‘But That Did not Happen in Sweden’ – On the Anatomy of Accusations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52610/rhs.v25i82.13Keywords:
Accusatory rhetoric, Definition, Kategoria, Guilt, Narrative rhetoric, the coronavirusAbstract
Despite the fact that defense and apology have been studied thoroughly in rhetoric and communication research in recent decades, their counterpart; the accusation has received surprisingly limited attention from rhetorical criticism. This essay sets out to remedy parts of these shortcomings by suggesting to define the accusation as a situated act where somebody ascribes guilt to a group or individual. The definition ties the accusation to the representation of acts considered to be in violation of existing norms and the essay argues that the logic of narrative determines the forms and functions of an accusation. The essay tests the definition through close readings of accusations from the debate about the proper handling of the corona-virus, as this debate has played out in the Scandinavian countries during 2020. Two extreme examples of accusations – one situated in the formal legal system, one situated in an informal, private conversation – are briefly analyzed before the essay turns to its main case in the form of an article from Dagens Nyheter, in which Swedish scientists accuse the Swedish health authorities and the Swedish government for neglect.
References
Arendt H. (1987). “Collective Responsibility”. I S.J.J.W. Bernauer (Red.), Amor Mundi. Explorations in the Faith and Thought of Hannah Arendt (s. 43-50). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3565-5_3
Benoit, W. L. (2017). “Criticism of Action and Character: Strategies for Persuasive Attack Extended”. Relevant Rhetoric, 8, s.1-17
Benoit, W. L. (2015). Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies, Second Edition: Image Repair Theory and Research (2. ed). Albany: SUNY Press
Benoit, W. L. & Dorries, B. (1996). “Dateline NBC’s Persuasive attack on Wal-Mart”. Communication Quarterly, 44(4), s. 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370032
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). “The Rhetorical Situation”. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, s. 1-14.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340664
Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1969b). A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520341715
Burke, K. (1970). The Rhetoric of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carter, C. A. (1996). Kenneth Burke and the Scapegoat Process. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Ellwanger, A. (2012). “Apology as Metanoic Performance: Punitive Rhetoric and Public Speech”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 42(4), s. 307-329. doi: 10.1080/02773945.2012.704118
DiSanza, J. R. & Legge, N. J. (2016). “The Rhetoric of Persuasive Attack: Continuing the Development of a Taxonomy of Attack Strategies and Tactics”. Relevant Rhetoric, 7, s. 2-16.
Faulkner, R. (2001). Corporate Wrongdoing and the Art of the Accusation. London: Anthem Press
Fisher, W. R. (1970). “A Motive View of Communication”. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56(2), s. 131-139. doi: 10.1080/00335637009382994
Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary (standard edition). St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
Irvine, J. (1979). “Formality and Informality in Communicative Events”. American Anthropologist, 81, s. 773-790. doi: 10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020
Kjeldsen, J. (2019). “Skammens retorik i indvandringsdebatten”. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 79, s. 112-134. https://doi.org/10.52610/IJFC5901
Legge, N. J. et al. (2012). “’He sounded like a vile, disgusting pervert …’ An Analysis of Persuasive Attacks on Rush Limbaugh During the Sandra Fluke Controversy”. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 19, s. 173-205. doi: 10.1080/19376529.2012.722468
Roer, H. & Klujeff, M. (2011). “Tema: Smæderetorik”. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 57, s. 9-18.
Ryan, H. R. (1982). “Kategoria and Apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set”. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, s. 254-261. doi: 10.1080/00335638209383611
Stein, K. A. (2008). “Apologia, Antapologia, and the 1960 Soviet U-2 Incident”. Communications Studies, 59(1), s. 19-34. doi: 10.1080/10510970701849362
Villadsen, L. (2008). “Speaking on Behalf of Others: Rhetorical Agency and Epideictic Functions in Official Apologies”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 38(1), s. 25-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2012.663501
Villadsen, L. (2014). “More than a nice ritual. Official apologies as a rhetorical act in need of theoretical re-conceptualization”. I H. Van Belle et al. (Red.), Let’s talk politics (s. 27-43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.6.02vil
Villadsen, L. (2018). “Fy, skam dig ikke!”. Rhetorica Scandinavica, 78, s. 75-86. https://doi.org/10.52610/MRSP5084
Villadsen, L. og Edwards, J. (2020). The Rhetoric of Official Apologies. Lanham: Lexington Books
Walsh, R. (2018). “Narrative Theory for Complexity Scientists”. I R. Walsh & S. Stepney (Red.), Narrating Complexity (s. 11-25). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64714-2_2
Wodak, R. (2006). “Blaming and denying: Pragmatics”. I K. Brown (Red.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, vol. 2, (s. 59–64). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04307-8
Wright, E. (2019). “‘The Caprices of an Undisciplined Fancy’: Using Blame to Negotiate the “betweens” of Ethos via the Epideictic”. Rhetoric Review, 38(3), s. 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1618157
Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for Justice. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392388.001.0001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
