This book provides an introduction to political psychology through a focus on European politics and topics. It describes a style of doing political psychology in Europe that has developed out of dialogue with as well as critique of North American approaches. By emphasising the theoretical and methodological diversity of political psychology, the book is intended to contribute to a greater understanding of the strength and utility of the field. • Opens up and extends the study of political psychology to a variety of socio-political contexts and manifestations of political behaviour • Clearly outlines the usefulness and promises of distinctive critical approaches in social and political psychology • Explicitly considers the role of language, communication, identity and social representations in the construction of political meanings. Political Psychology will appeal to upper-level students and scholars who seek to extend their knowledge of the complex relationship between psychology, politics and society.

The article discusses uses of xiu shen, one among a number of terms referring to practices of moral and mental discipline in early China. It sketches out the contexts and discourses in which the term appears and hopes thus to contribute, albeit in a limited way, to eventual broader assessments of the role which different concepts, ideals, and practices of self-discipline played in political and social thought.

There is a particular urgency in this political moment to understand children's experiences with current events. Drawing from data generated following the 2016 presidential election, this paper focuses on three racially and linguistically diverse children's persuasive compositions. Within a critical literacies writing unit focused on (im)migrant experiences, children called on legislators to act on the Republican administration's policies. Building on the understanding that all literacies are political and that teaching and learning are value-laden tasks, the author engaged a cultural rhetorics orientation-grounded in the understanding of texts, bodies, materials, and ideas as interconnected aspects of communication-for data generation and analysis. The findings highlight how children strategically employed rhetoric to persuade. They used logos, pathos, and ethos, as well as story, a central tool for meaning-making and building practices in the world. Ultimately, this study demonstrates how children, when properly supported, can agentively participate in critical literacies and act on real-world politics. Through the stories of young children, this study emphasizes what children have to tell adults and what a cultural rhetorics orientation, through its emphasis on story, enables literacies researchers and educators to understand about children's composing.

Book chapter in:
Studies in Australian Political Rhetoric. John Uhr & Ryan Walter (eds). ANU Press. 2014 .
Full text of book available for free from attached link.

From introduction:
(In this chapter) I seek to examine the relationship between the production of knowledge and the legitimation of coercive public policy approaches in the field of Aboriginal Affairs governance. My analysis focuses on the formal political debate over the introduction of Australia’s Northern Territory Intervention, which was designed to protect Aboriginal children from widespread abuse and neglect in remote NT communities (Howard and Brough 2007). Often linked to a neoliberal economic development paradigm, the Intervention was the target of much criticism (Concerned Australians 2010: 8; Dodson 2007; Tangentyere Council 2007). Many  people were concerned that the Intervention was a strike against the political and group rights of Aboriginal people, and saw the policy as an assimilationist, paternalist and colonialist development in Australian Aboriginal Affairs policy (Conor 2007; Macoun 2011; Manderson 2008; Mazel 2009). Federally, however, there was general consensus within the major political parties over both the necessity of the policy and its more coercive elements. My analysis focuses on this parliamentary discourse, as well as other political speeches that sought to justify coercive approaches to Aboriginal Affairs governance. I argue that the legitimation of coercive governance depended upon the development of  new forms of knowledge about both Aboriginal people — as the objects of governance — and the limitations of alternative techniques for Aboriginal governance. Neoliberal conceptions of good governance and the ideal citizen were employed to produce new forms of knowledge about the field of Aboriginal Affairs governance.

In this essay, I argue through analysis of the genre of campaign announcements that third-party presidential candidates have rhetorical norms of their own that address their unique challenges as political outsiders. Specifically, I contend that their announcements are a variant of the announcement genre and are warranted by the recurring situational barriers, perceived strategic constraints, and overall purposes for minor-party presidential campaigns. In addition to offering an alternative theory of third-party announcements based on analysis of over 40 such statements, I provide three case studies—including statements by Progressive Henry Wallace, Independent Eugene McCarthy, and Reform Party nominee Patrick Buchanan—to demonstrate this variant of the genre. Finally, I conclude by discussing the implications of this study for understanding third-party rhetoric.

