Search results

The essay is a case study critically engaging the Danish Prime Minister's rhetorical leadership during the early phase of the COVID-19 crisis. Through conceptually oriented rhetorical criticism of a series of press conference speeches given by the PM, the essay demonstrates how her rhetorical leadership in the early stages of the corona crisis relied on communitarian appeals couched in nationalistic terms where contributing to stopping the spread of the virus gradually became inscribed in a Social Democratic narrative about community and solidarity and which eventually was presented as part and parcel of an essential 'Danishness'. The argument is that the PM's speeches successfully framed the national response to the epidemic as just that, a national, or even nationalistic response. Analysis of the salient phrases 'standing together by keeping apart', 'civic-mindedness', and 'taking care of Denmark' inform the characterization of the PM's rhetorical strategy and its ideological underpinnings. Especially the term 'civic-mindedness' is shown to have been used as a short-hand referent for all the government's instructions, advice, and admonitions to change the public's behavior, and as functioning as a guideline for the people in Denmark regarding their understanding of and reactions to the corona epidemic. One word to capture many words, and one word to guide, even rule, a people. ; The essay is a case study critically engaging the Danish Prime Minister's rhetorical leadership during the early phase of the COVID-19 crisis. Through conceptually oriented rhetorical criticism of a series of press conference speeches given by the PM, the essay demonstrates how her rhetorical leadership in the early stages of the corona crisis relied on communitarian appeals couched in nationalistic terms whereby contributing to stopping the spread of the virus gradually became inscribed in a Social Democratic narrative about community and solidarity and which eventually was presented as part and parcel of an essential 'Danishness.' ...

The essay critically engages a political newsletter which problematically invokes rhetoric in a populist project by making the argument that emotions are a legitimate and sufficient guide to settling political questions, and by implication that facts often are unnecessary in political decision making. Arguing at the meta level--less about political issues and more about the way to reach and justify political positions--the text is a rhetorically adept defence of a populist approach to politics. The analyzed text is an illustration of populist-inflected rhetoric and, in virtue of its "theoretical" nature, also a blueprint for a particular kind of political culture informed by a populist epistemology which on central points is at odds with ideals of deliberative democracy. Analysis of the text reveals that it sets up its argument in a way that perpetuates the reason/emotion dichotomy that has marred the Western tradition and rhetorical studies for centuries; only it does so in an inverted version that promotes the role of emotions at the expense of knowledge. "People vs. elite" appeals recognizable from populism inform this move in an "emotions vs. academic/technocratic knowledge" version, and the newsletter's disarming tone and its implicit appeals to notions of "common sense" are discussed. The analysis in this essay suggests that populist ideas can be presented in ways that mimic mainstream or "high" political discourse. It is argued that the adoption of populist rhetoric in mainstream politics calls for critical attention by rhetorical theorists and critics.

This chapter explores how the Danish government upheld its policy but changed its argumentation on the question of giving an official apology–a change I suggest was introduced as a means of vindicating the policy of not apologizing for past wrongful actions in state-supervised social-care institutions. I describe this change in tactic and discuss its implications. Instead of embracing the call for an apology as an occasion for political work in the strong sense of engaging and acting on communal values for the common good, the Parliament majority treated the call as political in the weak sense: a tactical matter of holding on to power. ; The notion of change is often associated with advances in social justice (as implied in Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change we can believe in" and Hillary Clinton's presidential race slogan "Change Maker"), but change can be put in the service of conservative agendas as well–to maintain the status quo for example. When developing circumstances undermine or threaten a line of argument one way to uphold the original claim is to change the argumentation strategy. This chapter explores how the Danish government upheld its policy but changed its argumentation on the question of giving an official apology–a change I suggest was introduced as a means of vindicate the policy of not apologizing for past wrongful actions in state supervised social care institutions. I describe this change in tactic and discuss its implications. Instead of embracing the call for an apology as an occasion for political work in the strong sense of engaging and acting on communal values for the common good, the Parliament majority treated the call as political in the weak sense: a tactical matter of holding on to power. The chapter's theoretical framework consists in contemporary rhetorical, philosophical, and political theory on collective apologies as well as rhetorical citizenship theory and is propelled by analyses of argumentative strategies as played out in a 2 ½ hours long parliamentary debate.

