Framing the Rhetorical Citizen in
Metadiscourse
Robert T. Craig
University of Colorado Boulder
Robert.Craig@Colorado.edu
Presentation to Rhetoric in Society 4
Copenhagen, 17 January 2013
Studies of metadiscursive framing
in public discourse can inform
normative thinking about
rhetorical citizenship.
Background
• Project: Metadiscourse & communication theory
– Theoretical reflection on pragmatic problems in
ordinary metadiscourse (reflexive talk about discourse
& communication)
• Approach: Exploring metadiscursive vocabularies
& their pragmatic uses in framing, arguing:
– “dialogue”; “voice”; “branding”; “argument”;
“rhetoric”; etc.
• Method: Web as corpus; Google search strings
designed to tap concepts, problems, reasoning;
results sifted for relevant cases
Google hits (Boulder, Colorado, USA, 13 January 2013)
“rhetoric”
(38,100K)
“__ rhetoric”
“tone down __
rhetoric”
“use __ rhetoric
to”
my
62K
106K
5K
our
71K
82K
5K
your
214K
225K
34K
their
586K
650K
172K
“voice”
(1,160,000K)
“__ voice”
“__ should not
have a voice”
“use __ voice to”
my
30,800K
7,910K (I)
1,840K
our
2,890K
8,550K (we)
368K
your
63,100K
10,100K (you)
5860K
their
6,440K
10,700K (they)
1,270K
“my rhetoric”
• “I'm worried that my rhetoric might not be
extreme enough”
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p
hp?az=view_all&address=439x173468; 130113 #8)
• “Some of my rhetoric has been a mistake” (G.W.
Bush, Jan. 2009; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/69158e60-e0cd11dd-b0e8-000077b07658.html#axzz2HsmlT2Xu; 130113 #9)
“your rhetoric”
• “Politicians, please weigh your rhetoric -- and
find some common ground”
(http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/politi
cians_please_weigh_your.html; 130113 #5)
• “Gov. Christie, get your team to follow your
rhetoric!”
(http://morristowngreen.com/2012/08/29/commentary-govchristie-get-your-team-to-follow-your-rhetoric/; 130113 #7)
“their rhetoric”
• “Senators should tone down their rhetoric on
Rice” (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/dec/10/eichsenators-should-tone-down-their-rhetoric-on/; 130113 #1)
• “Maybe Republicans like McLaughlin should
look at their rhetoric to see why they were
defeated”
(http://www.conwaydailysun.com/index.php/opinion/letters/
93834-ken-mckenzie-republicans-should-look-at-theirrhetoric; 130113 #2)
Arguments about ‘Rhetoric’ in the 2008 US
Presidential Election Campaign (Craig, 2012)
• Three main issues regarding Obama’s rhetoric:
– Rhetoric vs. reality (thematizes truth): rhetoric is “empty”
or deceptive vs. rhetoric creates reality (inspiring visions,
models for discourse, political alignments)
– Rhetoric vs. authenticity (thematizes sincerity): eloquent
speech can’t be trusted vs. eloquence signals sincere
passion & commitment
– Rhetoric vs. democratic norms (thematizes rightness):
enthusiastic crowds signal danger of fascism vs. promise of
a genuine social change movement
• Necessity & danger of rhetoric – illuminates essential
tensions in democratic public discourse (cf. Dryzek,
2010)
What is rhetorical citizenship?
• “…that set of communicative and deliberative
practices that in a particular culture and political
system allow citizens to enact and embody their
citizenship, in contrast to merely ‘talking about
politics.’” (Keith & Cossart, 2012, p. 46)
• Requires a “debate culture” that welcomes
rhetorical deliberation (Villadsen, 2012)
• What does such a culture look like? How it
produced & maintained in discourse?
Metadiscourse & cultivating the
rhetorical citizen
• “Arguments about ‘rhetoric’” can play a role;
but rhetoric is a negatively toned word we
seldom talk about (except academically)
• The negotiation of discourse norms is largely
implicit (e.g. Villadsen, 2012)
• Norms can be implicit in the metadiscursive
framing of rhetorical action as rhetorical or
otherwise.
How is the rhetorical citizen framed in
metadiscourse?
• We don’t know, because:
– There is no normative-theoretical consensus (Kock
& Villadsen, 2012)
– The question has not been explored empirically
• We will explore the question through
normative reflection on empirical examples
representing different practical approaches
(Craig & Tracy, 1995)
Ex 1: Political conflict strategy frame
Republicans began the hostage-taking to achieve their ideological goal of
shrinking government, resisting all attempts at compromise involving new
tax revenues. The White House tried to impress independent voters with
its own spending-cut proposals, and to salvage some stimulus measures.
The ceiling was never very wise, but until now it has been used only to
give Congress a voice in government borrowing, not as a radioactive
weapon.
Having picked up the weapon, though, neither side has seemed able to
set it down. At last, a few senior Republicans have started to realize that
the weapon, used in this way, is too powerful to be controlled. Mitch
McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said default would be bad for
his party’s “brand” and would allow the president to shift blame for the
poor economy onto Republicans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15fri1.html; see Craig,
2012)
Rhetorical action as combat; no attention to reasoning on
the issue, only on strategy.
Ex 2: Negotiation strategy frame
Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and
emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a
different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal
line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.
Disciplined and unyielding, he argues for raising taxes on the wealthy
while offering nothing new to rein in spending and overhaul entitlement
programs beyond what was on the table last year. Until Republicans offer
their own new plan, Mr. Obama will not alter his. In effect, he is trying to
leverage what he claims as an election mandate to force Republicans to
take ownership of the difficult choices ahead.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/us/politics/pushing-gop-tonegotiate-obama-ends-giving-in.html)
Rhetorical
action as negotiation move; no attention to
deliberative reasons.
