Discourse And Politics: Peculiarities

What is political discourse exactly? Such a broad and vague question has been approached by many theorists in the area of discourse who have each delivered their own results, but none of which have given just one precise definition. Most critics focus on the relationship between the written text and another field, such as politics, culture, racism, etc. Hence, as a simple compilation of their findings, political discourse is recognized by its officials and their talk of political parties and political traditions, at local and international levels. Such political activities do not only revolve around the representatives, but also involve the people as citizens, voters, members of campaign groups, and activists. The language and political discourse our leaders and media display are what mold the discord of our national landscape, thus restricting individual growth and escalating the effects of their biases and prejudices.

Political discourse analysis can refer either to the analysis of political discourse, defined as the text and talk of politicians within overtly political contexts, or to a political, i.e., critical, approach to discourse analysis (Dunmire, 2012). It revolves around recognizing the functionality of political discourse and the role it plays in abusing, upholding, and defying power in society. Any situation that includes an uneven distribution of power and its effect on individuals’ behavior falls under the concept of politics. Political discourse analysis deals with the reproduction of political power, power abuse or domination through political discourse, including the various forms of resistance or counter-power against such forms of discursive dominance (van Dijk, 1998). Those forms of power, tolerance, oppression and so on define how the government and its political groups are positioned with respect to the citizens. Dominant Discourse is the discourse of those who hold a dominant position within the social and political hierarchy (Amaglobeli, 2018). This form of discourse is their way of conveying ideas and consistent behavioral paradigms within a specific culture, a culture in which they possess more power than others. The groups of politicians coerce the members of society into acknowledging and accepting teh social and speech archetypes they themselves have set as the norm. Hence, political discourse is a form of linguistic manipulation which carries out both tangible and intangible objectives. It can be categorized based on the ideologies it strives to endorse, such as monocracy or liberalism, and whether to not there exists any hierarchy or power.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

PDA can refer either to the analysis of political discourse, defined as the text and talk of politicians within overtly political contexts, or to a political, i.e., critical, approach to discourse analysis (15, 11). PDA, then, is concerned with understanding the nature and function of political discourse and with critiquing the role discourse plays in producing, maintaining, abusing, and resisting power in contemporary society

The key terms of politics – power, influence, and authority – refer to linguistic modes of interacting with others in pursuit of political goals and effects (Dunmire, 2012). Language is a source of power for politicians. By analyzing this discourse, the speaker becomes more transparent to those who really listen. They can deduce the speaker’s gender, culture, social ranking, and his/her intentions with those being addressed. For example, when female politicians adopt a “masculine” way of talking – it may be considered a specific discursive strategy for achieving certain (political) goals (Amaglobeli, 2018). Moreover, political declarations do not represent neutral statements, but rather operate as a sheet anchor devised to reach political goals, create unions, and portray an image of unity. Linguistic communication maintains political systems, it serves as a web for the ideal modes of thinking, conversing, and behaving. Such biased frameworks influence discourse in many ways. Additionally, the way an individual personalizes his/her group’s beliefs shape the form of political discourse. When the speakers of different political parties converse, not only do they have sociopolitical opinions of the events under discussion, but also about one another. Politicians who are making a speech for a community are limited in what they can say and how it is said. Although a speech delivered during a political campaign is aimed at bringing in more votes, the politician can only express the ideas that concur with those already expressed by his/her sponsoring party.

Our knowledge and attitude about politicians and political parties is attained, or changed, by different forms of writing and conversing during social events, in educational spaces, and, of course, through the media. Political information processing is often a form of discourse processing, also because much political action and participation is accomplished by discourse and communication (Dijk, 2002). An official delivering a speech in the government would speak as an individual, expressing his or her personal political beliefs in a distinctive framework. However, that person also speaks as a member of said government and as a representative of the public. In other words, this representative could be opposing another party, and expressing his or her group’s own beliefs. By doing so, the democratic system and ideologies are ratified. Political text and talk of individuals are related to socially shared political representations and collective interactions of groups and institutions (Dijk, 2002). A political conversation is contextualized in communicative events such as congress meetings, polls, rallies, flyers, protests, interviews with the media, and so on. Whether it is directly through social media or through newspapers and interviews, the key to successful communication is having a clear and obvious recipient. Especially when communicating with a multi-lingual audience, simplicity is required; sending a clear message in a non-rhetorical language so that it is not misinterpreted. Politicians have thus exploited the media in democratic countries to discuss political views and give the impression that political free will is still preserved.