In this chapter we explore the role of humorous memes in co-constructing polarized positions in contemporary US political discourse. Such polarized positioning, we argue, is mostly based on a disregard for the other that draws heavily on irony as a rhetorical resource. Our analysis focuses on the memes posted as responses to two different controversial Twitter threads initiated by the former president of the United States, Donald Trump. Through our discussion, we consider the importance of examining memes rhetorically as a way to highlight the different assumptions informing and reproduced both in Trump’s discourse and that of his opponents. At a broader level, our study contributes to a more holistic understanding of the role that polarizing discourses play in our current populist conjuncture, and their perils and potential in the overall struggles to (re)establish alternative forms of common sense.

Britons viewed speculative thinking as a primary cause of the French Revolution and the disorders that followed. In this context, Edmund Burke and others identified a form of enthusiasm that was not religious but theoretical in nature, and which also corrupted reasoning to disastrous effect. This paper investigates how this accusation was made against David Ricardo and his political economy, and the variable defences that he deployed. The result is to uncover the language that was used to appraise political economy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, along with the intellectual disciplines that were prescribed to protect economic reasoning from falling into fantasy.

This article revisits Jeffrey Tulis’s The Rhetorical Presidency in the age of Trump, discussing the debates to which it originally responded, its core thesis and empirical evidence, as well as its impact on political science in the last three decades. The article’s second half turns to a recent critique of Tulis’s thesis by Ann C. Pluta, which manifests many of the misunderstandings that have persisted since The Rhetorical Presidency’s original publication. Habits of thought revealed in Pluta’s misunderstandings, I argue, are emblematic of the political culture that is amenable to the simplistic yet politically effective appeals characteristic of rhetorical presidents like Donald Trump. Elements of the broader political-science world that are on display in Pluta’s article are symptomatic of political pathologies sustained and aggravated by the culture of the polity that political scientists inhabit and purport to study—the culture of the rhetorical presidency.

This analysis seeks to draw connections between Roland Barthes' conception of semiotics and myths, the concept and use of jeremiads, and epidictic rhetoric within President Trump's speech made at a political rally held in Lexington, Kentucky on November 4 th , 2019 supporting the vote for republican candidate Matt Bevin for governor. This rhetorical criticism aims at exploring how the perpetuation of the American Jeremiad and mythic structures which embody traditional American exceptionalism work to form a relationship between Trump in his audience, grant Trump rhetorical power, and the exigency of recognizing these rhetorical occurrences in order to better route the ethical state of the present and future for American citizens in a time of political tension.

The United States has long grappled with the question of how to maintain an appropriate combination of religion and politics in the public sphere. The current electoral cycle is no different, as Presidential candidates attempt to negotiate both the political and religious landscapes. This essay introduces a special forum on rhetoric and religion in contemporary politics and touches on some recent instances of how religious differences have played out in the current political environment. Some of the issues discussed include the separation of church and state, Mitt Romney’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Rick Santorum’s conception of the “war on religion,” and the controversy over contraceptives at religious institutions and Rush Limbaugh’s attacks on a Georgetown law student.

This book provides a comprehensive investigation of the political dimensions of civil religion in the United States. By employing an original social-psychological theory rooted in semiotics, it offers a qualitative and quantitative empirical examination of more than fifty years of political rhetoric. Further, it presents two in-depth case studies that examine how the cultural, totemic sign of ‘the Founding Fathers’ and the signs of America’s sacred texts (the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) are used in attempts to link partisan policy positions with  notions that the country collectively holds sacred. The book’s overarching thesis is that America’ s civil religion serves as a discursive framework for the country’s politics of the sacred, mediating the
demands of particularistic interests and social solidarity through the interaction of social belief and institutional politics like elections and the Supreme Court. The book penetrates America’s unique political religiosity to reveal and unravel the intricate ways in which politics, political institutions, religion and culture intertwine in the United States.

William F. Buckley afforded conservatives of all stripes a provocative rhetorical style, a gladiatorial style, as I term it. The gladiatorial style is a flashy, combative style whose ultimate aim is the creation of inflammatory drama. I claim that conservatives encountered Buckley's potent arguments about God, government, and markets and the gladiatorial style simultaneously. The theatrical appeal of Buckley's gladiatorial style inspired conservative imitators with disparate beliefs and, over several decades, became one of the principal rhetorical templates for the performance of conservatism.

