Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 16:2 (2017) ► pp.219–241

Anticipative strategies of blame avoidance in government

The case of communication guidelines

ORCID logo | University of Tartu, Estonia
Public communication practices of executive governments are often criticised by journalists, politicians, scholars, and other commentators. Therefore, government communication professionals routinely adopt various blame avoidance strategies, some of which are meant to ‘stop blame before it starts’ or to reduce their exposure to potential blame attacks. The linguistic aspects of such anticipative strategies are yet to be studied by discourse analysts.
I contribute towards filling this gap by showing how written professional guidelines for government communicators could be interpreted as complex discursive devices of anticipative blame avoidance.
I outline historically and institutionally situated issues of blame that inform the occupational habitus of government communicators in the UK. I bring examples from their propriety guidelines to illustrate how the use of certain discursive strategies limits the possible perceived blameworthiness of individual officeholders. I conclude by explicating the discursive underpinnings of two common operational blame avoidance strategies in government: ‘protocolisation’ and ‘herding’.
Keywords: blame avoidance, government communication, habitus, discursive strategy, framing, UK government, civil service, public relations, critical discourse analysis, professional identity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Anticipative blame avoidance as the enactment of occupational habitus
  • 3.Government communicators as blame takers: Historical and institutional contexts
    • 3.1Civil service and blame
    • 3.2Public relations management and blame
    • 3.3Caught between politicians and the public
  • 4.Data and analytical categories
  • 5.Analysis: Anticipative blame avoidance in the UK government communication guidelines
    • 5.1Constructing a professional identity
    • 5.2Distinguishing between government communicators and ‘politicians’
  • 6.Interpreting the discursive underpinnings of ‘operational’ blame avoidance
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 21 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15019.han
References (55)
References
Andrews, Leighton. 2006. “Spin: From Tactic to Tabloid.” Journal of Public Affairs 6 (1): 31–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balfour, Michael. 1979. Propaganda in War 1939–1945. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Boin, Arjen, Paul ‘t Hart, Eric Stern, and Bengt Sundelius. 2005. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boin, Arjen, Allan McConnell, and Paul ‘t Hart (eds). 2008. Governing After Crisis: The Politics of Investigation, Accountability and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office. 2012. Evaluating Government Communication Activity: Standards and Guidance. Accessed April 30, 2014. [URL].
. 2013. Government Communication Professional Competency Framework. Accessed April 30, 2014. https://gcn.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Professional-Communication-Competency-Framework1.pdf.Google Scholar
. 2014. Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance. Accessed October 30, 2014. [URL].
. 2015. Government Communication Service Handbook. Accessed October 30, 2015. [URL].
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. 2010. Accessed October 30, 2014. [URL].
De Fina, Anna. 2011. Discourse and identity. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 263–282. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2000. New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fournier, Valérie. 1999. “The appeal to ‘professionalism’ as a disciplinary mechanism.” Social Review 47 (2): 280–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Bob. 1994. Packaging Politics: Political Communications in Britain’s Media Democracy. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gaber, Ivor. 2000. “Government by Spin: an Analysis of the Process.” Media, Culture & Society 22 (4): 507–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Alastair Campbell, Exit Stage Left: Do the ‘Phillis’ Recommendations Represent a New Chapter in Political Communications or is it ‘Business as Usual’?” Journal of Public Affairs 4 (4): 365–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, Mariel. 1994. Propaganda and the Role of the State in Inter-war Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Anne. 2012. “UK Government Communications: Full Circle in the 21st Century?” Public Relations Review 38 (3): 167–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henneberg, Stephan C., Margaret Scammell, and Nicholas J. O’Shaughnessy. 2009. “Political Marketing Management and Theories of Democracy.” Marketing Theory 9 (2): 165–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Sten. 2015a. “Discursive Strategies of Blame Avoidance in Government: A Framework for Analysis.” Discourse & Society 26 (3): 297–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. “Calculated Overcommunication: Strategic Uses of Prolixity, Irrelevance, and Repetition in Administrative Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 841: 172–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hood, Christopher. 2011. The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy and Self-preservation in Government. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Nicholas. 1995. Soundbites and Spin Doctors: How Politicians Manipulate the Media and Vice Versa. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2008. The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-century American Politics with an 18th-century Brain. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