Our approach to language classifies our social presence. A language is shaped by who it is being spoken to, and by how one’s relationship with that person will be affected by what is said. Similarly, how we interpret what is said to us and what we choose to believe shape our political identity. This paves way to the usage of positive (or negative) language in political interactions. The public wants their leaders to offer them hope and visions of a brighter future. The media has already taken the liberty of streaming bits and clips of catastrophic events, which the politicians have very little or no influence over. Therefore, it is imperative that they propose a more inspiring and comforting message in the fields they can control. For example, Barrack Obama assembled a cohesive and effective “no drama” campaign team which in turn helped him craft and deliver his message of hope and change (Simba, 2009). He managed to successfully become the candidate of change in 2008 by encouraging a whole generation with his prompting message of “yes we can”. It was a brief and clear-cut chant, making it easily applicable to anything.

Meanwhile, Lebanese political discourse took a deeper plunge into failure over the years. Most recently were the 2018 elections where no new faces came into parliament due the same empty words spoken by politicians about being different during this political run, and the failure of activists in their opposition groups. A group member said: “The process of selecting and vetting candidates was ridiculous. We spent so much time arguing over all of these matters and forgot to talk to people. We weren’t present on the ground!” (El Kak, 2019). One group in particular recognized their lack of social media exposure, and instead went door-to-door to deliver their message in person. This form of political discourse, discussions amongst the people without the presence of government officials, is what would help make a real difference, by unifying their beliefs. But how will they make such a difference if the activists are barely heard? Social media plays an important role in spreading the news and opinions about the news, yet the public ignores when their preferred political party representative stutters in his speech, or gives shady answers in an interview. A good speech requires structure, tone, style, and language all combined to create an impact on the audience and convince them purely through the given arguments. What kind of leader are they then empowering? The kind that cannot address listeners without removing their eyes from their paper and articulating? The kind that does not have the necessary reading skills? This poor discourse alone should be reason enough to be forbidden from running for office, but society ignores such incompetence because they do not link discourse and politics, even though one cannot exist without the other.

In summary, language can be regarded as an essential feature of politics. Political disputes have always been established as linguistic differences and struggles over the dominant language. It is crucial to distinguish the types of political discourse and their characteristics in order to involve one’s self. People should not simply assent to what those in power express, but instead question it, be skeptical about it, maybe even resist it, and adjust it so it does not clash with their own goals. Politicians, by turn, should know how to address their audience, confidently and optimistically because the wrong choice of words can hulk a political career.

Reference List

1. Amaglobeli, Givi. (2018). Types of Political Discourses and Their Classification. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region. 3. 10.31578/jebs.v3i1.117
2. Dijk, T.A. van. (1998). What is political discourse analysis?
3. Dijk, T.A. van. (2002). 7. Political discourse and political cognition. Politics as Text and Talk Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture.
4. Dunmire, Patricia. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language. Language and Linguistics Compass. 6. 10.1002/lnc3.365.
5. El Kak, N. (2019) A Path for Political Change in Lebanon? Lessons and Narratives from the 2018 Elections. Retrieved from https://www.arab-reform.net/publication/a-path-for-political-change-in-lebanon-lessons-and-narratives-from-the-2018-elections/
6. Simba, M. (2009). “Yes We Can”: Barack Obama’s Road to the White House, 2008. Retrieved from https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/yes-we-can-barack-obamas-road-white-house-2008/