This study explores depictions of Islam in Senate rhetoric across the 106 th (1999–2000) and 111 th (2009–2010) Congresses. These two periods are compared to consider overall patterns in congressional discourse on Islam and to explore how the September 11 th , 2001 attacks might have shaped this discourse. The study also examines the possible effects of ideology, partisanship, and senator religious affiliation on representations of Islam. The article ultimately suggests that despite some important post-September 11 shifts in Senate rhetoric pertaining to Islam, persistent themes regarding securitization, Orientalist tendencies, moderate-fundamentalist dichotomizations, and ideological divisions merit scrutiny. This study contributes to work on Congress, religion, and American politics by assessing trends in the discursive representation of Islam by United States legislators. Theoretically, the article draws upon the Copenhagen School in International Relations to assess the securitization of Islam within legislative debates and to develop the related concept of normalization.

This article draws attention to how the ethics of democratic representation operates as a discreet factor in a crisis of representation afflicting Western democracies by identifying the ways a disregard for truthfulness can harm democratic representation. We argue that such a disregard undermines democratic representation by (a) reducing freedom and equality, (b) weakening accountability, (c) undermining citizens' trust in democratic institutions, and (d) jeopardising the ability to compromise.

We illustrate the processes that produce these effects by analysing examples of untruthful communication about Brexit by senior British politicians in the post-referendum debates. We show how all four of these effects were triggered by the ways they misled the public by (1) making claims about overwhelming popular support for their policy, (2) misrepresenting the power relations between the EU and the national government, and (3) seriously downplaying the complexity of negotiations involved in leaving the EU and reaching trade deals thereafter.

У збірці есеїв авторка пропонує читачеві аналіз понад вось-
мисот слоганів українського спротиву – у фокус потрапляє пе-
ріод Євромайдану 2013–2014 рр. та подальший розвиток по-
дій в сучасній Україні. В есеях, котрі мають і наукове підґрунтя
(соціолінгвістика, дискурс-аналіз), риторику суспільних подій
висвітлено у науково-публіцистичному стилі. Із цієї збірки читач
може довідатися, як мова формує ідентичності та цінності, ві-
дображає суспільні зміни, якою є динаміка революційної рито-
рики (у зіставленні з попередніми українськими протестами –
Студентською революцією на граніті 1990 р. та Помаранчевою
революцією 2004 р. та з демонстраціями в інших країнах світу).
Революційні слогани виконали як суспільні функції (мобілізації,
згуртування
протестувальників), так і мовні (комунікативну,
експресивну, поетичну), стали частиною аудіовізуального образу
майдану, елементом формування колективної пам’яті про нього.
У мові протесту і подальшого українського спротиву переплелися
вербальна агресія і мовне злагіднення, архаїчні і модерні
риси, елементи літературних мов і соціолектів (суржику, азірівки,
жаргону, сленгу).
Книжка розрахована на широке коло читачів
– як лінгвістів,
студентів, особливо гуманітаріїв, так і тих, хто цікавиться укра-
їнськими суспільними подіями, цінностями українського гро-
мадянського суспільства.

В первой главе "Советская идеология и посоветский дискурс" рассматривается природа языка идеологии как воспитательного средства, обсуждается устройство идеологемы, очерчиваются методы исследования языка идеологии.
Главы II "Идеологема - от буквы до цитаты" и III "Обсценный пласт идеологического языка". Сюда относятся собственно идеологемы, представленные на всех уровнях текста - от буквы (например, "твердый знак" на конце слова) до цитаты (например, преобразованные высказывания Сталина), а также обсценный план русского языка, взятый в довлевшей ему в советское время идеологической функции.

