The potentials of heresthetic and rhetoric in an open framing situation: theory and evidence from a survey experiment

Abstract

To win a policy debate, political actors may apply two analytically distinct counterframing strategies, rhetoric and heresthetic. Rhetoric is when counterarguments are formulated in the original dimension of the debate, while heresthetic is using arguments in a different dimension compared to the original frame. Although both rhetoric and heresthetic are ubiquitous phenomena in the process of public opinion formation, there are no general rules to specify their efficacy. Drawing on a survey experiment carried out in Hungary in 2020 (N = 2000), this paper uncovers the factors determining the effect of the two strategies. Introducing a conceptual distinction between open and trade-off framing situations, the paper demonstrates that the structure of the situation matters. While heresthetic has a robust effect in trade-off framing situations, rhetoric may have a strong impact in open framing situations. Moreover, the effectiveness of counterframing depends on the party affiliation of respondents and the strength of their related attitudes.

Da’wah Rhetoric by Ustadz Abdul Somad and Ustadz Adi Hidayat in Conveying Da’wah Messages

“…The second assumption that underlies Aristotle's theory relates to what speakers do in preparing their speeches and in making those speeches. The proofs referred to by Aristotle refer to ways of persuasion, and for Aristotle, there are three proofs: ethos, pathos, and logos (Körösényi et al 2021). Aristotle revealed that ethos is "The speaker's power of evincing a personal character which will make his speech credible".…”

“…The word is related to the word rhetor, namely a public speaker. Then related to the word rhema which means words (Körösényi, Patkós, Plesz et al 2021). So that etymologically, rhetoric is a speech skill as a public speaker who has the habit of processing words.…”