Political Discourse Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Political discourse is a dimension of, and a tool for, political action. Discursive acts are a significant and indispensable part of political practices. A political scientist is therefore often led to analyze political discourses, broadly defined as sets of ideas and processes of policy formulation and communication. These can take the form of oral communication (e.g., electoral speeches, radio or television interviews, parliamentary questions and debates, etc.), written communication (e.g., political platforms or manifestos, bills and laws, etc.), as well as meaningful symbols (e.g., demonstrations, commemorations, flags, etc.).

The nature and the role of political discourse can be construed in different ways. Some research designs informed by theoretical approaches focusing on other explanatory factors—such as preferences, political and institutional capacity, or policy legacies—tend to see discourses as epiphenomena with no autonomous or significant causal influence (e.g., rational choice theories, historical neoinstitutionalism). Opposite theoretical approaches stress, on the contrary, that discourses and ideas exert a key causal influence (e.g., social constructivism). Some pluralist approaches argue that studying discourses, when combined with other factors and perspectives, helps complete an understanding of political processes and outputs.

Several distinct or complementary functions have been assigned to political discourse, including transmitting information and exchanging views on political issues, political agenda setting, altering public opinion as well as behavior (notably electoral behavior), and politically socializing citizens. Most of these functions connect with two intertwined political imperatives: on the one hand, the legitimization of political actors, systems, and policies; and, on the other hand, the shaping of perceptions of reality.

Discursive acts are inherent in the practices of power. According to Murray Edelman, «The employment of language to sanctify action is exactly what makes politics different from other methods of allocating values.” Political power is never exclusively based on might and constraint, as asserted by JeanJacques Rousseau: «The strongest is never strong enough unless he turns might into right and obedience into duty.” Political discourse contributes to legitimizing political action and political actors. Because it presents political actors and political decisions as the driving forces of social life, it legitimizes political action as such. Political actors also use it strategically, willing to gain or retain political support and legitimacy. Those in power claim that they are responsible for current positive developments while promising future achievements. On the other hand, the opposition and advocacy groups criticize those who govern or put forward alternative courses of action.

Political discourse is not a neutral way to pass information to rational actors in order to help them make informed decisions. It aims at making specific interpretations of political issues prevail. It influences the way people think about and perceive political life. It makes social life intelligible by reducing complex and multidimensional issues to a limited number of options and a few unidimensional oppositions (e.g., the left versus the right, or ecology versus productivism). Within a political system, some symbols, words, and arguments are associated with political ideologies. Using those meaningful signs, political discourse takes a part in building and reinforcing political identities. It asserts and helps identify actors’ political positions and preferences.

Several elements constrain political discourse—notably, the role and status of the speaker, the audience, and the media as well as the political, social, or economic context. The political status or aspirations of the speaker influence the style and the content of the discourse. Within a political culture, different public roles (e.g., president, member of parliament, mayor, etc.) raise different expectations. For instance, high profile mandates attract more numerous, more contradictory, and more intense demands, which decrease the margins of maneuver.

Political actors seeking electoral support have to adapt their discourse to their audience. Depending on its homogeneity (e.g., general public, specific interest groups, etc.), the discourse can be designed to address specific demands or remain general and flexible enough in order not to alienate one’s potential supporters.

The development of new communication technologies since the nineteenth century (e.g., the press, radio, television, Internet) has dramatically modified the dynamics of political discourse. Information can transmit almost instantly and reach large and heterogeneous audiences through mass media. Political discourse has become an endless and highly interactive process, and political actors must make statements under the pressure of current events. In contemporary mass-mediated societies, political discourse is omnipresent. The study of its production, its content, and its effects is a vast and continuously renewed field of research.

Bibliography:

Bon, Frédéric. “Communication et action politique.” In Traité de science politiqu, vol. 3, edited by Madeleine Grawitz and Jean Leca, 537–573. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2001.
Braud, Philippe. Sociologie politique. 6th ed. Paris: LGDJ, 2002.
Chilton, Paul. Analyzing Political Discourse:Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Edelman, Murray. Political Language:Words that Succeeds and Politics that Fail. New York: Academic Press, 1977.
The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.
Le Bart, Christian. Le discours politique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1998.
Palier, Bruno, and Yves Surel. “Les ‘trois I’ et l’analyse de l’Etat en action.” Revue française de science politique 55, no. 1 (2005): 7–32.
Radaelli, Claudio, and Vivien Schmidt. “Policy Change and Discourse in Europe.” West European Politics 27, no. 2 (2004): 183–210.

This example Political Discourse Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.