Narrative, persona and performance: The case of Theresa May 2016–2017
| Author | John Gaffney,Judi Atkins |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1369148120910985 |
| Published date | 01 May 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120910985
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2020, Vol. 22(2) 293 –308
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148120910985
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
Narrative, persona and
performance: The case of
Theresa May 2016–2017
Judi Atkins and John Gaffney
Abstract
A narrative and performance analysis of the period between the 2016 EU referendum and the 2017
general election makes an empirical and theoretical contribution to understanding personalised
politics at the present time. This article contends that Theresa May’s initial success proceeded
from her rhetorical construction and performance of a persona founded on the archetypal healer,
together with a narrative based on the myth of One Nation. However, her decision as Prime
Minister to align herself with the pro-Brexit constituency and her neglect of the ‘just about
managing’ called both her persona and narrative into question. The highly personalised general
election campaign ensured the focus stayed on May, while the manifesto offered her a new ‘flawed’
narrative that resulted in the collapse of her early leadership image. By the time of the election,
May was performing neither the narrative nor the persona; she was effectively absent from her
own campaign.
Keywords
Brexit, Conservative Party, general election 2017, leadership performance, myth, narrative, One
Nation, persona, rhetoric, Theresa May
This article examines Theresa May’s prime ministerial performance between the EU ref-
erendum of 23 June 2016 and the general election of 8 June 2017. Through this case
study, we offer a new way of appraising political leaders, and leadership in general, based
on the concept of performance. In particular, we demonstrate that a leader usually per-
forms two narratives: one about ‘themselves’, and the other the ‘story’ they purport to tell.
The interpellation of these narratives constitutes leadership performance. We need to be
precise in defining our terms because it is clear that those we will use – narrative, story,
rhetoric, performance and even leadership – are employed vaguely and imprecisely in the
media, public exchange and the academy. Saying that political leaders are storytellers
who tell stories has become a truth universally acknowledged in politics but, in the
absence of proper definitions, discussion remains at the level of cliché. By analysing a
Department of Politics and International Relations, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Corresponding author:
Judi Atkins, Department of Politics and International Relations, Aston University, Aston Triangle,
Birmingham B4 7ET, UK.
Email: j.atkins@aston.ac.uk
910985BPI0010.1177/1369148120910985The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsAtkins and Ganey
research-article2020
Original Article
294 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22(2)
specific moment of May’s premiership, we will demonstrate what these commonplaces
really mean, and how and why they are so important in understanding the political.
This terminological imprecision was evident in the immediate comment on, and sub-
sequent analyses of, the 2017 general election. Here, discussion focused on the failings of
May and her advisors, the dichotomy of personality and policy (see, for example, Mcleod,
2017; Roberts, 2017), and emerging but ill-defined ideas about ‘narrative’ (see, for exam-
ple, Gaber, 2017; Gerodimos, 2017). Most of these observations were pertinent, and all
rightly identified the relationship between the Prime Minister and her party’s manifesto
as a focus for analysis. However, there was a widespread confusion regarding the distinct
– and sometimes related – phenomena of ‘presidentialisation’ and ‘personalisation’ within
UK politics. In brief, the presidentialisation thesis proceeds from the premise that there is
a ‘growing mutual autonomy between the chief executive and the legislature’, which is
manifested in a more ‘leader-centred’ style of politics (Webb and Poguntke, 2013: 650;
see also Foley, 2000). Meanwhile, ‘personalisation’ finds expression in an ‘increasing
emphasis in the UK upon party leaders rather than election manifestos and policy com-
mitments’ (Dowding, 2013: 621; see also Langer, 2011). Uniting both models is their
omission of the ‘performance’ of politics – here, the rhetorical performance of a persona
(May) and a rhetoric-in-text (the manifesto) – and of the ‘presidential’ and the ‘personal’,
and this is the focus of the article.
Recently, there have been major developments in the theorisation of political leader-
ship and leadership performance, and of the rhetoric and narratives that accompany them
(see inter alia Atkins, 2015a; Atkins and Gaffney, 2017; Bennister et al., 2017; Corner
and Pels, 2003; Finlayson, 2002; Gaffney, 2001). The article extends this theoretical
inquiry by addressing a series of questions: What is the nature of a political persona? How
is a persona shaped by myths and archetypal figures? To what extent do perceptions of
gender play a role in the construction of a persona? What is involved when a persona ‘col-
lapses’? If narratives inform the political, what are they and how are they performed? The
article thus makes an original contribution to the scholarship on leadership and its perfor-
mance, while offering a novel perspective on an extraordinary set of developments in UK
politics between June 2016 and June 2017.
It is important to note that our analysis of May’s persona and narrative is necessarily
subjective. After all, ‘we cannot escape or rise above mythology and we all carry ideologi-
cally driven perceptions and cultural influences on our interpretations of events and our
attempts to understand society’ (Kelsey, 2017b: 158). In turn, mythology and ideology
shape our views about their positive or negative effects, and so preclude an impartial
account of their functioning in contemporary politics (Kelsey, 2017b: 162). We begin the
article by demonstrating how the performance of any narrative – but especially, a person-
alised one – is central to politics. Next, we examine three of May’s key speeches: her
declaration of candidacy (30 June 2016); the ‘Number 10’ speech (13 July 2016); and the
announcement that she would call a general election (18 April 2017). These ‘performances’
are chosen because they frame May’s premiership in the period under consideration and,
furthermore, represent pivotal ‘moments’ in the construction and collapse of her persona
and narrative. In addition, we briefly consider other addresses delivered in this time and
some of May’s media interviews during the election campaign. In doing so, we argue that,
on becoming Prime Minister, May elaborated and performed a persona based on the myth-
ological archetype of the healer. She also performed a narrative about her view of, and
vision for, UK society. However, May’s failure to perform her initial persona and narrative
during the first year of her premiership ensured that both were in question by the time she
To continue reading
Request your trial