What’s in the name of strategy? A survey of Flemish politicians and party staffers’ knowledge, self-reported use and expectations of rhetorical figures in speeches

Subtitle:What’s in the name of strategy? A sender's perspective on political rhetoric

In using rhetorical figures in speeches, politicians consciously act upon reality and shift the perspectives of their audience towards their own world views (Martin, 2013). Analysts often build on the presence of these rhetorical figures to reconstruct the political strategy, which necessarily assumes the political sender was strategic in his or her choices (Strömback & Esser, 2017). However, as rhetoric is also part of a long cultural history, not all rhetorical means in speeches necessarily adhere to a keen strategy. For rhetorical figures to be strategically used in speeches, the political sender should be familiar with these figures (knowledge), have a conscious account of their use of figures (self-reported use) and assume certain effects (expectations). Moreover, as the level of strategic thought is expected to increase with the level of professionalization (e.g. national versus local politics; Negrine & Lilleker, 2002), we also expect a more elaborate knowledge, self-reported use and expectations. Results of a survey conducted with 256 Flemish politicians and party staffers revealed very few differences in the knowledge, self-reported use and expectations of rhetorical figures based on the level of professionalization of the respondents. Overall, regardless of their level of professionalization, respondents seemed to have a very limited knowledge of rhetorical figures, a modest self-reported use and few expectations of their effects. These results suggest that even in professionalized contexts, the use of rhetorical figures in speeches is, to a considerable extent, a product of a shared cultural practice, nuancing the role of strategy in political rhetoric.

Publication year:2021