Abstract
This book brings together perspectives on new approaches to analysing political discourse (PD) in six chapters along with an introduction and a conclusion. According to the authors, what makes this book distinct from others is its sheer novelty in viewing PD as a form of practical argumentation and deliberation. This is based on a particular view of politics which is intrinsically about making decisions and about how to act in response to circumstances and events. Consequently, an analysis of PD should focus upon practical argumentation. Furthermore, the analysis of texts should center upon ‘the generic features of the whole texts rather than isolated features …’ (p. 1), providing agents (politicians) with reasons for their action.
The introduction begins with the authors’ main contributions including theoretical, methodological and descriptive. With respect to theory, the authors are trying to put forward a new view of the structure and evaluation of practical argumentation, that is, practical arguments take goal, value, circumstantial and means–goal premises. Methodologically, the authors establish an original framework for analysing argumentation through many examples for students and researchers to enable them to use it as a model for conducting analysis of argumentation in their work. Descriptively, the authors apply the comprehensive and coherent framework through which politicians and researchers are developing ways of dealing with the current economic and financial crisis.
Chapter 1, ‘Political discourse analysis and the nature of politics’, establishes the basis for the integration of critical discourse analysis (CDA) concepts with the analytical framework of argumentation theory. It is based on a view of politics where the concepts of deliberation and decision making in contexts of uncertainty, risk and disagreement are of absolutely central importance. According to the authors, it is here that the question of action and of what to do is fundamental. The authors argue that politics is all about reaching key decisions for action on a matter of common concern and applies to a context of disagreement and conflict, in which what is needed is to take immediate action in response to these situations. As a result, the role of deliberation is crucially important in taking into account a wide range of views to produce a rational decision resulting in a better and more reasonable one even though it might not be the best decision.
In Chapter 2, entitled ‘Practical reasoning: a framework for analysis and evaluation’, and perhaps the most substantial part of the book, the authors explain the fundamental constructs and theoretical approaches that help guide the reader in understanding the structure and evaluation of PD. Specifically speaking, the authors argue that practical arguments have circumstances and goals as premises, as well as values as means–end premises. Inspired by Aristotle and by contemporary political theory, the authors have developed key concepts in argumentation theory in which they believe critically testing arguments is essential to this conception. Drawing on dialectical theories of argumentation, where critical questions are utilized to examine the reasonableness of the proposed action, the authors argue that reasonable actions are highly likely to be contingent upon a ‘dialectically adequate procedure’ in a systematic critical questioning. In this way, the authors say, while critical questioning can challenge practical arguments, it could also result in producing sound and valid arguments.
In Chapter 3, ‘Critical discourse analysis and analysis of argumentation’, the authors argue that the analysis and evaluation of argumentation can strengthen the capacity of CDA. For this purpose, the authors return to an earlier analysis of part of Tony Blair’s talk, with the objective of showing that it is an example of practical argumentation, and explain in great detail how this kind of analysis will be enhanced if it is built around practical argumentation. The authors then move on to a more general discussion of how analysis and evaluation of argumentation can lead to explanatory critique and normative critique and to a critique of ideology and manipulation. Regarding explanatory critique (seeking to explain why social realities are as they are), they mention that people use different discourses representing premises and claims. Such selections are connected to social positions of a particular group of social agents and result in critical questions about discourse which CDA addresses about ideologies, domination and manipulation. In relation to normative critique (evaluating social beliefs as true or false, harmful or beneficial), the authors suggest that testing argumentation can form a more solid basis for the analysis of manipulation in discourse.
In Chapter 4, ‘The economic crisis in the UK: strategies and arguments’, the main analytical chapter of the book, the authors describe and analyse in detail two types of reports which were delivered to the House of Commons by Labour and Coalition Chancellors of the Exchequer, namely the British Pre-Budget and Budget Reports. Using PD for critically analysing and dialectically evaluating these two corpora and juxtaposing their analytical normativity with that of the participants (politicians, economists, journalists), the authors found that the government’s view for the future of the UK and the methods devised to achieve it were flawed and that the government’s critics challenged this, given that there had been ‘no deliberation on goals on the ends of political action, and no real concern for fairness’ (p. 174).
In Chapter 5, ‘Values as premises in the public debate over bankers’ bonuses’, following political philosophy, the authors focus on a fragment of the public debate in the UK on whether or not the inequality of bonuses for bankers should be tolerated in the wake of the financial crisis. The authors make a distinction between (the structure of) two types of arguments in favour of or against the inequality of high pay for bankers, namely prudential arguments, taking people’s interests and desires as premises, and moral arguments such as justice and equality by analysing a particular public debate. Based on their analysis, the authors propose that people argue that the government and politicians violate commitments to justice in which they ought to be involved simply because these promises and commitments are part of a contract between citizens and the government and thus cannot be overridden. To be more specific, the authors argue that one way in which the state is infringing upon these rights and commitments is that politicians and the government fail to punish the guilty and instead punish the population for a crisis they did not create.
Chapter 6 is a detailed analysis of the parliamentary debate on raising university tuition fees proposed by the Coalition government in the UK. Drawing on the distinction between deliberation and debate as analytical categories, the authors view parliamentary debate as an activity type which by turns utilizes the genre of deliberation. Throughout this chapter, they reconstruct this particular debate as critical discussion and outline the main stages of the overall argument, viewing parliamentary debate as normativity oriented to solving disagreement and to persuasion by reasonable means. In this regard, persuasion is vital because of the need to have a majority of votes and to draw the support of people outside of parliament on whom the ultimate success of any given issue relies. Finally, in this chapter, the authors conclude that parliamentary debate does not necessarily lead to the disagreement resolution, in the sense of general consensus. Rather, voting helps tackle the issue without really resolving it, which is part of the institutional rationale of parliamentary debate as an activity type where the outcome is not a shared normativity judgement, but a collective decision that can legitimately ground decision.
In the Conclusions chapter, the authors summarize what they have tried to develop and achieve throughout the book and try to outline the main contributions they have made to argumentation theory and analysis, to CDA and to the analysis of political discourse in social-political science.
Overall, this book is a welcome publication. It proposes new directions for studying political discourse and can inspire the reader to look beyond the confinements of existing theories, and explore new challenges and significance in teaching people how to identify, analyse and evaluate arguments. As the title suggests, this book will work well as a course book on advanced courses in discourse analysis.