xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EHNS2NGOA_65GB5U INGEST_TIME 2016-07-13T21:14:34Z PACKAGE AA00046830_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
THE RHETORIC OF POWER: A QUANTITATIVE, COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE RHETORIC OF ADOLF HITLER AND MAHATMA GANDHI Jennifer Levengood Department of Linguistics Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors designation of the degree of the Bachelor of Arts in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences University of Florida 2016
ii Copyright 2016 Jennifer Levengood
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to my mentor, Dr. Emily Rine Butler, whose enthusiasm for linguistics, and for my success offered constant encouragement. Without her continued support this project would not have been possible. Thank you to the University of Florida for introducing me to this field of study, and for supporting me throughout any endeavor during my four years of study. I would also like to extend my gratitude to those family members, friends, and colleagues wh o, along the way, aided me directly or indirectly in this venture. Your support and assistance has never gone unnoticed.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT vi i i CHAPTER : I RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 10 Introduction 10 Problem and Need for Study 1 1 II BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE 13 Theoretical Background and Related Literature 13 Charisma 15 The Stages of Power: Frame Breaking, Frame Moving, 16 Frame Realigning Frame Breaking 16 Frame Moving 17 Frame Realigning 17 The Formula 18 Theoretical Framework of the Hypotheses 1 8 Hypothesis I 19 Hypothesis II 20 Hypothesis III 21
v TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Hypothesis IV 22 Hypothesis V 2 4 Variables 25 Charisma in the Research Design 25 Time Frame 28 External Factors 28 III HYPOTHESES 30 Hypothesis I 30 Hypothesis II 30 Hypothesis III 31 Hypothesis IV 32 Hypothesis V 32 Overview of Hypotheses Table 1 3 3 IV METHODS 34 Equations Used to Test Hypotheses 34 Research Design 34 Sample Selection 35 Data Analysis 3 7 V RESULTS 38
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Numerical Values 38 Table 2 39 Analysis of Hypotheses 39 Hypothesis I 39 Hypothesis II 40 Hypothesis III 41 Hypothesis IV 43 Hypothesis V 45 Table 3 47 VI DISCUSSION 48 Overview of Study and Discussion of Findings 4 8 VII SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 FOR FURTHER STUDY AND PRACTICE Summary 50 Limitations of the Study 50 Suggestions for Further Research 52 Final Thoughts 5 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 5 4
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED APPENDICES 58 Appendix A 58 Appendix A1 s Speeches 58 Appendix A2 s Speeches 58 Appendix B DICTION 5.0 Constructs 59 Appendix C Constructs Used in Hypotheses 62
viii ABSTRACT It has long been known that leaders utilize rhetoric to gain supporters, but this research see ks to understand if there is a rhetorical formula that exists and is utilized by politicians to gain a following. The rhetorical formula, if it exists, would be able to predict the type of rhetoric used This research quantitatively analyzes pol itical rhetoric from Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi to find similarities in their use of rhetoric over the time of their rises to power in hopes to identify this formula. The study primarily builds on a previous study from Seyranian and Bligh (2008), who quantitatively analyzed rhetoric of Presidents of the United States, and a study from Robinson and Topping (2012) that quantitatively examines similarities in rhetoric over time from Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. Though the results are inconclusi ve the results do indicate that both Hitler and Gandhi might follow a pattern similar to that of United States presidents as studied by Seyranian and Bligh (2008). The results of this thesis warrant further discussion and study in the field of rhetoric a nd power.
