4.1Relevance to a Contemporary Theory of Rhetoric

One clear lesson from the tea party case study presented here is the importance of the concept of an oratorical network for the contemporary theory of rhetoric. As a theoretical entity, an oratorical network represents a higher level of complexity than an individual orator or a hierarchical orator complex. Indeed, oratorical networks are made up of groups of interacting orators, orator complexes, and even smaller oratorical networks. This concept allows modern rhetorical theory to analyze broader social movements, groups, and campaigns, while retaining the core concept of a strategically acting orator. This was well illustrated by the case study provided here, which showed how a model of oratorical networks can be applied to real-world communication. The analysis included identifying four main nodes of the tea party oratorical network, separately describing each in detail, and illustrating the use of shared rhetorical strategies and textual structures.

As discussed in Chapter 1, the concept of an oratorical network presented here takes its cues from Jarol Manheim’s research on information and influence campaigns.499 In particular, his ideas regarding campaigns as systems of interacting nodes, fits well within the framework of existing rhetorical theories that allow for the division of persuasive labor.500 Manheim’s discussion and demonstration of different mapping techniques illustrates how relationships, real-world goals, and rhetorical “transactions” between individual nodes of a network can be visualized. Such techniques were briefly demonstrated in the analysis in Chapter 3. More broadly, Manheim’s concept of information and influence campaigns is a very good candidate for further integration into a contemporary theory of rhetoric: although he uses different terminology to describe many communicative phenomena, under the surface, it includes all of the necessary categories and concepts for a robust theory of oratorical networks.

Another important contribution of this work to contemporary rhetorical theory is its application of Kenneth Burke’s work and the broader field of constitutive rhetoric, particularly with regard to the emergence of a group identity through the shared use of rhetorical strategies and structures. In addition to the outline of such theories provided in Chapter 1, their application to real-world communication was discussed in Chapter 2 (especially regarding the environmental movement) and was illustrated in the case study in Chapter 3. In both instances, the mirroring and matching of polarizing rhetoric between nodes established and maintained coherent in-group and out-group social markers that constituted the common identity of the oratorical network. In this sense, the shared use of rhetorical strategies and structures by distinct orators can create an identifiable oratorical network that can then be analyzed by rhetoricians. In other words: where there is shared rhetoric among a group of orators, there may be an oratorical network to identify and investigate.

Finally, this work confirms the utility of concepts such as rhetorical strategies, texts, and processes for a contemporary theory of rhetoric. As the discussion in Chapter 1 demonstrates, the idea of rhetorical strategies incorporates the elements of mental planning, goal setting, and argumentative invention by an orator. While taking account of contextual elements such as audience and setting, an orator then translates these strategies into concrete texts that are characterized by explicit textual features and devices. These texts are designed to generate specific processes in target audiences that lead to desired behaviors. The practical utility of these general theoretical categories was demonstrated by the specific analysis of the tea party in Chapter 3, where it was shown how individual orators followed polarizing rhetorical strategies to formulate polarizing texts that set processes of polarization in motion that drove real-world opinion polarization around the tea party’s selected flag issues according to a dichotomous, makers vs. takers framework.

4.2Lessons for a Theory of Polarizing Rhetorical Strategies

This work also makes more specific contributions to a theory of polarizing rhetorical strategies as well by updating and expanding on the significant amount of existing research available. From the perspective of oratorical goal-setting, both the discussion of existing theory in Chapter 2 and the case study in Chapter 3 describe oratorical motivations for using polarizing rhetoric. In other words, this work establishes a series of potential real-world effects of polarizing rhetorical strategies and why orators might choose to implement them. Namely, orators might use polarizing rhetorical strategies to:

At a textual level, Chapter 2 detailed the three core elements necessary to create polarizing texts (simplification to a dichotomy, exaggeration, provocation) and how these elements interact with one another to drive the process of opinion polarization in audience members. To be clear: for a given text to drive polarization, each of these three textual elements must be present and used in combination with one another. At the same time, and as the tea party case study illustrated, polarizing texts are not monolithic, and it seems that the degree to which a given text drives polarization may be related to whether the text is more, or less, provocative.