Вторая глава работы рассматривает различные формы бытования идеологемы - от минимальной единицы, знака, до массивов текста: идеологема-буква (еръ, б, н, е), идеологема-падежное окончание (измена Родины и измена Родине; Федеративная Республика Германии и Федеративная Республика Германия), русский (кириллический) алфавит как макроидеологема СССР для носителей неславянских языков, идеологема-акцент в средствах массовой коммуникации, кино, театре, повседневном обиходе. Рассматривается динамика идеологемы-имени (топонима, эргонима и т.п.): от стадии первоименования до стадии посоветского переосмысления (Чека, расстрел). Главу завершает анализ идеологемы-цитаты. На примере сталинизмов, или закрепленных в обыденной речи сталинских паремий, показана динамика идеологической речи вообще и сделана попытка истолковать живучесть идеологемы-сталинизма в посоветском дискурсе.

Третья глава "Обсценный пласт идеологического языка" была написана как ответ на частный вопрос, задевающий, тем не менее, весь русский посоветский дискурс. Еще А.С.Пушкин писал о том, что настоящая свобода в России будет ознаменована публикацией в открытой печати не допущенных туда цензурой матерных стихотворений И.Баркова.2 Произнесенное более полутора столетий назад пророчество поэта исполнилось: действительно, политическая свобода в России совпала с этим интересным, но все же частным, событием. Однако произошло и нечто большее. Свободный русский дискурс не ограничился снятием запретов на что бы то ни было в средствах массовой коммуникации и вообще в сегодняшнем русском культурном обиходе. Неожиданным для наблюдателя речевых процессов явился проясняемый задним числом масштаб взаимодействия советской идеологии и русского матерного языка. Последний предстает комплексом теневых идеологем и в этом своем качестве подвергнут анализу в третьей главе. В работе предложена ментальная схема обсценного словоупотребления на осях "страшное" - "смешное" и "бытовой абсурд" - "скромная, но защищенная повседневность". На основе анализа таких сегментов русского посоветского дискурса, как здравомыслие (здравый смысл) и норма, становится ясно, почему носители языка в 1990-е годы "позиционируют мат как ненормативный речевой хабитус", входящий, тем не менее, в поле здравомыслия.3

В главе III обосновывается гипотеза, согласно которой в условиях выхода из эпохи идеологической индоктринации обращение (припадание, возвращение) к норме, понимаемое как проявление здравомыслия, может осуществляться в формах ненормативности. В диссертации описана и теоретически обоснована прежде не выявленная риторическая фигура эсхрофемизма ("стебного снижения"). Эсхрофемизм - это фигура речи, возникающая благодаря замене основного матерного значения обыденным с сохранением и семантической структуры обыденного, и иллокутивной силы матерного слова. Данные больших массивов текстов, представленных средствами массовой коммуникации, свидетельствуют о том, что эсхрофемизм является содержательной характеристикой посоветского русского дискурса. Подчеркнуто коммуникативная функция русского мата, по сравнению с преимущественно инвективной, бранной ролью других сквернословий "в языках народов СССР", воплощает реальный низовой горизонт идеологического комплекса "дружбы народов" или "братства партий" ("литератур", "кинематографий" и др.), а эсхрофемизм облегчает освоение слишком большого массива новизны.

When I mention my shotgun, some people nod knowingly and say, “Good home defense gun.” And I explain, “No, not exactly,” or “Really, no, not at all.” I keep it locked up, unloaded, inaccessible. If somebody wants to break into my home while I’m there, I have a baseball bat. If they only want my stuff, well, that’s not worth killing or dying for. My gun’s not a defensive gun. It’s not a gun for the present, though I do shoot clay pigeons to keep in practice and because it’s fun. My gun isn’t for shooting people, at least in these times. (For shooting people in other times? Maybe; one hopes not; maybe.) This is an end-of-one-world gun, and it is nice to think that the circumstances that would make owning such a gun rational will never arrive. (It is very white to think they are not already here, but also very white to ward them off by collecting and displaying guns like talismans.) My non-defensive gun is, in short, a response to climate change.

Данная статья посвящена нарративу как риторической стратегии и важнейшему междисциплинарному феномену, устанавливающему связь между языком, мышлением, культурой и политическим воздействием. Стратегия нарратива рассмотрена на примере победных речей президента США Барака Обамы, произнесенных по завершении кампании 2012 года. Проанализированные примеры демонстрируют, что нарратив в политическом дискурсе Б. Обамы восходит к риторике религиозной притчи.

