POLITICAL RHETORIC
Political Rhetoric
,LECTURE 1 – INTRODUCTION
The importance of political rhetoric
- No politics without persuasion
o We try to persuade each other.
o Political parties persuades the voter with their program. They have distinct ideas for
how to make the world a better place.
o Citizens as well try to persuade each other. We try to convince each other, to make
people aware of certain problems.
- Reason: uncertainty
o Is everything was clear, there wont be a need for persuasion.
o Is we more or less agree on certain goals, there is often uncertainty of what is the
best way to do it.
o Different actors have a different vision of what is the best way to deal with these
problems, and try to persuade each other.
- Persuasion by speech vs persuasion by force
o Persuasion= a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince each other
people to change their own attitudes or behaviours regarding an issue through the
transmission of a message in an atmosphere of free choice.
o Democracy= distinguished as a form of governance by the extent of persuasion
relative to coercion.
o There are many ways to persuade someone else:
▪ By brute force, by using violence
• I want you to fight in my war, and if you don’t agree, I put you in
prison.
• It’s more threatening and forcing someone.
▪ By speech
• It has a voluntary aspect of it. To accept and be convinced of what a
person is saying.
• Involves some kind of identification with the person who is trying to
persuade you, what makes is more powerful. You internalize it more.
• If you don’t have this type of persuading, it’s difficult to stay in
power for a long time.
- The fundamental political skill?
o Persuading each other by means of speech is the fundamental political skill.
o Political rhetoric= the art of speaking/ persuading each other
What is rhetoric?
- Greek: retoriketekhne= the art of knowing how to speak and persuade others.
o Rethor: speaker
o Thekne: art
- Studying rhetoric= learning the practical skill of persuasion.
o The practical aspect.
Political Rhetoric
, o Being instructed in the practical things of persuasion. Learning the technical things;
how can you persuade someone.
o Which kind of arguments and speech arts are most convincing to what kind of
audience.
- studying rhetoric= studying the persuasiveness of speech.
o The analytical approach.
o How to recognize which elements of a speech are persuasive.
- Not limited to spoken word (oratory): written words and visuals
o You include them while you are speaking.
o It’s the full picture of how a political actor communicates, or does an attempt to
communicate a message to an audience.
Political rhetoric
- Many areas of rhetorical studies
- Persuasion in the political realm
- No limited to politicians! Many people can function as political actors.
o We can organize a demonstration and find an audience, and engage in political
rhetoric, to try and convince others.
o During the pandemic, scientist became political actors, who had a certain agenda
and tried to convince the people to obey certain rules.
o Journalist can turn inro political actors as well. They can make claims and defend
certain viewpoints.
- What makes a political speech persuasive (or not)?
o How do political actors try to persuade others and which kind of strategies are
efficient and which not?
Warm-up exercise
Martin Luther King – I have a dream:
- Most famous persuasive speech in history
- Possible elements:
o Credibility of a person
▪ Who he is
▪ Displaying eloquence, expertise, reason
o Arousal of emotion (metaphors)
o Convincing arguments
o Use of rhetorical devices
▪ Reputation
▪ Allusions
▪ Rhyme
o How he speaks
Political Rhetoric
,A diverse research field?
- Different backgrounds, different questions
o Linguistics
▪ Rhetorical figures
o Psychology
▪ Emotions vs the cognitive
o Political science
▪ Questions of power
▪ Who can speak in what position and who is not seen as a legitimate actor to
make claims.
o Communication science
▪ Mass media
- Each with their own terminology and research methods
o Different fields tent to have different research methods.
- Difficulty: they don’t always talk to each other
o We will borrow from all the different fields.
- This course: eclectic approach
Is rhetoric a bad/ dangerous thing?
Roots of debate: classical thinkers/ political theorists
Rhetoric, a contested notion
- Words often associated with rhetoric: “mere”, “empty”
o Rhetoric is contrasted with reality. As if it’s opposed to the truth.