In order to successfully polarize audiences in the desired way, there are also a series of contextual considerations that an orator must take into account as well. In particular, they must select and integrate relevant flag issues and appropriate dichotomous frameworks for their chosen audience and communicative situation. As discussed in Chapter 2, audience members must have some basic level of knowledge about a given flag issue for it to be relevant to them. There must also be a preexisting range of opinions about the issue for polarization into a positive and negative dichotomy to be possible—in other words, if everyone who comes into contact with the text agrees with the orator, a text may be polarizing but opinion polarization hasn’t really occurred. Additionally, and where possible, orators should seek to polarize around preexisting divisions in their audience. As previous research has shown, while polarizing strategies do not have to rely on dichotomous frameworks already present in the audience’s worldview, it certainly makes things easier.501

To most effectively generate polarizing processes in their audiences over the course of a persuasive campaign, orators should describe many different flag issues that may emerge within the same dichotomous framework. This tactic was well illustrated in the tea party case study, in which a wide range of issues were described by tea party orators using the same makers vs. takers framework. The persistent use of dichotomous frameworks establishes them in the minds of audience members and continually reinforces them.502 It also serves to drive popular discourse about individual flag issues, framing each as part of a larger pattern that fits the polarizing framework chosen by the orator and orator network.

The research presented here also illustrates potential negative effects and dangers for orators who become associated with polarizing rhetorical strategies. Despite their potential upside, polarizing strategies are a double-edged sword for orators. As has been shown, such strategies can be incredibly effective in helping orators get what they want (at least in the political realm). On the other hand, using such strategies can have a negative long-term influence on a speaker’s ethos. As discussed in Chapter 2, a speaker may even become so associated with the strategy that they come to be seen as a polarizing figure, in which their reputation itself polarizes their audiences. And even if their image does not become directly associated with polarizing strategies, orators who utilize polarizing texts must be aware of the impact that such language has on how they are perceived by different audiences. Although neither Mitt Romney nor (perhaps surprisingly) Paul Ryan have come to be seen by the broader American public as a polarizing figure in the vein of Richard Nixon or George Wallace, their use of the makers vs. takers framework did significant damage to their 2012 presidential campaign, causing both to publicly express regrets for using such polarizing language.

Another finding of the tea party case study is that polarizing rhetorical strategies are perhaps most dangerous to an orator when they are used in tightly contested majority elections, where the provocative nature of polarizing texts can do the most damage to turn otherwise neutral or even open, positive-minded individuals away from the orator. Indeed, as post-election reporting by the New York Times showed, only around one-third of tea party candidates won their campaigns for Congress in 2010.503 At first glance, this would suggest that polarizing rhetorical strategies should be avoided in democratic electoral politics. Still, certain electoral circumstances lend themselves to the rhetorical strategy, and it is important to reiterate here (following Dryzek’s work on bridging and bonding rhetoric) that polarizing strategies are not per se normatively negative.504 Polarizing strategies will likely be most effective in situations where a passionate and active minority in-group can win an election. This is because orators do not have to persuade as broad a range of audiences and groups to vote for them, and they can focus their rhetorical efforts on increasing positive solidarity and motivation among in-group members.505 Such situations occur, for instance, in highly homogenous political electorates, where a simple lack of partisan may allow polarizing strategies to be more effective. In the United States, highly gerrymandered districts (districts in which there are significantly more voters from one party than the other) may fit this description and lend themselves to polarizing strategies.506 Similarly, midterm elections (such as in 2010) also illustrate patterns that might lend themselves to polarizing strategies: they tend to have lower overall voter turnout (often well under 50 percent of the eligible voting population), and those who do vote are usually more partisan (and thus already have established in-group/out-group identities that an orator can integrate into their strategy).

One clear danger of polarizing rhetorical strategies both within and outside the political realm is that they explicitly deny the existence of a middle ground, or any potential for compromise on salient flag issues. This can make it harder (or even impossible) for an orator to meet their real-world goals if it is necessary to negotiate a compromise solution with parties in the out-group. As illustrated in the discussion of the environmental movement in Chapter 2, the use of polarizing strategies by orators and oratorical networks on one side of an issue can also drive those identified as an out-group to respond in kind, leading to the spontaneous emergence of a “negative spiral” of polarization in which both sides demonize and vilify the other while largely avoiding any direct communication at all.507 When each side believes the other to be illegitimate, irrational, and even evil, then any compromise by individuals in the in-group becomes a betrayal of the whole group. If an orator’s real-world goals require such compromise (as is often the case in majority democratic government), then polarizing strategies may make it harder to achieve.

