A rhetorical field theory: Background, communication, and change

Abstract

• • Develops a rhetorical field theory that conceptualises the relationship between background ideas and foreground communication • • Distinguishes between two layers of background ideas (nomos and topoi) that underpin communicative encounters in a field • • Conceptualises communicative opportunities and moves through which actors change the nomos of a field • • Illustrates the added value of a rhetorical field theory by inquiring into nomic change in the nuclear-weapons field A burgeoning literature in International Relations draws on Bourdieu's theory of social fields to address the question of how actors make and unmake order in world politics. Inquiring into deeply seated background ideas constituting order, this literature often neglects how communication reproduces and (de)contests background ideas. Our article seeks to remedy this shortcoming by outlining a rhetorical field theory. This theory puts background ideas and foreground communication on an equal footing and conceptualises their relationship in detail. We distinguish between two layers of background ideas (nomos and topoi) and address the crucial question of how nomic change becomes possible. We introduce a typology of nomic change (destabilisation, adaption, disorientation, shift) and conceptualise the interplay of rhetorical opportunities and rhetorical moves that bring about particular types of nomic change. We probe this theoretical framework by analysing the recent nomic change in the nuclear-weapons field. This empirical analysis provides evidence for our theoretical framework.

Epistolizing accountability: a critical exploration of INGO annual report leaders' letters

“…Within a field, actors struggle for position, seeking to demonstrate their maximal possess of the capitals (both material and symbolic) that are valued within that field. The dominant actors within a field generate that field's doxa (the ‘core values and discourses’ of a field (Nolan, 2012, p. 205)), which itself is reproduced through field members' foreground communications (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016, p. 301).…”

“…A field's habitus gives rise to its doxa – also defined as the ‘taken for granted communicational conventions and demands … that regulate what it takes to be(come) a member of the field’ (Jansson, 2015, p. 14). This doxa is contested, de-contested and reproduced through field members' foreground communications (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016, p. 301). Communication practices play a ‘critical role in the (re)creation of order’ within fields, with an actor's foreground communications reproducing the meanings that structure social fields in everyday practice (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016 and Fligstein and McAdam, 2012).…”

“…This doxa is contested, de-contested and reproduced through field members' foreground communications (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016, p. 301). Communication practices play a ‘critical role in the (re)creation of order’ within fields, with an actor's foreground communications reproducing the meanings that structure social fields in everyday practice (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016 and Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). As Mumby and Kuhn (2019, p. 51) have highlighted, it is increasingly accepted that organisations exist ‘as a result of the collective and coordinated communication processes of its members’.…”

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) project legitimisation: The rhetor’s innovation and the US response

“…Between the rhetor and audience, the national media take the mediating position in the legitimisation process (Cronen, 1973;McCombs and Shaw, 1972), and rhetorical theory explains this mediation between the background ideas and foreground communication (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016). Just as media-driven communication links the process to the antecedents and consequence of institutional change (Campbell, 2004), rhetorical institutionalism combines the rhetor's innovation and the audience response through intermediaries.…”

How diplomacy evolves: the global spread of honorific state awards

“…This is a fate also shared by practice-based approaches. They may argue that the practices surrounding state awards have proliferated because they heighten the diplomatic 'capital' of some actors (Kuus, 2015), or because they have become a 'habit' to the practitioners socialized therein (Hopf, 2010), or because they form part of a 'nomos' (Kornprobst and Senn, 2016), or because they are conducive to a sense of 'ontological security' (Mitzen, 2006). Such assumptions, however, merely shift the question to why and how those practices (and not others) increase one's 'symbolic capital', enter a systemic 'habit', constitute a 'nomos', or induce a sense of 'ontological security'.…”