Leaders’ Response to Terrorism: The Role of Epideictic Rhetoric in Deliberative Democracies

Abstract

New initiatives in deliberative democracy theory allow for a broader understanding of the different rhetorical practices that influence deliberation in real life settings. This solves the “problem” rhetoricians have long had with deliberative theory: that political communication is reduced to rational deliberation, disregarding a lot of non-deliberative forms of communication that are essential for the formation of public opinion and political decisions. This article elaborates on the role of epideictic rhetoric and provides an example as to how we might benefit from combining the two theoretical traditions. Often reduced to ceremonial practice, the epideictic genre has long been overlooked in political communication research. However, epideictic rhetoric plays a crucial role in shaping collective identity and values, thereby influencing citizens’ and politicians’ inclinations and scope of action in future deliberation. The article is concluded by a case study of the Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg’s address to the nation after the terrorist attack in Oslo on July 22nd 2011. By enforcing collective values such as democracy, solidarity, and openness towards other cultures the Prime Minister’s speech contributed to what became one of the dominant frames through which the attack and related issues were interpreted and debated.

“Nazis Aren’t Welcome Here”: Selling Democracy in the Age of Far-Right Extremism

“…Their responses set the tone for news media coverage and future policy interventions (Hajer, 2005;Hajer & Uitermark, 2008). However, much of the research on how political leaders and governments respond to extremism focuses on the responses to violent extremism, such as terror attacks (e.g., Hajer & Uitermark, 2008;Rafoss, 2019;Vatnoey, 2015). What is less clear is how governments should respond to non-violent acts of extremism, which nevertheless threaten the safety of minority groups and challenge the norms and functions of the democratic public sphere.…”

“…In this article, we focus on the acts of two key public sphere actors: political leaders and government. What governments and political leaders say about violent extremist attacks has a significant effect on the public's perception of these events (Hajer, 2005), shapes media coverage and policy debates (Reese & Lewis, 2009), and invites or foreclosing engagement from civil society actors and the general public (Vatnoey, 2015). The way political leaders and government engage with the challenge of extremism can have long-lasting effects, such as increasing community tensions or fostering and legitimising the marginalisation of minority groups.…”

Rhetoric and audience reception: An analysis of Theresa May’s vision of Britain and Britishness after Brexit

“…Such subject positions include ‘the silent majority’ and ‘the British people’ and, by assigning positive traits to these subjectivities, the speaker encourages their listeners to identify with them. In short, epideictic underpins our self-definition as political subjects (Vatnøy, 2015: 10). It is worth highlighting that these inventions are not a phenomenon, but a process.…”

Sharing values to safeguard the future: British Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration as epideictic rhetoric

“…Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) go as far as to argue that ‘epideictic oratory has significance and importance for argumentation because it strengthens the disposition toward action by increasing adherence to the values it lauds’ (p. 50). Similarly, Vatnoey (2015) suggests that epideictic ‘has the potential to strengthen the common values in society, create community, and form the beliefs that determine future decision-making’ (p. 1). Thus, epideictic ‘generally features colourful style, praise and blame, non-controversiality, universal values, and prominent leaders and speakers.…”