Indeed, this is the whole point of such strategies in the first place. Over the course of polarizing campaigns, orators seek to drive public discourse and public opinion into two separate, mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed camps. By simplifying and hyperbolically demonizing one side of the debate surrounding any given (flag) issue, polarizing strategies energize the extremes of both sides, and use provocation to drive those who have moderate opinions (or weak opinions) to one extreme or the other.508 By denying members of the out-group legitimacy, rationality, and at times even humanity, they are directly portrayed as the enemy and as the antichrist—in short, as an existential threat. Discourse and politics become more like combative zero-sum games, where only one faction can win and the other necessarily loses. Over time, the continued propagation of polarized worldviews and opinions may take its effect on the sociopolitical realities of the real-life world. As discussed here, public opinion, individual and group identities, and popular discourse are all pushed into opposing factions. In the case of governance and politics, individual politicians may take on polarized worldviews and attempt to govern accordingly. As illustrated in the case of the tea party, the partisan make-up of Congress shifted drastically rightwards, a significant portion of Barack Obama’s legislative agenda was blocked or heavily influenced, and America saw three government shutdowns led by tea party-affiliated politicians in the span of five years. In short, polarizing rhetorical strategies help push politics and policies to the extremes.509

4.3Further Research Questions and Areas of Interest

This book has been devoted to integrating the new theoretical entity of an oratorical network into the contemporary rhetoric, defining and describing the rhetorical strategy of polarization for individual and networked orators, and illustrating how these theoretical models could be applied to the practical rhetorical analysis of a real-world case study. At the same time, however, this work implies a wide range of further research questions and areas of interest. In that sense, it is only a beginning.

With regard to the general theory of rhetoric, significant research remains to flesh out the concept of oratorical networks. While this work provides a starting point and illustrates how Manheim’s network theory of communication can be integrated into contemporary rhetorical approaches, more case studies could illustrate different types of network structures or show how different nodes in an oratorical network mirror and match each other in political movements and persuasive campaigns. Other network theories of communication (in addition to Manheim’s) may also provide useful insights into how oratorical networks are formed and can be characterized. Similarly, more work in the field of constitutive rhetoric could shed light on how the use of shared rhetoric creates the shared identity necessary to consider a group of disparate and heterogeneous orators to be an oratorical network. In other words: how can the concept of an oratorical network be defined more explicitly, and to what degree do orators need to share rhetoric to constitute such an analytical entity? When is a group of orators an oratorical network? Can the level of ‘rhetorical cohesion’ of an oratorical network be quantified, and what would such quantification look like? How can an orator best identify other orators and orator complexes that might be useful to them, or who might be willing to mirror and match rhetorical strategies to help form an oratorical network? Beyond theory, answering such questions would obviously also have significant practical implications for messaging control during real-world persuasive campaigns.

Such questions are clearly linked to social psychological and sociological research on identity, the mirroring and matching of language, and group cohesion. But they also touch on philosophical theories of (and problems with) collective action. While it is clear that individual orators have intentions and can implement strategies, and it seems safe to say that highly organized orator complexes can as well, things get much more difficult when it comes to such an ephemeral theoretical entity as an oratorical network. As touched on briefly in Chapter 1, how can researchers legitimately attribute responsibility, intention, and strategic action to uncoordinated and diffuse oratorical networks? Indeed, this question points to perhaps the largest weakness in the theory of oratorical networks presented here, or at least one of the largest theoretical holes in need of further research. While there are many potential theories of collective action and responsibility (and even of the emergence of networks as spontaneous systems of order) that might be able to fill this gap, contemporary rhetoric lacks an adequate model of collective action to strongly underpin the concept of oratorical networks.

There is also much work to be done regarding theories of rhetorical strategies, texts, and processes. Given what has been said here about polarization, what other rhetorical strategies can be identified and described? What textual structures are associated with these strategies, and what are the success conditions necessary for such strategies to set their intended rhetorical processes in motion? In addition to Stephanie Luppold’s foundational work on the category of text, more rhetorical scholarship should focus on how the elements of strategy, text, and process are intertwined in rhetorical practice. Real-world case studies of other rhetorical strategies might investigate how oratorical mental calculations are translated into specific textual structures, or how such texts act on addressees to set specific processes in motion.