ix persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject matter; for in stance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on Aristotle
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 10 CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Introduction Social change does not come about by serendipity. On the contrary, social change often arises from an intentional force brought forth by a charismatic leader. Leaders construct social change through discourse, which forms how ions about the world Discourse defined in this paper as any written or spoken communication or debate, which is often persuasive in nature, allows leaders to form relation al bonds; create, transform and maintain structure; and reinforce or challenge beliefs (Barrett, Thomas & Hocevar, 1995, p. 353). In this way, discourse is the main agent for communication and organization because it allows ideas to be traded and negotiat ed between listeners and speakers until a consensus is formed. From the perspective of a leader, the consensus is formed by the reactions of the listeners to the ideas put forth by the leader. This consensus, which morphs to accommodate both the motives of the leader and the desires of the followers, is inherent to th e push pull structure of power. According to research by Seyranian and Bligh in their work on presidential rhetoric, a n effective political leader uses discourse to inspire their followers to carry out some social change. Instead of using rewards and punishments, effective political leaders use specific communication, and specifically rhetorical strategies to persuade others to adopt their v ision of social change (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008 p. 54). The rhetoric of effective political leaders is unique in that it can leverage political outcomes without being a declaration of war or peace. It allows both proponents of the leader to support action s, and can cause opponents to be talked
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 11 into a corner, compelled to endorse a stance they would otherwise reject (Jackson & Krebs, 2007, p. 36). All other factors held equal, rhetoric is one of the most important strategies for advancing political agendas in all of history. Jackson and Krebs (2007) argue that the power of rhetoric, or what they define as rhetorical coercion is so effective because it allows the claimant, in this case a leader, to make a statement to the public in a setting in which the opposition has little to no way to respond adversely. Power, then, falls exclusively in the hands of the leader, because those who oppose are not offered a stage in which to voice their grievances (Jackson & Krebs, 2007). Rhetoric, thus, is a powerful an d coercive tool, or some may say weapon, used by leaders. separates a series of lectures at a university from a series of speeches that convince millions to en gage in war? This study seeks to answer this question. Principally, this study aims to discover if there is a certain formula that leaders consciously or subconsciously adhere to; a formula which creates the most effective rhetoric, and transitively the mo st effective leadership. Problem and Need for Study Though there have been studies that have investigated the links between rhetoric and how it relates to power, there have been no studies to my knowledge that have looked to find a specific rhetorical f ormula that could predict the success of a leader. Thus, for this research I have chosen Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi to represent two successful, charismatic leaders. I will seek to identify commonalities that exist between their rhetoric through three stages of their rise to power. The purpose of identifying a formula is to first reveal the structure of political speeches throughout the career of a leader, and secondarily to predict the success of a
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 12 leader based on adherence to this prototypical model In a study by Reza Khany and Zohre based Systemic Functional Grammar theory (Halliday, 1985), which holds the view that t here exists a discernible pattern in behavior, speeches [of leaders 2014, p. 922). Thi s paper will attempt to identify if such a prototypical model exists To investigate the link between rhetoric and power, this research compares two leaders who on paper are opposites, Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi. By studying leaders with vastly different belief systems, morals, and values, it allows us to find similarities in rhetoric that are not biased towards like minded leaders. This study draws comparisons between the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi over the duration of their ris e to power. It looks at the changes that occur between their initial breakout into the political sphere to the climax point of their power. This study, unlike others that precede it, only looks at the span of the rise to power of two leaders, because it ai ms to find specific rhetorical strategies that leaders use to gain a following and subsequently rise to power
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 13 CHAPTER II BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE Theoretical Background and Related Literature Theories of effective leadership and its relation to rhetoric is a well researched topic, and also the basis for this study. A pivotal study in this field comes from researchers Jay A. Conger Organizations: Perceived This study built upon their 1987 research on charismatic leadership in an organizational setting in part creating a quantitative scale to measure the development of leaders hip (Conger & Kanungo, 1994). research was the first to create three stages in leadership development, which is the main premise se three stages as being: (1) envir onmental assessment, (2) vision formulation, and (3) implementation. Stage one can be 1994 p 442 ), which leads he or she to be most sensitive to the needs of his or her followers. In stage two, a leader begin s to share his or her vision with his or her followers and create the notion of ideal
