Using the Bully Pulpit to Bend the Arc of History: Narrative and Metaphorical Rhetoric in Political Discourse

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 60 (21) ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall A. Renstrom
Keyword(s):  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Martin Eisinger ◽  
Graham Neray
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-45
Author(s):  
Akihiko Shimizu

This essay explores the discourse of law that constitutes the controversial apprehension of Cicero's issuing of the ultimate decree of the Senate (senatus consultum ultimum) in Catiline. The play juxtaposes the struggle of Cicero, whose moral character and legitimacy are at stake in regards to the extra-legal uses of espionage, with the supposedly mischievous Catilinarians who appear to observe legal procedures more carefully throughout their plot. To mitigate this ambivalence, the play defends Cicero's actions by depicting the way in which Cicero establishes the rhetoric of public counsel to convince the citizens of his legitimacy in his unprecedented dealing with Catiline. To understand the contemporaneousness of Catiline, I will explore the way the play integrates the early modern discourses of counsel and the legal maxim of ‘better to suffer an inconvenience than mischief,’ suggesting Jonson's subtle sensibility towards King James's legal reformation which aimed to establish and deploy monarchical authority in the state of emergency (such as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605). The play's climactic trial scene highlights the display of the collected evidence, such as hand-written letters and the testimonies obtained through Cicero's spies, the Allbroges, as proof of Catiline's mischievous character. I argue that the tactical negotiating skills of the virtuous and vicious characters rely heavily on the effective use of rhetoric exemplified by both the political discourse of classical Rome and the legal discourse of Tudor and Jacobean England.


2018 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 140-155
Author(s):  
Dmitry A. Badalyan

“Zemsky Sobor” was one of the key concepts in Russian political discourse in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. It can be traced to the notion well-known already since the 17th century. Still in the course of further evolution it received various mew meaning and connotations in the discourse of different political trends. The author of the article examines various stages of this concept configuring in the works of the Decembrists, especially Slavophiles, and then in the political projects and publications of the socialists, liberals and “aristocratic” opposition.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Lyubov V. Ulyanova

The article analyzes the political discourse of the officials of the main political surveillance structure, – the Police Department, – in the period of 1880s (organization of the Department) and until October, 1905, when the Western-type Constitution project finally prevailed. The comparative analysis of the conceptual instruments (“Constitutionalists”, “Oppositionists”, “Radicals”, “Liberals”) typically used in the Police Department allows one to come o the conclusion that the leaders of the Russian empire political police did not follow the “reactionary and protective” discourse, did not share its postulates, but preferred the moderate-liberal-conservative path of political development. Along with that, the Police Department also demonstrated loyal attitude to zemsky administration and zemsky figures, covert criticism of “bureaucratic mediastinum”, the tendency to come to an agreement with public figures through personal negotiations, intentional omittance of reactionary and protective repressive measures in preserving autocracy. All this allows to come to the conclusion that the officials of the Police Department shares Slavophil public and political doctrine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document