Preaching to the Choir? Rhetoric and Identity in a Polarized Age

Abstract

How might discourse generate political change? So far, democratic theorists have focused largely on how deliberative exchanges might shift political opinion. Responding to empirical research that casts doubt on the generalizability of deliberative mechanisms outside of carefully designed forums, this essay seeks to broaden the scope of discourse theory by considering speech that addresses participants' identities instead. More specifically, we ask what may be learned about identity-oriented discourse by examining the practice of religious preaching. As we demonstrate, scholars of homiletics-the study of preaching-have identified three core features that support its focus on identity: its unconditionality, its appeal to authoritative texts and traditions, and its diffuse instrumentality. We then ask what each of these features might look like in more straightforwardly political contexts. Finally, we address several normative questions raised by this practice, as a way of exploring the promises and dangers accompanying identity-oriented discourse more generally.

Slavery and Oratory: Frederick Douglass in the History of Rhetoric

“…But it is in his best-known speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” that Douglass gives his most thorough examination of defensive empathy on the racial margins. One of that speech’s central ideas, I argue, is the high cost of Black dissent—and the way in which the Black dissenter finds himself obliged to offer lip-service to prevailing historical narratives and symbols (Goodman and Bagg 2022, 520). Douglass’s 1852 speech (actually delivered on the fifth of July) is usually read as a prototypical jeremiad, which celebrates the American founders’ achievement in throwing off British tyranny and denounces present-day Americans for falling short of their forefathers (Colaiaco 2006, 46; Murphy 2009).…”

Who are they talking about? Detecting mentions of social groups in political texts with supervised learning

“…Mentioning a social group frequently can be a way to signal responsiveness to it and make its members "feel seen" and represented in politics (Pitkin, 1967;Robison et al, 2021;Saward, 2006). Further, emphasizing social groups in their public communication can allow politicians to mobilize groups' sentiments, identities, and grievances (Goodman and Bagg, 2022;Miller et al, 1991;Stückelberger and Tresch, 2022).…”