Ex 3: Argument frame – technical critique
Unfortunately, Mr. Geithner’s speech contained three major mistakes: his
history is completely wrong, his logic is deeply flawed, and his
interpretation of the Dodd-Frank reforms does not mesh with the legal
facts regarding how the failure of a global megabank could be handled.
Together, these mistakes suggest that one of our most powerful policy
makers is headed very much in the wrong direction.
On history, Mr. Geithner places significant blame for the pre-2008
excesses on Britain and other countries that pursued light-touch
regulation. This is reasonable – though surely he is aware that the United
States has led the way in lightening the touch of regulation, at least since
1980. A senior British official retorted immediately, “Clearly he wasn’t
referring to derivatives regulation, because as far as I can recollect, there
wasn’t any in America at the time.”
(http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/the-banking-emperorhas-no-clothes/; see Craig, 2012)
Rhetorical action is policy argument: Reasoning on the issue is
highlighted, with no attention to political context or motives.
Ex 4: Argument frame – ideological critique
To say all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is
banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating
society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we
are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important
influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those
elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family,
neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations
that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of
its energy and freedom.
(http://www.dailycamera.com/opinioncolumnists/ci_21139840/krauthammer-did-state-make-you-great)
Rhetorical action is ideological argument, critiqued with not
attention to audience or political context.
Ex 5: Rhetorical frame? – personal story
It’s not something I really talk about, but for those of you who wanna
know why I personally am so driven for marriage equality and what my
drive is. We all have a story. And it’s time you knew mine. My partner
Daniel and I live in fear every day. That because we don’t have the word
marriage, should something happen to my parents, some court, some
insensitive government official will say we don’t care that you’re civil
unioned, you’re not married. And should something happen to me, rather
than go to my partner Daniel, my brother, who calls my partner Daniel
“Broth,” short for brother, will become a ward of the state. To all of you,
this is an issue that’s political. To me this is my life.
(http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?KEY=AJU&SESSI
ON=2006; see Craig & Tracy, 2010)
Rhetorical action is personal self-expression addressed
to a deliberating audience.
Ex 6: Rhetorical frame? – political leadership
In the face of Republican claims that his policies have failed to revive the
economy, Obama is turning the blame on the Republicans themselves.
Instead of arguing that his policies have succeeded in keeping the
recession from being worse—an argument that could easily sound
defeatist—Obama is implicitly conceding that his economic recovery
strategy has failed, but laying the responsibility at the feet of the party
trying to unseat him.
…
Successful presidential candidates do more than simply tell a story. They
tell a story that captures the conditions and mood of the country at a
particular moment in time.... A generic attack on Republican individualism
isn’t good enough. Most Americans still don’t know why Barack Obama
believes the roof fell in on America in 2008, and why he’s still more
capable of repairing the damage in a second term than his political
adversaries. Unless he answers those questions better over the next 11
months, he won’t get the chance.
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/12/obama-s-2012reelection-strategy-blame-the-republicans.html)
Rhetorical action is argument addressed to a deliberating
audience in a political-strategic context.
Conclusion
• How is political discourse framed as rhetorical
deliberation in which citizens participate?
• It is not sheer political strategy without
argumentative content; nor it is rational
argumentation without a strategic context;
rather it is argumentative discourse directed
to an audience in a political context.
References
Craig, R. T. (2006). Communication as a practice. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John & T.
Striphas (Eds.), Communication as …: Perspectives on theory (pp. 38-47).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Craig, R. T. (2008). The rhetoric of ‘dialogue’ in metadiscourse: Possibilityimpossibility arguments and critical events. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Dialogue and
rhetoric (pp. 55-67). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Craig, R. T. (2011). The uses of "argument" in practical metadiscourse. In R. C.
Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change (pp. 78-86). Washington,
DC: National Communication Association.
Craig, R. T. (2012). Arguments about ‘rhetoric’ in the 2008 US presidential election
campaign. In F. H. v. Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring Argumentative
Contexts (pp. 79-94). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Craig, R. T. (2012). The Metadiscourse of “Voice”: Legitimizing Participation in
Dialogue. In F. Cooren & A. Létourneau (Eds.), (Re)presentations and dialogue (pp.
125-142). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual
discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2005). "The issue" in argumentation practice and theory. In
F. H. v. Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), The practice of argumentation (pp. 11-28).
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2010). Framing discourse as argument in appellate
courtrooms: Three cases on same-sex marriage. In D. S. Gouran (Ed.), The
functions of argument and social context. Selected papers from the 16th binnial
NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, August 2009 (pp. 46-53). Washington,
DC: National Communication Association.
Dryzek, J. (2010). Rhetoric in democracy: A systematic approach. Political Theory,
38(3), 319-339.
Keith, W., & Cossart, P. (2012). The search for "real" democracy: Rhetorical
citizenship and public deliberation in France and the United States, 1870-1940. In
C. Kock & L. S. Villadsen (Eds.), Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation (pp.
46-66). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kock, C., & Villadsen, L. S. (2012). Introduction: Citizenship as a rhetorical practice.
In C. Kock & L. S. Villadsen (Eds.), Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation
(pp. 1-12). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Villadsen, L. S. (2012). Speaking of terror: Norms of rhetorical citizenship in Danish
public discourse. In C. Kock & L. S. Villadsen (Eds.), Rhetorical Citizenship and
Public Deliberation (pp. 169-180). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State
University Press.