As illustrated by the breadth of material covered in Chapter 2, there has already been a significant amount of research done on the rhetorical strategy of polarization. Still, more work could be done on the creation of polarizing texts, specifically how the textual elements of dichotomous simplification, hyperbole, and provocation can be combined in different ways. To return to an idea expressed in Chapter 3 and alluded to just a few pages ago: how can each of these elements be adjusted to impact the polarizing force of a given text? Such research could even be approached quantitatively by using focus groups to test audience (or individual) reactions to different (more or less simplified, exaggerated or provocative) formulations of the same text. What can orators do to fine tune their polarizing texts for different audiences and different contexts? How can an orator identify and assess critical elements such as the relevance of a given flag issue for audience members, and the range (and distribution) of existing opinions about that issue already present in the audience?

When it comes to the specific case of polarization in American politics, there are countless potentially interesting case studies that could be undertaken to further illustrate how polarizing rhetorical strategies are used and have been used. To name just a few areas of interest, rhetorical scholars could analyze the polarizing strategies implemented by individual politicians and their campaigns in a similar fashion to the wide body of such case studies discussed in Chapter 2. Work by Jameison and Capella on the conservative media (and individual orators such as Rush Limbaugh), for instance, represents an example of an analysis of polarizing rhetorical strategies by non-politician actors and oratorical networks in U.S. political discourse.510 Of particular immediate interest would be an analysis of polarizing strategies in American politics today, especially as implemented by Donald Trump’s campaign for president during the 2016 election and over the course of his presidency to date. Indeed, even the brief overview of the current situation provided at the end of Chapter 3 illustrates that a variation of the tea party’s makers vs. takers framework continues to appear in the rhetoric of the Trump administration today, particularly with regard to the flag issues of immigration, global trade, and international relationships.

Rhetorical research on polarizing textual structures in U.S. politics could also be integrated with (social) psychological approaches to test the ways in which the explicit makers vs. takers framework drives group identification and individual opinions and identity. How do individuals with different opinions about the tea party (positive, negative, neutral) react to texts that integrate the makers vs. takers framework? When writing about or discussing political policies in group settings, to what extent do individuals sympathetic to the tea party integrate the makers vs. takers framework on their own, perhaps in order to publicly signal their former in-group affiliations? Such research would parallel some of the social psychological work cited in Chapter 2, particularly that of Schlenker and Goldman. The polarizing frameworks used by the tea party could be used to do public opinion polling about current issues and trends in order to find out the extent to which such frameworks are still present today, while political science and sociological approaches could integrate the findings presented here to do more research about how a belief in the makers vs. takers framework influences opinions about public policies. Do those with a positive opinion of the tea party still apply the makers vs. takers framework to new political (flag) issues that emerge? Common sense suggests this should be the case, but empirical research is needed to confirm the hypothesis.

If we broaden our focus from polarizing strategies in U.S. American politics, the scope for potential future research expands exponentially. Scholarship in the history of rhetoric could seek to identify explicitly polarizing textual structures in historical texts or attempt to trace the use of polarizing strategies over the course of history. Comparative historical studies of polarizing strategies and texts from different epochs and across cultures and geography could prove interesting as well: what were common polarizing frameworks and flag issues in Victorian England (to name a random example), and can parallels be drawn to contemporary British discourse?511 Do polarizing strategies work the same way in Zimbabwe as they do in the United States?512

As mentioned in the introduction, there is no lack of opportunities for independent case studies and comparative research on polarization in global politics today. To name just a few instances in Europe alone where polarizing rhetorical strategies have clearly played a central role for individual political orators, one could point to Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Marie Le Pen and the National Front in France, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. Indeed, nationalist parties across Europe have relied heavily on polarizing strategies and frameworks to establish and solidify their hold on political power, including the PIS party in Poland, the ÖVP in Austria, and the AfD in Germany. An in-depth study of any one of these cases would certainly provide new insights into the use of polarizing strategies and textual structures by politicians and organized political parties. At an even broader analytical level, rhetorical studies could also be conducted on polarizing strategies implemented by oratorical networks surrounding social movements and persuasive campaigns such as during the Brexit campaign or in the Catalan independence movement.

