particular interests and the decline of the state”
Need for unanimity: small & highly exclusive state
Where people identify with each other and there is a shared sentiment from within. It might
help if the people were already in some kind of association, where they all knew each other.
7
, EXERCISE
1. Plato… A. … thinks that rhetorical techniques can help in the pursuit of truth.
2. Aristoteles… B. … believes one voice should be granted primacy over all other
voices to temper an otherwise conflictual society.
3. Hobbes… C. … is an anti-political thinker who believes society should be based
on pure reason. Rhetoric is unnecessary and dangerous.
4. Rousseau… D. … envisions a society where citizens deliberate to come to
agreement, but without actually communicating.
SOLUTION: 1C 2A 3B 4D
IS RHETORIC A BAD/DANGEROUS THING
Roots of the debate: classical thinkers / political theorists
Why do so many people (and classical thinkers/political theorists) see rhetoric as dangerous?
Argument of James Martin (handbook): politics vs. the political
• Politics
= regular activities taking place within the rules of the game, day to day politics
= routine: negotiating, administering, forming coalitions, developing policy, …
• The political
= higher principles (what are the rules of the game?)
= about power: what is allowed and what not (who has the right to vote, what do we
consider as political issues, who is allowed to speak in public, …)
The political is only partially settled (contingency)…
The basic structure of all political relations is open for contest and reformulation.
• Realization that things might be done differently (e.g. maybe some actors who don’t
have a voice today deserve one: give legitimacy to other actors)
• Power relations can always change
… vs. philosophers who search for stable principles
ð Potential for chaos, disorder, crisis, and fear that the social order will be undermined.
Dismissal of rhetoric is a symptom of that concern
Because rhetoric involves both politics & the political
• “Just rhetoric”: mundane day-to-day-business
• “Speeches that changed the world”: efforts to establish new principles
® Most often in between, the two are constantly interweaving.
8