Frederick Douglass spoke to a multiracial public sphere by engaging in "antagonistic cooperation" with white and black abolitionists. He served as an "integrative ancestor" for all those trying to help build a multiracial democracy. Douglass'  interracial rhetoric was developed to engage the different constituents of his multiracial audiences. I examine some rhetorical strategies Douglass employed in his "What to the Slave is the 4th of July?” speech order to communicate with the different constituents of his multiracial audience. Since many of these strategies were derived from Bible stories and
Enlightenment/ "natural rights" philosophy, I  focus on the  streams of Christian and political egalitarianism which fed Douglass' vision, with three main goals:
1) to give a sense of Douglass' stature in his own time;
2) to deepen our understanding of Douglass' biracial identity and political philosophy, and of how this makes him an "integrative ancestor"; and
3) to illustrate the continuing timeliness of Douglass' critique of American racialism.

In this article, I examine Barack Obama’s use of collective memory during his 2007 campaign speech in Selma, Alabama. Specifically, I argue that Obama appeals to collective memory to challenge the Black community’s relationship to the past. He reframed the memory of the Civil Rights Movement in a manner favorable to his political aspirations. While this frame was politically expedient, it weakened Black political agency. It robbed the Black community of crucial rhetorical resources used to challenge structural inequalities in society. This article offers insight into the complex relationship between metaphor and collective memory. Specifically, I interrogate the role of metaphor as a crucial site where public memory is formed, disrupted, and rearticulated. Furthermore, I consider the implications of his use of memory for the future of the Black freedom struggle.

The present thesis deals with the famous Gorgias's Encomium of Helen. In particular, it aims to underline its moral meaning, above all in relation to the power of rhetoric. Contrary to the common view which considers Gorgias's Helen a mere stylistic drill, the thesis wants to show the philosophical value of the oration.

Schneider and Ingram's theory of policy design (1997) states that policymaking is a process through which knowledge is socially constructed and is a domain in which power elites manipulate symbols, rhetoric, images, and distort logical lines of inquiry to justify policies that privilege certain social groups, while stigmatizing and disenfranchising others. Policies act as lessons, and individuals, in turn, then internalize messages on their value to society based on the policies that are assigned to them. Using qualitative data in the form of in-depth interviews conducted with Latinos in Arizona, this paper asks, Do Latinos characterize S.B. 1070 as a degenerative policy, and, if so, what is the impact of this policy on their civic engagement? Findings show that S.B. 1070 is a degenerative policy that causes harm by obstructing the political integration of Latinos and Latino immigrants in the United States, as they report feeling increasingly targeted by the state and repeatedly portrayed as criminals and threat to national security. As a result, Latinos tend to be alienated and have little-to-no desire to engage in conventional forms of political participation; civic engagement attitudes are shaped and formed on the premise that participation is futile, as the state does not care for them and will, instead, politically gain from their disenfranchisement. This paper provides insight on how stigma will likely result in Latinos' withdrawal from political participation given the current policy initiatives proposed and/or implemented, now that the Trump administration is in power. Public administration, as the action part of government, has the opportunity to play a crucial role in changing these policy dynamics into a more positive scenario, one in which democracy is strengthened, instead of stifled, that upholds key values of social justice and equity in its interactions with the constituents it serves (especially by street-level bureaucrats), and is devoted to community building and improvement.

This article brings together and contextualises some ostensibly disparate ‘readings’ of political speeches from Australia and the United States, both good examples and not-so-good examples, to examine a characteristic that prevails in all public communication, and which is especially noticeable in politics.  That characteristic is the nexus between the poetic and the political in all public language.  In this case, it is grounded in a distinction between political speakers-as-performers and the advisors who script many of their performances for them.  The dynamics of this relationship are critical influences on the more publicly explicit relationship between speakers and their audiences.  Consequently, these dynamics are critical to our understanding of political discourse, and of public communication more broadly.

The most original and shocking interpretation of Lucretius in the last 40 years.

Thomas Nail argues convincingly and systematically that Lucretius was not an atomist, but a thinker of kinetic flux. In doing so, he completely overthrows the interpretive foundations of modern scientific materialism, whose philosophical origins lie in the atomic reading of Lucretius' immensely influential book De Rerum Natura.

