Political Communication in Democratic Societies: A Review and Critique of Caroline Ollivier-Yaniv’s Article
Political speeches, propaganda, communication, manipulation: these are some of the key concepts that shape the field of political communication, especially in democratic societies. In this article, I will review the main ideas and insights from an article by Caroline Ollivier-Yaniv, a French scholar who traces the evolution of the notions and practices of political communication in the last three decades. I will also offer my own perspective and opinion on some of the issues and challenges that political communication faces in the current context of digital media and computational propaganda.
Ollivier-Yaniv’s article is part of a special issue of the journal Mots. Les langages du politique, which celebrates thirty years of research on the languages of politics. She starts by noting that political communication is a relatively recent and interdisciplinary field of study, which emerged in the 1980s as a response to the growing importance and complexity of the media and the public sphere in democratic regimes. She then identifies four main approaches that have shaped the analysis of political communication over the years: discourse analysis, rhetoric, propaganda, and manipulation.
Discourse analysis is the oldest and most established approach, which focuses on the linguistic and discursive features of political speeches and texts, such as their genres, structures, arguments, strategies, and effects. Discourse analysis aims to reveal the meanings, ideologies, and power relations that are embedded and conveyed by political language. Ollivier-Yaniv highlights the contributions of various schools and traditions of discourse analysis, such as the French school of argumentation, the British school of critical discourse analysis, and the Austrian school of discourse-historical analysis.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which studies the techniques and devices that political speakers and writers use to influence their audiences and achieve their goals. Rhetoric is closely related to discourse analysis, but it also draws on classical and modern theories of rhetoric, such as Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos), Perelman’s theory of argumentation, and Toulmin’s model of reasoning. Ollivier-Yaniv points out that rhetoric is not only a tool for analysis, but also a normative and practical discipline, which can help improve the quality and effectiveness of political communication.
Propaganda is the systematic and deliberate use of communication to shape the opinions and actions of the masses in favor of a certain cause, ideology, or group. Propaganda is often associated with totalitarian regimes and wartime situations, but it can also be found in democratic contexts, where it takes more subtle and sophisticated forms. Ollivier-Yaniv reviews the main theories and models of propaganda, such as Lasswell’s model of communication, Ellul’s sociological approach, and Jowett and O’Donnell’s framework of analysis. She also discusses the ethical and political implications of propaganda, and the challenges of distinguishing it from legitimate forms of persuasion.
Manipulation is the covert and illegitimate use of communication to influence the beliefs and behaviors of others, without their consent or awareness. Manipulation is a controversial and contested concept, which raises questions about the criteria, methods, and effects of manipulation, as well as the responsibility and autonomy of the communicators and the receivers. Ollivier-Yaniv examines the different perspectives and debates on manipulation, such as the psychological, sociological, and pragmatic approaches, and the distinction between manipulation and persuasion, information and disinformation, and influence and coercion.
Ollivier-Yaniv concludes her article by suggesting some directions for future research on political communication, such as the role of emotions, images, and narratives, the impact of new media and technologies, and the comparative and international dimensions of political communication. She also calls for a more reflexive and critical approach to political communication, which takes into account the ethical and democratic issues that it raises.
In my opinion, Ollivier-Yaniv’s article is a comprehensive and insightful overview of the field of political communication, which covers its main concepts, approaches, and challenges. I agree with most of her points and suggestions, and I find her article very useful and informative. However, I also have some reservations and criticisms about some aspects of her article, which I will briefly mention here.
First, I think that Ollivier-Yaniv’s article is too focused on the French context and perspective, and does not sufficiently acknowledge the diversity and richness of the research on political communication in other countries and regions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Scandinavia, Latin America, Asia, and Africa. I think that a more global and comparative approach would enrich and nuance her analysis, and would also reflect the transnational and intercultural nature of political communication in the contemporary world.
Second, I think that Ollivier-Yaniv’s article is too optimistic and naive about the potential and role of political communication in democratic societies, and does not sufficiently address the problems and risks that political communication poses for democracy, such as the polarization, fragmentation, and manipulation of the public opinion, the erosion of trust and credibility, the spread of misinformation and disinformation, and the emergence of new forms of propaganda and influence, such as computational propaganda, which uses social media platforms, autonomous agents, and big data to manipulate public opinion. I think that a more critical and realistic approach would be more appropriate and relevant for the current situation, and would also offer more solutions and alternatives for improving and protecting democracy.
Third, I think that Ollivier-Yaniv’s article is too descriptive and theoretical, and does not sufficiently illustrate and apply her concepts and approaches to concrete and contemporary examples and cases of political communication, such as political speeches, campaigns, debates, advertisements, interviews, news, social media, etc. I think that a more empirical and practical approach would make her article more engaging and convincing, and would also demonstrate the usefulness and relevance of her analysis for understanding and evaluating political communication in action.
To conclude, I think that Ollivier-Yaniv’s article is a valuable and informative contribution to the field of political communication, which offers a clear and comprehensive overview of its main concepts, approaches, and challenges. However, I also think that her article could be improved and updated by adopting a more global and comparative, critical and realistic, and empirical and practical approach, which would reflect the complexity and diversity of political communication in the 21st century.