- Associated with danger
o Can be used to persuade people to anything.
o It’s an important thing in the democracy ➔ free speech.
▪ Everyone is allowed to voice their concerns and express their opinion.
▪ It’s a condition. Without it, there is no democracy, but it’s also a treat to the
fundamental values of the democracy.
Rhetoric was central to ancient democracy
- Greece, 500 BC
- From aristocracy to democracy
o Demos= people
o Ekklesia= assembly
▪ Were people debated the rules of the community, the policies and where
rules were made.
- Highly participatory system
o Status of being citizen comes with obligations/
o More people gained the status of being an official citizen. There was more inclusion.
o It was expected that if you were a citizen, that you participated and that you were
well informed in politics.
Political Rhetoric
, - Rhetorical skills were important
o When you were accused of something, it was important that you knew how to speak
and defend yourself.
- Teachers: sophists
o Sophos= wisdom
o Sophist= teachers who used this vacuum to teach people on how to speak well. They
instructed people into the techniques of persuasive rhetoric.
- Culture of oral transmission
o Talking was something that was appreciated. People were used to listen to each
other.
o The good speaker was well respected in this culture.
- Different views of classical thinkers
Plato
- Classical thinker
- Rhetoric is empty and dangerous
o It can persuade most people of anything: a rudderless boat; sophistries
▪ Doesn’t have to be aligned with the truth.
▪ It’s a technique that you better not use if you want to know the real truth.
▪ Sophistries= tricks to convince people of things that are actually not true or
not in the best interest of the people.
o Can do bad instead of good; death of his mentor Socrates:
▪ He had to drink poison because he was accused of corrupting the truth. He
was teaching youngsters of political affairs.
▪ He had to defend himself in court, but the person who accused him, was
very convincing, so they voted for his death.
- Belief in one moral “truth”
o Allegory of the cave
▪ People are stuck in a cave and only see a projection of the cave. Only some
of us who are smart enough, can see the things and concepts in their true
form.
o Only a small elite can see it
▪ There is one big truth, but only some of us are given the capacities to have
insight into the truth. It’s a small elite and the others shouldn’t try to.
- ‘the republic”= a written proposal of how society should look like.
o Society should be based on reason
o Strict division: philosopher-kings, guardians and traders
▪ Philosopher-kings ➔ those who know the truth.
• We don’t need rhetoric, we only need the philosopher kings to use
their wisdom to look inside to what’s really important.
▪ All others should be guardians to protect the community.
▪ Their should be a strict division of labour.
- Ideas were later criticized
o Popper: first defense of a totalitarian system, where you defend the fact that only
some people have the power, and everyone else had nothing to say.
- More sympathetic reading: argument for alternative type of rhetoric: dialectic.
Political Rhetoric
, o There should first be a real argumentation to what you really think is in peoples best
interest. Rhetoric shouldn’t be the highest principle, ideology should come first.
o Argues for dialectic:
▪ Incorporate ideas from both sides. You try to come to the best solution and
not try to persuade each other.
o Technocracy today
Aristotle
- Student of Plato
- More positive reading of rhetoric
o Man is a political animal
▪ And it distinguishes us from other animals. We live in a community and talk
with each other. We share certain moral values.
o Good life is life in accordance with community
▪ It’s not some kind of natural state. Rhetoric is a part of the community.
▪ Vs Plato: natural state
- Rhetoric complements philosophical reasoning
o How should the best case be put, given the argument, evidence and audience. What
is the best way to phrase the best solution.
o Best case is not always clear
▪ Sometimes there is uncertainty, and in some instances rhetoric is important.
- “The art of rhetoric”
o He builds a systematic classification of techniques that are used in rhetoric.
o The kind of arguments you can make, can appeal to emotion, reason or to the
character of the speaker.