This means that Lucretius was not the revolutionary harbinger of modern science as Greenblatt and others have argued; he was its greatest victim. Nail re-reads De Rerum Natura to offer us a new Lucretius--a Lucretius for today.

Wie weit reicht Rhetorik? Wie weit reicht die Macht des Rhetorischen, wenn kulturelle Diskurse, wenn Lebenswelten von der Systematik und den Techniken der ars oratoria überformt und strukturiert werden? Die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge erforschen Rhetorik als eine Instanz, die den soziokulturellen Kommunikationsraum organisiert und Verfahren zur diskursiven Kontrolle, zur dialogischen Interaktion und zum operativen Handeln bereitstellt. Gravitationszentrum Einzelstudien ist die These, dass Rhetorik – jenseits ihrer angestammten Funktion als Regulativ von Ordnungen der Rede – auch Ordnungen der Dinge und des Wissens regelt: Rhetorik ist kein zeichentheoretisches Epiphänomen, sondern Bedingung für die Herausbildung sozialer und kultureller Tatsachen.

Das Spektrum der Beiträge führt vielfältige Diskurse (vom theologischen über den juristischen bis zum Wissenschaftsdiskurs), Medien (vom Kino über die Tagespresse bis zur PowerPoint-Technik), Kulturen (den west- und osteuropäischen Raum umspannend) und historischen Epochen (vom Barock bis zur Gegenwart) zusammen und verdeutlicht die Aktualität der Rhetorik als techne der Produktion und Interpretation kultureller Praktiken. Dabei zeigt sich, dass die Ordnungsmacht der Rhetorik nicht nur eine Fähigkeit zur Neu- und Umordnung, sondern auch zur Unordnung darstellt. Rhetorik liefert systematische Regelwerke zur Strukturierung kommunikativer Akte, aber trägt auch beträchtlich zu deren Beunruhigung und Misslingen bei.

Che Gevara as a commercial brend

Некоммерческих символов не бывает. Как не бывает коммерции без символов — концентратов обмена — информационного, товарного, телесного. При этом самыми дорогими в коммерческом отношении являются торговые марки самых массовых продуктов. Если ваш продукт «кока-кола», то вы — обладатель самой дорогой торговой марки. А если ваш продукт — революция или массовое движение? Можно ли сравнивать серп и молот, силуэт Ленина, Маркса или Че Гевары с вензелем «кока-колы»?

In the Russian context deliberative speech, i.e. an open and free exchange of arguments that leads to political consensus, developed rather late, and it existed only for short periods of time, namely after the revolution of 1905 and the transformation period between Perestroika and post-soviet Russia. For a depiction of the Russian tradition of political rhetoric it is therefore necessary to take into account a number of genres and discourses. Instead of the dialogical character, which-according to the Aristotelian model-is characteristic of deliberative rhetoric that is based on speech and counter-speech, these different types of speech and texts (e. g. sermons, panegyrics, epistles, political speeches) possess mostly monological forms. As such they serve the purpose of stabilizing and legitimizing the government until the end of the 19th century, in the Soviet Union also of mobilizing the masses, while in the Putin era they are a central element in the multi-media fashioning of ideological 'truth'.

This essay argues that the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, can be partially explained by the rise of what we call presidential eschatology, a religious master narrative that represents a historic shift from presidents appealing to God to presidents becoming a messiah figure. More specifically, we trace President Trump's embrace of this kind of religious discourse-which we contend is a form of weaponized political communication aiming to undermine democracy-to his acceptance of a millennialist narrative fashioned by QAnon conspiracy theorists. Through a close reading of primary sources from the movement, the study illustrates how these eschatological themes surfaced in QAnon's discourse and were exploited by Trump and his allies as they sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

This chapter discusses the place of metaphor in ancient and modern political rhetoric. It starts with the idea of metaphor in classical rhetorical and stylistic theories and juxtaposes it with modern cognitive theories, to note that the differences between Greek theorists’ and modern linguists’ views have often been misconstrued and overemphasised. It argues that the cognitive aspect of metaphor, well represented in Greek theorising, was sidelined in Roman and later tradition. It also analyses examples of some prominent types of metaphors in classical Athenian and recent rhetorical practice, including Cold War rhetoric, and discusses their real-life impact (including metaphors of states as structures and containers, personifications and body politic, and war as a sporting competition).

