Transcript Resuming Nimmo & Swanson: political language and communication

Resuming Nimmo & Swanson: political
language and communication
• Beyond “the voter, persuasion and political
campaign model” (made of “dramatized rituals
that legitimize the power structures”)?
• It could be useful to think to Political discourse
not only from “one context-based conception” but
in a more general and articulated way, where we
find different, but connected, questions:
• Persuasion; information processing; political
behavior; media effects;
Nimmo & Swanson…(pp. 9-17)
• “What makes communication (and language)
“political”?”
• Is it only question of “propaganda” or “campaign?
Probably not…
(Think about “culture” and “citizenship”, or social
and political movements?)
• “Does political communication and discourse
assume “special forms”?
• Beyond the “academic” or “disciplinary” divisions
(they describe the “limits” of the problem), we can
think to “political language” in terms of “textual
effects”
Nimmo & Swanson…(pp.9-17)
• Two conceptions: a) society as a struggle for
power; b) society as a search for shared
understanding and consensus.
• It’s possible to go beyond this opposition:
analyzing forms and nature of political language:
• Power is not “substantive”, it’s a relationship
(Foucault)
• Political discourse,political language and meaning
are the places where this relationship is “forged”,
created.
Nimmo & Swanson…(pp.17-29)
• Political discourse and language is the place where
power relations are created: within “strategic
interactions”; what is it?
• It is important “to give greater attention to social
bases of the processes through the meanings are
constructed”: (“uses and gratifications research”
(50s.60s); “agenda-setting research” (70s. 80s)
(p.18)
• But we need to understand better what happens
inside “messages” of political discourses.
Nimmo & Swanson…(pp.30-40)
• What is the link between “political discourses and
language” and “political systems”
• System: political “machine” (State, institutions,
etc.) made of different parts, integrated or
connected…more or less; (importance of
comparative analysis in political studies);
• An Old idea: input/output conception of system;
• Communication as “nerves” of a systems? (‘50s,
‘60s)
• New ideas: studying “belief systems” inside
political systems;
• Cultural systems as networks of values
(which compose different patterns of
meanings).
• But it’s now impossible to distinguish
“political systems” from “communication”:
cultures as systems which “filter”: social
filters;
“Cultures are not “disembodied ideas
(schemas, attitudes), they are not merely
cognitive” (beliefs, knowledges, actions…)
• “Social practices are institutions”.
Nimmo & Swanson…(2nd chapter
(Corcoran on “Language and Politics”)
• Systematic nature of political language
• Importance of “silence”: in the sense of
“interruptions, tones, pitchs and rythms,
boundaries between words and phrases…”
• Meanings are made also of lies, silences, of
not explicit declarations…
Political language and political
learning
• Austin (‘50s, ‘60s): “How to do things with
words”
• Not “speaking VS action”: but apeaking as action;
• Austin and sociolinguistics (70s, 80s):
emphasizing function of language in “institutional
hierachies, role behavior, and social power”. (vs
Chomsky and the idea of “autonomous dimension
of language”.
Linguistic “turn” in philosophy
and political language
• Language as “labelling tool”; (p. 60)
• But also: Language constitutes reality and it is part
of it (from British philosophy, to Structuralism and
other philosophical trends from 40s to 60s);
• “Discourse theory” as radicalisation and
generalisation of those ideas (“post-structuralism”)
(pp.64-65):
• Discourse, constitutes a field: of “play”, action,
discursive contests and all-out struggles”.
• “Study of language as “archaeology” (Foucault) of
all existing discursive practices”
Discourse theory and political
language
• Studying (from Foucault) “all existing and
conceivable discursive practices (professional
nomenclatures, stereotypes, legal codes, formal
and informal speech settings…)”; (p. 65)
• “Power is embedded in existing discursive
practices”; power is not “external force”;
• Language in broader sense becomes “Political”.
But political discourse at the same time is a
“special region”: “legislative” and “centers on
action”.
Where is political language (and the role
of passions and emotions)
• Discourse as a struggle over “meaning. Status,
power and resources”.
• Political discourse is not a “personal dialogue”:
public speech in which participants as well as
public are defined in a specific way.
• Building meanings from oppositions
• The discourse is “inherently dynamic”. But the
this dynamics is based on “opposing voices”,
constructing differences. (pp. 77-78).
• It is necessary to identify: “methods of combat”,
“lines of engagement.”