Cover not available
Article published In:
Culture of Sustainability and Discourses of Social Change
Edited by Franzisca Weder
[Journal of Language and Politics 22:5] 2023
► pp. 622–639

Rhetorical (ir)responsibility in the Australian Parliament

Resurrecting Aristotle’s deliberative rhetoric as means to ethical, rational, and constructive climate change debate

ORCID logo | University of Queensland
ORCID logo | University of Queensland

In this conceptual paper, we differentiate between political decisions and the conversations where these decisions are discussed and facilitated. We complement existing work on argumentation in political communication by applying Aristotle’s Rhetoric to the study of climate change debate. We show how Aristotle’s principles for ethical and rational political speech work toward audience trust and encourage deliberative debate and decision-making. Our deliberative perspective is supported by a case study analysis of Australia’s parliamentary climate change debate. We resurrect Aristotle’s Rhetoric both as an analytical tool for critical analysis and a potential framework for constructive climate change debate. Following the conceptualisation of parliamentary debate as a conversational space where decision-making processes are facilitated, we introduce Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the concept of ‘rhetorical responsibility’, which is further explored and exemplified in the case study. We conclude with future research questions for discourse and political communication studies.

Keywords: Aristotle’s deliberative rhetoric, audience conviction, political communication, climate change debate, constructive political speech, ethical and rational argumentation, practical reasoning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Climate change and political discourse
  • 2.Political communication, political speech, argumentation, ethics, and Aristotle
    • 2.1Political communication in the context of Aristotle’s Rhetoric
    • 2.2Argumentation, political speech, and ethics
    • 2.3Climate change debate and ‘Aristotelian’ approaches
  • 3.Aristotle’s deliberative rhetoric: Conviction through argumentative character
    • 3.1Rational grounding for ethical political speech: Pistis, branches, and topics
    • 3.2Practical reasoning shows character
    • 3.3Emotional appeals support deliberation
    • 3.4 Logos: Principles of argumentation, and the character of maxims
  • 4.Case study: Rhetorical (ir)responsibility in the climate change debate
    • 4.1Anthony Albanese (Labor Party Opposition leader, Member for Grayndler)
    • 4.2Tim Wilson (Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, Member for Goldstein)
  • 5.Discussion, outlook, and limitations
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22127.mcl
References
Aristotle
1984 “Rhetoric” (translated by W. Rhys Roberts). In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, edited by Johnathan Barnes, 2152–269. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beckman, Roger, and Marguerite Tarzia
2010 “The politics and science of climate change.” Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from [URL]
Beeson, Mark, and Matt McDonald
2013 “The Politics of Climate Change in Australia.” Australian Journal of Politics & History, 591: 331–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borden, Sandra L.
2008 Journalism as Practice: Macintyre, Virtue Ethics and the Press. Milton, UK: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Brown, Alexander
2021 An Ethics of Political Communication (1st ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Melissa
2021 “Australia Faces International Punishment for Lagging on Climate Change Action, Former Un Chief Warns.” ABC, August 17, 2021. [URL]
Colvin, Rebecca, and Frank Jotzo
2021 “Australian voters’ attitudes to climate action and their social-political determinants.” PLOS ONE, 16 (3), e0248268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Aeron
2019 Political communication: A new introduction for crisis times. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
DeLuca, Kevin
1999 “Articulation Theory: A Discursive Grounding for Rhetorical Practice.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, 32(4): 334–48. [URL]
Fenner, R. A.
2021 “Engineers as advocates for sustainable development: countering misinformation and the need for Aristotelian rhetoric.” Paper presented at the ‘EESD2021’, University College Cork, Ireland, 14–16 June. [URL]
Flyvbjerg, Bent
2011 “Case study.” In Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4th ed, pp. 301–316. CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Forchtner, Bernhard
(ed) 2019 The far right and the environment: Politics, discourse and communication. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foss, Sonja K.
2005 “Theory of Visual Rhetoric.” In Handbook of Visual Communication: Theory, Methods, and Media, ed. by Ken Smith, Sandra Moriarty, Gretchen Barbatsis and Keith Kenney, 141–52. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gaines, Robert N.
2000 “Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the Contemporary Arts of Practical Discourse.” In Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric, ed. by Alan. G. Gross and Arthur. E. Walzer. Carbondale, US: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Garver, Eugene
1994 Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gruen, Nicholas
2019 “Polarisation and the Case for Citizens’ Juries.” Quillette, Feb 16, 2019. [URL]
Habermas, Jürgen
2006 “Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research.” Communication theory 16(4): 411–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Lynn, Leah Whalin, Angela Burks, Yvonne Heather Burry, Jennifer L. Herman, and Deborah Kuzawa
2016 A Guide to Technical Communications: Strategies & Applications. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
2023 “Urgent climate action can secure a liveable future for all.” Newsroom. Retrieved from [URL]
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Kate Kenski
2014 “Political Communication: Then, Now, and Beyond.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication, ed. by Kate Kenski and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jezierska, Katarzyna
2020 “With habermas against habermas. Deliberation without consensus.” Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 15(1): Article 13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Christopher Lyle
1980 “An Aristotelian Trilogy: Ethics, Rhetoric, Politics, and the Search for Moral Truth.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 13(1): 1–24. [URL]
Jones, Barry
2013 “A Values Deficit, Toxic Politics, and the Climate Change Debacle.” The Conversation, Nov 11, 2013. [URL]
Kitaeva, Elena, and Olga Ozerova
2019 “Intertextuality in Political Discourse.” In Language, Power, and Ideology in Political Writing: Emerging Research and Opportunities, ed. by Önder Çakirtaş, 143–70. Pennsylvania: IGI Global. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knape, Joachim
2012 Modern Rhetoric in Culture, Arts, and Media: 13 Essays (Translated by Alan L. Fortuna). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopperschmidt, Josef
2000 Argumentationstheorie zur Einführung. Hamburg, Germany: Junius.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe
2014 Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London/New York: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Landrum, Nancy E., Connor Tomaka and John McCarthy
2016 “Analyzing the Religious War of Words over Climate Change.” Journal of Macromarketing, 36(4): 471–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair
1994 Review of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An art of character, by Eugene Garver. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An art of character Chicago 1994: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Paliewicz, Nicholas. S., & George, F. (Guy) McHendry, Jr.
2020 “Post-dialectics and fascistic argumentation in the global climate change debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 56 (3): 137–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pepermans, Yves, and Pieter Maeseele
2016 “The Politicization of Climate Change: Problem or Solution?” WIREs Climate Change 7(4): 478–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin
2021 “ ‘Narrative! I can’t hear that anymore.’ A linguistic critique of an overstretched umbrella term in cultural and social science studies, discussed with the example of the discourse on climate change.” Critical Discourse Studies, 18 (3): 368–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segal, Judy Z.
1991 “The structure of advocacy: a study of environmental rhetoric.” Canadian journal of communication, 16(3/4), 408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speck, Desley Louise
2010 “A hot topic? Climate change mitigation policies, politics, and the media in Australia.” Human Ecology Review, 17(2): 125–134.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Google Scholar
Walsh, Lynda
2015 “The visual rhetoric of climate change.” WIREs Climate Change, 6 (4): 361–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar