Thickening Rhetorical Political Analysis with a Theory of Distance: Negotiating the Greek Episode of the Eurozone Crisis
| Author | Nick Turnbull,Gareth Price-Thomas |
| Published date | 01 February 2018 |
| Date | 01 February 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717708764 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717708764
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(1) 209 –225
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717708764
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Thickening Rhetorical Political
Analysis with a Theory of
Distance: Negotiating the
Greek Episode of the
Eurozone Crisis
Gareth Price-Thomas1 and Nick Turnbull2
Abstract
Rhetoric has re-emerged in political analysis. We identify two broad trends in the rhetorical
analysis of politics, ‘thin’ and ‘thick’. Thin conceptions view rhetoric as primarily a matter of
oratory. In contrast, the proponents of Rhetorical Political Analysis have developed an emerging
thick approach, in which rhetorical concepts are applied more broadly and with more depth.
However, this approach is significantly limited in its influence because it does not adequately speak
to other sub-disciplines in political science, in which non-rhetorical theories are preferred. This
shortcoming is addressed by applying Meyer’s new philosophy of rhetoric. The approach supports
methodological extension through a theory of practice, grounded in social distance. An analysis
of the Greek episode of the Eurozone crisis shows how rhetoric is used by key actors for the
purpose of strategic positioning, in concert with non-rhetorical means of distanciation, namely,
economic and political relations.
Keywords
political rhetoric, distance, rhetorical political analysis, questioning, Eurozone crisis
Accepted: 13 February 2017
Rhetoric has re-emerged in political analysis. In contrast to traditional approaches to rhet-
oric which understand it primarily as oratory, the new scholarship treats rhetoric not only
as an object of research but as the basis of an analytical framework for the study of politi-
cal language. In particular, in the United Kingdom, Alan Finlayson, James Martin and
Judi Atkins have developed this new approach – Rhetorical Political Analysis (RPA) – to
study political language, ideology and strategy (Atkins et al., 2014; Atkins and Finlayson,
1School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
2School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Corresponding author:
Nick Turnbull, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL,
UK.
Email: nick.turnbull@manchester.ac.uk
708764PSX0010.1177/0032321717708764Political StudiesPrice-Thomas and Turnbull
research-article2017
Article
210 Political Studies 66(1)
2013; Finlayson, 2007; Finlayson and Martin, 2008; Martin, 2013, 2015; Walter, 2016;
see also Toye, 2013). They aim to show the contribution to political science of conceptu-
alising political language as rhetoric, as well as the benefits of using concepts from rheto-
ric scholarship in the study of political communication. British scholars increasingly
draw upon the long history of rhetoric scholarship in the United States (e.g. Burke, 1969;
Crosswhite, 2013) and in continental Europe (Palonen, 2015; Perelman, 1982). This is
part of a general renewal of interest in rhetoric in political studies, for example, in public
policy scholarship (Dryzek, 2010; Fischer and Gottweis, 2012; Griggs and Howarth,
2013; Majone, 1989).
In this article, we identify two broad trends in the rhetorical analysis of politics, ‘thin’
and ‘thick’. Thin approaches understand rhetoric as a mere technique: that is, as a techni-
cal discipline concerning the arrangement and delivery of speech, focused upon oratory.
Thin approaches are entirely valid. However, the emerging thick RPA approach endeav-
ours to claim a space for rhetoric as central to political analysis, beyond such limited
views. The thick approach seeks to overturn the conception that rhetoric is trivial decora-
tion and of little consequence, and show how it is essential in the search for and mainte-
nance of power.
But there are still some limitations to the RPA approach. We argue that a thick theory
of rhetoric must be integrated with other forms of social-scientific analysis, rather than
remaining separate from them. This is necessary because despite the renewed interest in
rhetoric and its extension to a more in-depth analytical framework, in political science
most researchers studying political language prefer to use approaches other than rhetori-
cal ones, such as ‘political communication’, ‘discourse analysis’ or ‘narrative analysis’,
for two reasons. First, other approaches are understood to treat language and ideas in
more depth than is implied by the predominant, thin conception which characterises rhet-
oric as occupying the surface, technical territory of communication. Second, the main-
stream analytical frameworks are considered to be more methodologically amenable to
social-scientific investigation than RPA because – due to its basis in the ideographic tradi-
tion of the humanities – it is difficult to integrate with other methodologies. Rhetoric
studies would benefit from a different conceptual basis so that it can operate in tandem
with other sub-disciplines of political science.
The aim of this article is to argue for a new thick approach to RPA, based on the con-
cept of distance, as advocated by Michel Meyer. This entails a shift in the conception of
rhetorical analysis by reconsidering the philosophical and methodological bases of rheto-
ric theory. Meyer’s theory allows us to embed rhetoric within a relational social science,
thereby broadening the relevance of rhetorical concepts. Most importantly, we propose
that it sets out a methodological pathway to offer a means of compatibility with other sub-
disciplines of political science. In so doing, it seeks to challenge the view that rhetoric is
an autonomous field of inquiry. We argue that Meyer’s theory permits us to integrate the
strengths of thin and RPA theories of political rhetoric while also improving upon them.
The article’s key contribution is to stake out how this particular approach to the theory
of rhetoric renders it compatible with other sub-disciplines of political science. It does so
in three parts. The first section of the article presents a critical review of recent scholar-
ship on RPA. It proposes that there are currently two broad conceptions, thin and thick.
Taken together, these establish the contribution of rhetoric to contemporary political sci-
ence and point towards the prospect of embedding rhetoric within a broader conception
of political communication. We then argue that these approaches have limited utility in
reaching this goal because within them rhetoric is conceptualised so as to limit potential
integration with other analytical approaches. The second section introduces Meyer’s
To continue reading
Request your trial