- Disclaimer: exclusive notion of ‘citizen’
o Who the citizen was and could participate in political debate, was very limited. Only
men from a certain background. He allows this and thinks is should not become to
inclusive, because then the system gets under pressure.
o Importance of enthymeme
▪ Enthymeme= technique where when you make an argument, you don’t
make the full argument and it’s not fully based on logical premises. You
somehow assume that your audience already shares certain values and
arguments with you. You assume a shared understanding with the audience.
You leave away some of the aspects of the full reasoning.
o Degree of permitted disagreement is limited
▪ The community is a group of like minded citizens, where no one will really
change the foundations of the community.
▪ People who fall behind, aren’t allowed access in the assembly. Anyone who
is not a real citizen, should not be allowed to hear it and to decide on
anything.
Cicero
- Great orator of the Roman world
- Treatises on rhetoric:
o De Oratore= instructions in how to be a good speaker.
Political Rhetoric
, - Like Aristotle, refund sophism
o Understanding of topic comes first, then follows good speech
o But he himself was pragmatic
▪ Rhetoric can be very important and valuable in politics.
▪ He was the person who would argue for anything that suited him best I his
political strategy.
- Persuasion is not about techniques but about the talent to adapt
o You need to adapt to different situations, audiences and topics.
o A good speaker is someone who feels what is needed a certain situation.
Rhetoric diminished when modern state emerged
- Centralized, powerful and authorities
o Citizens started to disconnect from public life, and they stated to focus more on their
private life.
o The decisions for the people were made by central powerful authorities.
- Laws to be obeyed without discussion: monopoly of violence
o They can demand from the citizens and decide what they need to do and can be
done.
o Subordination of citizen assemblies to rules
- Two thinkers tried to explain how people agreed with this: Hobbes and Rousseau
o To obey to some kind of authority to the sovereign state.
o Contrasting interpretations of sovereign state
o Similar perception of danger of rhetoric
Hobbes
- Leviathan
- Pessimist about nature of human beings: uncertainty and competition driven by passion/
appetite
o When human beings need to live together to survive, then society is driven by
uncertainty and competition. People just follow their passions and act in their own
best interests.
o Capable of reasoning (not like animals)
▪ Life is difficult for people, just to survive, so they don’t do it.
o But different interpretations of the same event: no shared morality
▪ People don’t interpretate similar situations in the same way. People don’t
have shared values.
- Rhetoric leads to even more confusion/ chaos
o Metaphors
▪ One person interprets a metaphor in another way than someone else.
o Perspicuous words
▪ Very clean words, that have the exact meaning, as they are intended to be.
- Rational thing to do: one-time “social contract”
o Appoint supreme power to bring civil peace back. The power is centralized in a
central authority.
o It’s in my best interest that I give the power to some kind of higher authority who
decides for me and can protect me as an individual.
Political Rhetoric
,Rousseau
- Social contact
- Humans are naturally good, but modern society made them selfish
o They are naturally good and are able to live together in a polite way without conflict.
- Return to argument through agreement among citizens
o State is not a distant Leviathan: no external authority
o Collective citizen body remains in charge
▪ It’s the people who remain collectively in charge of obeying to the general
will; what we know is best for everyone.
o Obey the General Will: internal motivation
▪ It’s more of an internal motivation, to obey what we all know, and think is
the best.
▪ People will only plea for their own interests, not the general interests.
- General Will: not developed through rhetoric
o Long debate bespeak the ascendance of particular interests and the decline of the
state
o Persuasion is essentially non-argumentative: appeals to individual’s conscience
▪ Persuasion should not be rhetoric, but looking inside internally, to know
what’s really good.
- Need for unanimity: small and highly exclusive state
o People identify with each other: shared sentiment from within
o You need a small and exclusive state where people actually do naturally agree to
what’s best values that society should strive for.
Explanation by Martin: politics vs the political
- Why do so many people and classical thinkers/ political theorists see rhetoric as dangerous?