The present dissertation demonstrates how the utilization of language is always manipulated to convey the purposes of the speaker in order to have an effect on the listener. Politicians, in particular, comprehend the power of words to explicate and justify acts, as well as to persuade people to support them, even if this support implies a risk to their lives. Based on this understanding, I have analyzed the speeches and declarations of former President of the United States, George W. Bush, starting from September 11, 2001 leading up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, with special emphasis on the way he makes use of metaphors. The aim of the analysis is to reveal the real and  essential motivation for Bush’s thinking and actions. Samuel P. Huntington’s idea of The Clash of Civilizations (1993) seems likely to be his foremost (hidden) motivation. Furthermore, I suggest that Orientalism is the most significant ideology standing behind Bush-Cheney’s War on Terror rhetoric. To prove these, I have devoted a considerable attention to metaphors and cognitive metaphor theory based on George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), metaphor criticism as presented by Lakoff (1991-2003) and Jonathan Charteris-Black (2005-2011). Metaphors are powerful rhetoric strategies as they “tap into shared cultural knowledge and beliefs.” Moreover, they are a very efficient means of presenting acts and actions in a manner that engages the audience and wins its sympathy, as they allow the speaker “to align himself with right and good, and the enemy with wrong and evil.” With the help of metaphors George W. Bush has succeeded in presenting the events preceding the Iraqi war in a vague and often distorted value terms where ‘assaults’ become ‘preemptive defense’, ‘military invasion’ becomes ‘change of regime’, ‘war’ becomes ‘peace,’ and ‘occupation’ becomes ‘humanitarian intervention’.

Turkey's state discourse and rhetoric about Armenia and Armenians have changed dramatically in recent years. Given the specifics of Turkish political culture, the main theses of the new discourse are formed primarily through the rhetoric of Turkey's military and political leadership. In this article two speeches of Turkey’s President R. Tayyip Erdogan of April 2019 and April 2021, dedicated to the "Armenian topic", are discussed in detail. The content analysis of these speeches in the context of the political decisions made by the Republic of Turkey in the same period shows that these speeches were programmatic and determined the newest policy of Turkey towards the Republic of Armenia and Armenians.

he power and danger of great political ideas cannot be overestimated.
Philosophers from Locke to Montesquieu to Jefferson essentially
designed the modern democratic state. A moral philosopher, Adam
Smith, formulated the “invisible hand” that has guided our economic lives.
Its major competitor in the 20 th century was designed by another philosopher,
Karl Marx. And yet the great political ideas—freedom, equality, justice,
rights, the common good—have been used in so many different ways as to
be deeply confusing. This course will help us navigate the labyrinth, tracing
modern Western political and social thought from the 16 th century to the end
of the 20 th . We will explore the roots of modern democracy; the arguments
for and against capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, anarchism,
and communism; issues of economic justice and the proper function of
government; warfare and ethics; and such recent movements as feminism,
multiculturalism, postmodernism, and environmentalism.
Our unifying thread will be the history of liberal republicanism, or
“democracy,” the society in which the people are sovereign, and its major
competitors. We will see that this tradition rests on multiple key values that
are often in tension. Its history falls into three phases: the formative phase,
the 16 th through the 19 th centuries; the great crisis, from 1914 to 1953; and
the period of triumph and growing pains, from 1950 to 2000

In this article, I explore presidential candidate Trump’s rhetoric concerning America’s role in the world. I argue Trump’s rhetoric broke with the post-World War II consensus of maintaining and extending U.S.  globalism. I further assert that Trump modified America’s exceptionalist arguments that served as rhetorical support for this consensus. Trump’s rhetoric suggested the United States’ current path in foreign policy was in a state of chaos that needed to be curtailed. His rejection of this postwar consensus and turn toward an “America First” foreign policy would restore order to the United States’ foreign policy universe. Trump’s rhetoric set to redefine the United States’s role in the 21st century but has serious implications for the leadership position it has taken for the past 75 years.