Perhaps most pressing from the perspective of global political stability is the increasing and explicit use of polarizing rhetorical strategies as a component of informational warfare campaigns. As the latest revelations about coordinated efforts by state and non-state actors to influence elections in the United States and across Europe through online social media make blatantly clear, polarizing rhetoric can be dangerous to political stability itself. By instrumentalizing social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, internet actors (some with connections to the Russian security services) have been able to deliver highly polarizing texts to specific target groups in nations around Europe and in the United States, influencing voter and activist behavior. With fake accounts posing as legitimate activists and political organizations in the United States, and with the help of networks of bots to help their messages go viral, accounts now linked to Russia spread polarizing memes, advertisements, videos, and comments across social media platforms during the 2016 presidential election. As Facebook representatives themselves describe it, “the ads and accounts we found appeared to amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum.”513 Not only have such activities helped drive social discourse and opinion, in some instances, foreign actors have even been able to instigate actual social unrest (in the form of protests) by depicting events that never occurred as critical flag issues.514 Similar cases have been documented in Germany, France, and in the United Kingdom during the Brexit campaign.515

But Russia is obviously not the only nation that has utilized and is currently utilizing polarizing rhetorical strategies for geopolitical gains. Indeed, research on the current situation in social media would have to be closely tied to the study of psychological warfare throughout history. Whether through publishing underground newspapers, distributing propaganda leaflets by air, or plastering posters in visible areas, using polarizing rhetorical strategies to divide opposing soldiers and populaces has a long tradition. In this sense, perhaps what is happening online today is merely an update of old tricks for new media. Research into the use of polarizing psychological warfare and propaganda in historical instances could help rhetorical analyses make sense of—and historically place—what is happening online and around the world today.

Appropriately, and perhaps most importantly, there is a final area of research on the rhetorical strategy of polarization that should receive particular attention: namely, research on anti-polarizing strategies, texts, and processes. In other words: how can orators (and perhaps Western societies as a whole) counteract polarizing rhetoric as a discursive phenomenon? Just as this work is devoted to defining the rhetorical phenomenon of polarization—determining what it looks like, how it works, and why orators might use it—future work could (and should) do the same with anti-polarizing rhetorical strategies. As discussed briefly in Chapter 2, recent approaches such as McGowan’s imply that one way to combat polarizing rhetorical strategies that emphasize extreme dichotomies is to simply polarize harder around frameworks that emphasize cooperation and moderation.516 In this sense, perhaps the best countermeasure is to fight polarizing fire with slightly less polarizing (and hopefully more constructive) fire. Another approach to anti-polarization might be to emphasize the opposite constitutive textual structures when formulating persuasive texts. Instead of dichotomous simplification, exaggeration, and provocation, orators could write texts that emphasize similarities and shades of gray, play down and understate the importance of any one flag issue, and incorporate appeals to non-confrontation and even reconciliation. A recent anthology in the cultural sciences provides a number of interesting perspectives on the idea of reconstituting social identities and social discourse around a concept of similarity instead of difference.517 This work at least partially addresses an interesting and important question as it pertains to constitutive theories of oratorical networks: is polarization (as the emphasis of difference and establishment of an in-group) necessary to establish a shared concept of identity? Here too, there is much work yet to be done from the rhetorical perspective.

Regardless of the individual tactics and methods that prove to be most successful, a rhetorical model of anti-polarizing strategies cannot be limited to theoretical considerations alone; it must be robust and useful enough to hold up in the real-world. Just as the model developed here could be used by a potential orator as an instruction manual for polarizing strategies, a practical model of the strategy of anti-polarization would help orators counteract processes of polarization in a society driven by discourse. And the motivation behind such research would not be merely academic, or merely concerned with completing rhetoric’s metaphorical strategic toolbox. On the contrary: modern rhetorical theory should make every effort to provide orators the tools necessary to counteract polarizing strategies in order to provide a blueprint for a political discourse that is just as effective at meeting real-world goals, but which is less divisive, less extreme, and less confrontational. Given the dramatic effects that polarizing rhetorical strategies have had on the world in just the last few years, it is perhaps only a slight exaggeration to say that the future of liberal democracy will be (at least in part) determined by finding a way to rhetorically counteract them.