- Arguments of James Martin: politics vs the political
o Politics= regular activities taking place within the rules of the game
▪ It’s what parliaments are doing when they are negotiating. Deciding which
policy they will implement and what the details are.
▪ It’s routine day to day politics.
o The political= higher principles; what are the rules of the game?
▪ Who is allowed to speak in public, who can be representative, what are
legitimate issues for debate, who can vote
▪ They are about power. What is aloud, and what not.
- The political is only partially settled…
o We have a kind of understanding of the rules of the game. When there is no partially
settlement, there can be no ordinary politics.
o Realization that things might be done differently
o Power relations can always change
- … vs philosophers who search for stable principles
o People who don’t like rhetoric are philosophers and are looking for harmony. They
are searching for the principles on which a stable society is build.
- Potential for chaos, disorder, crisis
o By rhetoric you can challenge the political.
Political Rhetoric
, - Dismissal of rhetoric is a symptom of that concern
o Rhetoric had the potential to change the world. They have the potential to fuel
something to change, what we thought was a stable order.
- Because rhetoric involves both politics and the political
o Just rhetoric: Mundane day-to-day-business
o Speeches that changed the world: efforts to establish new principles
o Most often in between
- If thinker has sympathy for rhetoric, it often limits to eliminate discussion about the political
o They allow rhetoric, as it can’t really threaten the fundaments of society, because
the people who are willing to change society are not included in the political debate.
- Impossible to reconcile stability with inclusive rhetoric?
o Yes. The more inclusion you have, the more different voices you get. There will
always be people who are disadvantaged and who really have an interest in changing
the rules of the game.
Situating rhetoric
Language
- Rhetoric use of language
o Language is much broader than rhetoric
- Not all rhetoric is language
- Not all language is rhetoric
Ideology
- Ideology= organized belief system. It’s a coherent set of ideas of what society should look
like.
- But rhetoric is about assembly/ construction of ideas and delivery
- Ideology is a resource for rhetoric
- Rhetoric can chance or create ideologies
o Rhetoric van use ideas of different ideologies and set them in a different direction
with new ideas and problems.
Discourse
- Is also about how people ‘make meaning’ of things
- Also deals with persuasion of power
o Critical discourse analysis
- Discourse is broad and ungoing: rhetoric concentrates on situated encounters
o On a certain speech, certain expression of a meaning, certain moment in time.
Political Rhetoric
, LECTURE 2 – CLASSICAL RHETORIC –
DISCOVERY AND ARRANGEMENT
Ancient rhetorical classifications and techniques:
Occasions of speech
- Good rhetoric is context-dependent
o Not every type of political speech, requires the same type of techniques to persuade
someone.
- 3 occasions, genres of branches of speech:
o This classification is not exclusively dealing with politics, but whit rhetoric in society
more general.
o Epideictic – remonial
▪ Honour/ commemorate individuals
▪ Ex. Wedding/ funeral speech, rousing oration before battle
▪ Goal: to create a shared sentiment/ feeling we should remember about this
person. What we should feel in this kind of event on this day.
▪ The focus on the arguments are mostly praise of blame towards a person.
▪ Focus on present
• In the here and now, the speaker tries to create a shared feeling and
understanding of what is happening today and why we should be
happy or sad.
o Forensic – judicial
▪ Topic: guilt or innocence
▪ Ex. Defence given in court
▪ Goal: to persuade a jury of a judgement in why someone is guilty or
innocent.
▪ The type of used arguments is hard evidence.
▪ Focus on past
• What exactly happened there.
o Deliberative – political
▪ Debate legislation, budget, war,…
▪ Ex. Parliamentary debate
▪ Goal: to persuade people of course of action
• To persuade them that a certain kind of action will be the better
option compared to another action we might take.
▪ Arguments: the possible outcomes and their potential benefits and the
drawbacks.
▪ Focus on future
• Discussing what will be the best.
Political Rhetoric