L’Etang, Jacquie. 2004. Public Relations in Britain: A History of Professional Practice in the 20th Century. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowe, Rodney. 2011. The Official History of the British Civil Service. Reforming the Civil Service, volume 1: the Fulton Years 1966–81. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNair, Brian. 2004. “PR Must Die: Spin, Anti-spin and Political Public Relations in the UK, 1997–2004.” Journalism Studies 5 (3): 325–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1940. “Bureaucratic Structure and Personality.” Social Forces 18 (4): 560–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messinger, Gary S. 1992. British Propaganda and the State in the First World War. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Moloney, Kevin. 2000. Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, William A. 1994. Bureaucracy and Public Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ogilvy-Webb, Marjorie. 1965. The Government Explains. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Quinn, Thomas. 2012. “Spin Doctors and Political News Management: A Rational-choice ‘Exchange’ Analysis.” British Politics 7 (3): 272–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2014. “Argumentation Analysis and the Discourse-Historical Approach: A Methodological Framework”. In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Chris Hart, and Piotr Cap, 67–96. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sanders, Karen. 2013. “The Strategic Shift of UK Government Communication.” In Government Communication: Cases and Challenges, ed. by Karen Sanders, and Maria Jose Canel, 78–98. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Sanders, Karen, and Maria Jose Canel. 2013. “Government Communication in 15 Countries: Themes and Challenges.” In Government Communication: Cases and Challenges, ed. by Karen Sanders, and Maria Jose Canel, 277–312. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Sanders, Michael L., and Philip M. Taylor. 1982. British Propaganda During the First World War, 1914–18. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seymour-Ure, Colin. 2003. Prime Ministers and the Media: Issues of Power and Control. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan. 2006. “If They Get It Right: An Experimental Test of the Effects of the Appointment and Reports of UK Public Inquiries.” Public Administration 84 (3): 623–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1992. “Discourse and the Denial of Racism.” Discourse & Society 3 (1): 87–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse & Society 17 (3): 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 113–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Zoonen, Liesbet, and Dominic Wring. 2012. “Trends in Political Television Fiction in the UK: Themes, Characters and Narratives, 1965–2009.” Media, Culture & Society 34 (3): 263–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Wenger, Etienne, Richard McDermott, and William M. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2011. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Eva Vetter. 1999. “The Small Distinctions Between Diplomats, Politicians and Journalists: The Discursive Construction of Professional Identity.” In Challenges in a Changing World, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Christoph Ludwig, 209–237. Wien: Passagen.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolph de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Liu, Ming & Yanxi Lu
2024. Blame-avoiding strategies for a digital scandal. Pragmatics and Society 15:3 ► pp. 471 ff. DOI logo
Novais, Rui Alexandre Sousa da Costa & Ângela Maria Teixiera Leite
2024. Attack in the Form of Defense? Populist Anti-media Tactics to Avoid Being Blamed. Palabra Clave 27:4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten, Mari-Liis Madisson & Andreas Ventsel
2023. Discourses of blame in strategic narratives: the case of Russia’s 5G stories. European Security 32:1 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Qian & Wei Zhong
2023. State‐level politicization of crisis communication on Twitter during COVID‐19: Conceptualization, measurement, and impacts. Public Administration Review 83:5 ► pp. 1266 ff. DOI logo
Leong, Ching, Michael Howlett & Mehrdad Safaei
2023. Blame avoidance and credit-claiming dynamics in government policy communications: evidence from leadership tweets in four OECD countries during the 2020–2022 COVID-19 pandemic. Policy and Society 42:4 ► pp. 564 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Shiyu
2023. The evasive responses of learners of Chinese as a foreign language in daily interaction: A speech act point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 33:3 ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Ningyang
2022. Discursive construction in multilingual crisis risk communication: An analysis of ‘A letter to foreign nationals’ messages in China’s COVID-19 fight. Discourse Studies 24:4 ► pp. 404 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten & Ruth Page
2022. Corpus-assisted analysis of legitimation strategies in government social media communication. Discourse & Communication 16:5 ► pp. 551 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten & Ruth Page
2023. Legitimation in government social media communication: the case of the Brexit department. Critical Discourse Studies 20:4 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten & Ruth Page
2024. Discourses of political blame games: Introduction. Discourse, Context & Media 60 ► pp. 100799 ff. DOI logo
Farrukh, Fizza & Farzana Masroor
2021. Portrayal of power in manifestos. Journal of Language and Politics 20:3 ► pp. 451 ff. DOI logo
Ventsel, Andreas, Sten Hansson, Mari-Liis Madisson & Vladimir Sazonov
2021. Discourse of fear in strategic narratives: The case of Russia’s Zapad war games. Media, War & Conflict 14:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
TRABER, DENISE, MARTIJN SCHOONVELDE & GIJS SCHUMACHER
2020. Errors have been made, others will be blamed: Issue engagement and blame shifting in prime minister speeches during the economic crisis in Europe. European Journal of Political Research 59:1 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten
2018. The discursive micro-politics of blame avoidance: unpacking the language of government blame games. Policy Sciences 51:4 ► pp. 545 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten
2018. Defensive semiotic strategies in government: a multimodal study of blame avoidance. Social Semiotics 28:4 ► pp. 472 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten
2018. Analysing opposition–government blame games: argument models and strategic maneuvering. Critical Discourse Studies 15:3 ► pp. 228 ff. DOI logo
Hansson, Sten
2024. Coercive impoliteness and blame avoidance in government communication. Discourse, Context & Media 58 ► pp. 100770 ff. DOI logo
Leong, Ching & Michael Howlett
2017. On credit and blame: disentangling the motivations of public policy decision-making behaviour. Policy Sciences 50:4 ► pp. 599 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.