Rhetoric is at the heart of citizenship. Rhetoric is key when citizenship is debated and performed. Rhetoric is key to changes in notions of citizenship. This panel features theorists, critics and educators from the fields of English, Communication Studies, Political Theory, and Education who discuss promises and problems inherent in notions and practices of rhetorical citizenship as it is conceived, practiced and problematized in various settings in North America and Europe. The panelists will approach the topic from theoretical angles concerned with policy-making, public opinion formation, dialogue across disagreement, and ethics. They will situate their comments around communicative practices and habits such as coordination, collaboration and cooperation as well as framing, priming, agenda setting. Further, the notion of rhetorical citizenship will be chronicled, exemplified and complicated via case studies of non-citizen refugees seeking asylum, discursive responses to public violence across time, and performative invocations of citizenship in public health controversies. Organizer: Lisa Villadsen Confirmed presenters, in alphabetical order: Robert Asen, Professor of Rhetoric, Politics, and Culture, Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Jeffrey A. Bennett, Associate Professor, Communication Studies, College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, University of Iowa, USA Simone Chambers, Professor, Political Science, Director of Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto, Canada Robert Danisch, Associate Professor, Drama and Speech Communication, University of Waterloo, Canada Rosa Eberly, Associate Professor, Communication Arts and Sciences, and English, Penn State University, USA David Kerr, Consultant Director of Education at the NGO Citizenship Foundation in London, Senior Teaching Fellow at the University of Bristol and Visiting Professor in Citizenship Education at Birkbeck College, University of London, UK Christian Kock, Professor of Rhetoric, Dept. of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Lisa Villadsen, Associate Professor of Rhetoric, Dept. of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Alessandra Beasley von Burg, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, Wake Forest University, USA

This book presents studies from different academic fields of theoretical issues raised by public discourse, focusing on understanding and evaluating how its many manifestations both reflect, shape, and challenge the society it is a part of. The book also presents analyses of examples from around the world of civic communication, ranging from public hearings about same-sex marriage over polemical letters to the editor to public displays of knitting as a protest form.

Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Populist Melancholy -- Chapter 3: Voltagabbana Rhetorics. Salvini Unmasked: Turncoating as a Populist Strategy in Pandemic Times -- Chapter 4: Populist Rhetoric and Digital Communication: The Case of Brexit -- Chapter 5: Populism and the Rise of the AfD in Germany -- Chapter 6: The Rhetorical Strategy of Moralisation: A Lesson from Greece -- Chapter 7: Victorious Victimization. Viktor Orbán the Orator: Deep Securitization in Hungary's Propaganda State -- Chapter 8: The Voice and Message of Hugo Chávez: A Rhetorical Analysis -- Chapter 9: Afterword: Afterword: A Definition Sought and Tested -- Index. .

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Introduction: citizenship as a rhetorical practice -- Section I: Tracing rhetorical citizenship as concept and practice -- 1 Deliberative Democracy: Mapping Out the Deliberative Turn in Democratic Theory -- 2 The Making of Truth in Debate: The Case of (and a Case for) the Early Sophists -- 3 The Search for "Real" Democracy: Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation in France and the United States, 1870–1940 -- Section II: Public deliberation as rhetorical practice -- Introduction -- Part 1 Considering Norms of Communicative Behavior -- 4 The Respect Fallacy: Limits of Respect in Public Dialogue -- 5 Dialectical Citizenship? Some Thoughts on the Role of Pragmatics in the Analysis of Public Debate -- 6 Provocative Style: The Gaarder Debate Example -- 7 Virtual Deliberations: Talking Politics Online in Hungary -- Part 2 Critiques of "Elite" Discourse -- 8 Dis-playing Democracy: The Rhetoric of Duplicity -- 9 Rhetoric of War, Rhetoric of Gender -- 10 Speaking of Terror: Norms of Rhetorical Citizenship in Danish Public Discourse -- 11 "This May Be the Law, but Should It Be?": Tony Blair's Rhetoric of Exception -- Part 3 Rhetorical Citizenship Across Communicative Settings -- 12 I Agree, but . . . : Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation -- 13 Deliberation as Behavior in Public -- 14 Homing in on the Arguments: The Rhetorical Construction of Subject Positions in Debates on the Danish Real Estate Market -- 15 Danish Revue: Satire as Rhetorical Citizenship -- Section III: Toward better deliberative practices -- 16 Presidential Primary Debate as a Genre of Journalistic Discourse: How Can We Put Debate into the Debates? -- 17 A Tool for Rhetorical Citizenship: Generalizing the Status System -- 18 Interpretive Debates Revisited -- About the Contributors -- Index

Almost one hundred years have passed since Walter Lippmann and John Dewey published their famous reflections on the "problems of the public," but their thoughts remain surprisingly relevant as resources for thinking through our current crisis-plagued predicament. This book takes stock of the reception history of Lippmann's and Dewey's ideas about publics, communication, and political decision-making and shows how their ideas can inspire a way forward.Lippmann and Dewey were only two of many twentieth-century thinkers trying to imagine how a modern industrial democracy might (or might not) come to pass, but despite that, the "Lippmann/Dewey debate" became a symbol of the two alleged options: an epistocracy, on the one hand, and grassroots participation, on the other. In this book, distinguished scholars from rhetoric, communication, sociology, and media and journalism studies reconsider this debate in order to assess its contemporary relevance for our time, which, in some respects, bears a striking resemblance to the 1920s. In this way, the book explains how and why Lippmann and Dewey are indispensable resources for anyone concerned with the future of democratic deliberation and decision-making.In addition to the editor, the contributors to this volume include Nathan Crick, Robert Danisch, Steve Fuller, William Keith, Bruno Latour, John Durham Peters, Patricia Roberts-Miller, Michael Schudson, Anna Shechtman, Slavko Splichal, Lisa S. Villadsen, and Scott Welsh