Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘It Ain’t What You Say…’: British Political Studies and the Analysis of Speech and Rhetoric

  • Article
  • Published:
British Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

This article discusses the utility and fecundity promised for British political studies by the study of speech and rhetoric. It is argued that the systematic investigation of speech in British politics can shed light on political institutions, ideologies and strategies. After exploring these areas in some detail the article goes on to discuss the last party conference speech Tony Blair delivered as Prime Minister. This discussion is demonstrative and synoptic in nature, surveying a broad territory and showing the kinds of questions that a rhetorical political analysis can ask and what, in response, might be done to answer these questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These figures are derived from the archive provided by the Downing Street website. The completeness of this archive has not been verified (see http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page12116.asp).

  2. On the paradoxical relation of appearance to reality in politics and the implications of this for political science, see Connolly (1981).

  3. For instance, Donald Schon (1979) looks at the role of metaphor in housing policy while a process of relocation is at the heart of the development of the issue of child abuse as an object of political intervention (see Hacking, 1991).

  4. This was in response to news reports that Blair's wife had made disparaging remarks about Gordon Brown during the latter's speech.

  5. In previous conference speeches Blair has referred to the internet generation and the popular culture generation (see Finlayson, 2003, chapter 2).

  6. The day before Blair's speech his likely successor Gordon Brown had delivered a speech perceived as laying out his own plans for his leadership, evoking public duty rather than celebrity. Peter Mandelson had given interviews blaming Brown for causing the ‘fissure’ at the heart of New Labour and John Reid, the Home secretary, suggested Blair was wrong to have announced his departure (see Branigan, 2006b).

References

  • Andrew, H. (2004) New Labour at the Centre: Constructing Political Space, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H. (ed.) (2003) Governance as Social and Political Communication, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, A. (1999) The Language of Politics, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M., Dowding, K., Finlayson, A., Hay, C. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2004) ‘Interpretive methodology and political science: a roundtable’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (2): 129–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2003) Interpreting British Governance, London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2007) Governance Stories, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (2008) ‘Authors’ response: politics as cultural practice’, Political Studies Review 6 (2): 170–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, M. (2002) ‘Institutions and Ideas’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 292–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branigan, T. (2006a) ‘Two in five voters want Blair to quit now’, The Guardian, 9 September.

  • Branigan, T. (2006b) ‘Fissure at heart of New Labour, says Mandelson’, The Guardian, 26 September.

  • Bull, P. (1994) ‘On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interviews’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13 (2): 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, P. (2003) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. (1981) Appearance and Reality in Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. (1993) The Terms of Political Discourse, Prineton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (eds.) (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M.J. (1985) The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power, Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faucher-King, F. (2005) Changing Parties: An Anthropology of British Political Party Conferences, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, A. (2003) Making Sense of New Labour, London: Lawrence and Wishart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson, A. (2007) ‘From beliefs to arguments: interpretive methodology and rhetorical political analysis’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (4): 545–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeden, M. (1998) Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glynos, J. and Howarth, D. (2008) ‘Structure, agency and power in political analysis: beyond contextualised self-interpretations’, Political Studies Review 6 (2): 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1991) ‘The making and molding of child abuse’, Critical Inquiry 17 (2): 253–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P.A. and Taylor, R.C.R. (1996) ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44 (5): 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. (1988) The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, C. and Wincott, D. (1998) ‘Structure, agency and historical institutionalism’, Political Studies 46 (5): 951–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, R. (2001) New Labour and Thatcherism: Political Change in Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmoor, A. (2004) New Labour at the Centre: Constructing Political Space, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Jamieson, K.H. (1990) Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, K.H. and Campbell, K. (1990) Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitas, R. (2005) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour, 2nd revised edn, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowndes, V. (2002) ‘Institutionalism’, in D. Marsh and G. Stoker (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 90–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1984) ‘The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review 78: 734–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, I. (2001) Rational Choice and British Politics: An Analysis of Rhetoric and Manipulation from Peel to Blair, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, I. (2002) ‘William H. Riker and the invention of heresthetic(s)’, British Journal of Political Science 32: 535–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medhurst, M.J. (1994) Eisenhower's War of Words: Rhetoric and Leadership, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medhurst, M.J. (2006) The Rhetorical Presidency of George H. W. Bush, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, F. (2000) ‘Harold Macmillan's ‘Winds of Change’ speech: a case study in the rhetoric of policy change’, Rhetoric & Public Affairs 3 (4): 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W.H. (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation, New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D.A. (1979) ‘Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy’, in A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 254–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A. (2003) ‘Losers in politics (and how they sometimes become winners): William Riker's heresthetic’, Perspectives on Politics 1 (2): 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics: Volume 1 Regarding Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M.J. (2008) ‘Recentering British government: beliefs, traditions and dilemmas in political science’, Political Studies Review 6 (2): 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toynbee, P. (2006) ‘Charm and eloquence. But a missed chance’, The Guardian, 27 September.

  • Tulis, J.K. (1988) The Rhetorical Presidency, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B.A. (1998) ‘Political Institutions: Rational Choice Perspectives’, in R.E. Goodin and H.-D. Klingemann (eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintour, P. (2006) ‘Going, going, not quite gone’, The Guardian, 27 September.

  • Zarefsky, D. (1986) President Johnson's War on Poverty, Tuskaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. (1993) Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology, London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the benefit we derived from early conversations about Blair's 2006 speech with Emilia Palonen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and International Relations, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK

    Alan Finlayson

  2. Department of Politics, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, SE14 6NW, London, UK

    James Martin

Authors
  1. Alan Finlayson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Martin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finlayson, A., Martin, J. ‘It Ain’t What You Say…’: British Political Studies and the Analysis of Speech and Rhetoric. Br Polit 3, 445–464 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2008.21

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2008.21

Keywords

Search

Navigation