Abstract
This article: Provides a theoretical exploration of rhetorical persuasion as a practice aimed at ‘capturing desire’. Elucidates the shared interest of rhetorical and psychoanalytical theory in the production of so-called ‘plausible stories’ that mobilise and shape affects. Surveys different psychoanalytical approaches to the rhetorical articulation of ‘symptomatic beliefs’ that support political reasoning. Demonstrates the applicability of psychoanalytical theories to the analysis of a specific example of political speech.
In this article I argue that psychoanalytical theory can help us understand the emotional force of political rhetoric. I undertake a theoretical enquiry into the method of interpreting political speeches as strategies of affective persuasion. Both rhetorical and psychoanalytical studies converge in their concern with the production of ‘plausible stories’ that aim to fold psychic investments into political judgements. To capture desire, I claim, political rhetoric must articulate ‘symptomatic beliefs’ in relation to wider situational exigencies. I sketch three distinct psychoanalytical approaches, each of which emphasises a different scenario of unconscious organisation where rhetorical strategies are pertinent: namely Freudian, Kleinian, and Lacanian approaches. These are then applied to the example of a controversial rhetorical intervention—Enoch Powell’s infamous Birmingham speech of 1968—to demonstrate the various potential foci when undertaking analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.