The Politician as a Player: Political Strategic Communication as a Play

Abstract

Approaches to post-truth society describe a shift in societies towards non-binding communication. There are at least two problem inherent to these approaches. On the one hand, there is no plausible explanation as to why a shift from a truth-based to a post-truth society is now apparent. On the other hand, the blanket assumption that the truth is completely unimportant today is not plausible either. This is the starting point for this article. We begin with a concept frequently found in journalistic descriptions: politics as a play and politicians as players. A theoretical approach is presented that conceives political strategic communication as a play. Elaborating on this, the acceptance of lies and bullshit is the result of political self-staging. To this end, the theory of strategic communication plays based on Bateson and Goffman will be presented and developed further into staging and truth plays in politics. The proposition: strategic political communication is increasingly – but not always – being played and perceived as a play in which the entertainment character is more important than the binding nature of the staging and the statements.

Untitled

“…At the same time, investigating the tools for building discursive practices, R. Andersson defines the praxeological component of building strategic communications, their direct ability to form a certain way of vision, to have a constructive impact on the public (Andersson, 2020). O. Hoffjann interprets strategic communication as a game where participants, like actors in a play, define communicative interaction in the context of post-truth (Hoffjann, 2021). The scientist suggests a theoretical approach where strategic political communication is played out as a play in which entertainment is more important than mandatory.…”

Polling, Partisanship, and Promoting Violence: New Developments in Impression Management From Candidate and Super PAC Advertisements

“…In many cases, the public awards candidate images more than it does their policy positions (Cronin, 2008), further driving home the importance of political impression management as a necessary tool to win elections (Garzia, 2013). Engagement may also be undercut by enjoyability, that is, people may be less involved and willing to vote for a party if their televised interactions within them are fundamentally unpleasant (Hoffjann, 2021; Scammell & Langer, 2006).…”

“…The management of information to create public images allows candidates to prioritize some pieces of information over others based on what political actors feel the public wishes to see (Edelman, 2001;Goffman, 1959;Hoffjann, 2021;Winton, 2010). This creates "social types," categorizations of individuals based on the information they express and what the public expects of them, allowing people to make sense of how to perceive and interact with others relative to how they fit those types (Best, 2018;Klapp, 1965).…”

“…One may suspect that candidates and Super PACs were simply playing "follow the leader" in an attempt to match Trump, who most certainly contributed to the advocacy of violence. However, candidates often engage in the performances that they believe voters want to see (Hoffjann, 2021), which demonstrates that the violence has a broader appeal. It is more likely that Trump is a symptom and not the cause of the emerging radicalization on the right, meaning his competitors were responding to other political demands.…”