Upon the Trojans' landing in Latium, the many distinct peoples inhabiting the Aeneid's fictionalized Italy show little evidence of national solidarity as "Italians"; rather, they identify primarily with their local communities. But Aeneas's enemies, mobilizing resistance to an alleged foreign invasion, promote an amplified-and largely invented-claim of shared Italian identity constructed in militant contrast to the Trojan Other. This rhetorical strategy echoes Octavian's historical appeals to Italian unanimity in 32 b.c.e. against Cleopatra, which also promoted a sense of national solidarity that was, in reality , only emergent among communities characterized by strong and diverse local identities.

A Retórica é a disciplina que estuda o modo como comunicamos persuasivamente com os outros e está presente em tudo o que fazemos, desde comprar um seguro automóvel, passado pelos anúncios de publicidade até à deliberação política. Não obstante ser, por vezes, reduzida a simples actividade empolada e oca, a Retórica é essencial na vida democrática e pilar indiscutível da sociedade civil. Ela é uma contribuição incontornável para o diálogo e o compromisso, sendo uma ferramenta indispensável para ajuizar não apenas a força da eloquência, mas também o rigor do raciocínio e da argumentação.

Nesta Introdução à Retórica no Séc. XXI, Samuel Mateus apresenta os fundamentos da Retórica ao mesmo tempo que os integra nos desafios contemporâneos. Alargando o horizonte persuasivo da Retórica para além da eloquência e do discurso verbal, Mateus explica, de forma rigorosa, mas acessível, a importância que a Retórica assume hoje. Adoptando uma perspectiva comunicativa acerca da Retórica que se situa para lá da sua estrita dimensão histórico-filosófica, Mateus salienta a vitalidade desta disciplina, seja na Retórica Mediatizada, na Retórica Visual, na Retórica Digital, seja ainda na Retórica do Silêncio.

O livro encontra-se dividido em quatro partes: os Fundamentos da Retórica; o Sistema Retórico; Retórica e Comunicação; os Campos de Estudo da Retórica na Actualidade.

Introdução à Retórica no Séc. XXI irá despertar o interesse nos estudantes de Retórica das mais diversas áreas (Ciências da Comunicação, Filosofia, Estudos Clássicos) mas também dos investigadores em Retórica, Filosofia da Linguagem, Teoria da Argumentação, Comunicação Política, Publicidade, Crítica Literária, Comunicação Digital ou Design de Jogos.

Frederick Douglass' reframing of monuments about American slavery is prophetic. This revisionist view applies an “interracial turn” lens to Douglass’ 1876 Freedmen's Monument Speech. After sketching interracial dynamics in Douglass' career, visual rhetoric in this oration is examined. Read through a history of Douglass’ relationships with white men, the speech constitutes a performative resolution of Douglass’ “white man problem.” A historically situated reading of Douglass’ rhetoric reveals the maturity of his political thought, which calls on future audiences to reassess Douglass' identity, and legacy. A “revised Douglass” charted a path by which we could revise our own “white male problem.” Douglass’ model is timely, given recurring episodes of interracial violence, and the unrest they spark. As a figure who battled racialism and lived a “more attractive alternative,” Douglass legitimates an “interracial turn” in fields including American Studies, communication, ethnography, rhetorical studies, and literary criticism.

The rise of populist leaders like Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has arguably revived public interest in political rhetoric—that is, what political leaders say and how they say it. However, this revived interest is often oriented towards a vilification of the role of rhetoric in our socio-civic life.  On the one hand, there are those who still view rhetoric as empty signifiers or vacuous attempts to conceal inaction.  On the other hand, there are those who regard rhetoric as an instrument that incites actions inimical to public life.  While there is value in understanding the dangers of rhetoric when used for manipulative purposes and how to shield oneself against them, these preoccupations only offer us a part of the larger picture.  In my lecture, I propose a general framework for studying political speeches in the Philippines that goes beyond the current and dominant perspectives circulating in traditional and social media and other public platforms. In the hope of sparking further conversation, I argue that there is a compelling need to study political rhetoric in the Philippines for at least three reasons: (1) to guard ourselves against the allure of political speeches’ manipulative intent, (2) to understand how these speeches shape our socio-civic life, and (3) to generate context- and culture-sensitive ways of producing and making sense of public discourse at large.