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 14 ( ibid ) Finally, the third stage is gaging in exemplary acts that subordinates interpret as involving great personal risk and self ( ibid ) created opened many doors to quantitative rhetorical research in the years to come. The resea rch conducted by Conger and Kanungo in 1987 and 1994 was built upon in the research of Shamir, House and Arthur (1993), Fiol et al. (1999), Seyranian and Bligh (2008), and Robinson and Topping (2012), among others. Shamir et al. ( 1993) looked to build upon Conger by researching how followers could be motivated by charismatic leaders. Moreover, they looked at organizational conditions that might have an effect on the adherence of followers to a charismatic leader. Fiol et al. (1999) also i dentified three phases, building upon conceptualization of three temporal phases (frame breaking, frame moving, frame realigning) of leadership development that this research builds upon. Seyranian and Bligh (2008) applied the research of Fiol et al. (1999) to study the r hetoric of social change in United States P residents. S eyranian and Bligh (2008) found that charismatic leaders such as United States Presidents are especially adept at framing and aligning a group Bligh, 2008, p. 68). The researchers were able to identify three stages of framing that charismatic leaders use, and were able to pinpoint certain rhetorical strategies used in each stage of framing. However, though their research was comprehensive and offered new light into quantitative analysis of rhetoric,
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 15 gaining a complete understanding of charismatic leadership that includes the important knowledge of the process through which social change is brought about ( Seyranian & Bligh, 2008, p. 54) ith continued research efforts in this area, it may eventually be feasible to unravel the myste ry surrounding (Weber, 1946 in Seyranian & Bligh, 2008, p. 71) of charismatic leaders to institute social Bligh, 2008, p. 54). Finally, this study looks to the efforts of Robinson Kanun go (1987; 1994), Shamir et al. (1993), and Seyranian and Bligh (2008) to devise a study comparing rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr. and Adolf Hitler. Robinson and Topping (2012) n their patterns of rhetoric [that would] distinguish between a toxic and a moral leader (Robinson & Topping, 2012, p. 203) However, while their results pointed to (2008) study, they were still largely inconcl usive. Robinson and Topping (2012) note that while their research contributed to the field of leadership rhetoric, further studies should be conducted to confirm or deny results. Therefore, this study was born of many necessities in this research field, in hopes that it could in some way contribute to the growing, but still relatively small field of the rhetoric of power. Charisma What is it that makes a leader charismatic? Qualitatively, it is possible to look objectively at attributes such as vision and articulation, sensitivity to the environment, sensitivity to member needs, personal risk taking, and the performance of unconventional behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). If the leader exhibits these qualities, Conger and Kanungo (1998) posit that we
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 16 c an deduce that he or she has a charismatic leadership style. Moreover, charisma is defined by The We berian Theory of C harisma describes charisma as a one of three ideal typical forms of a leader, the two others being tr aditional and rational legal, which are precise, unambiguously defined abstractions designed from phenomena and not simply descriptions (Hava & Kwok Bun, 2011, p. 13). A charismatic leader, unlike a traditional or a rational legal leader, is chosen to le gifted, and [whose] authority, based on charismatic grounds, rests on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of the individual (Hava & Kwok Bun, 2011, p. 14). The St ages of Power: Frame Breaking, Frame Moving, Frame Realigning The speeches in this research are divided into three temporal stages, which have been adopted from a study by Seyranian and Bligh (2008), and from research by Lewin (1951) and Fiol et al. in three temporal communication phases : frame breaking, frame moving, and fra me realigning (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). Frame Breaking their identification with their followers through inclusive language and emphasize dissatisfaction with the sta tus quo, thereby inducing the urgency for change. Leaders are likely to use negative change (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008; Shamir et al., 1994). Leaders are also like ly to be pessimistic about the current state of the union, so as to encourage moving away from the status quo.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 17 Moreover, leaders are likely in this stage to emphasize commonality with their followers and create a group identity. These tactics work to estab lish the perception that the leader is a) willing to change the status quo and b) willing to cooperate with the people to do so. Frame Moving go against the change the leader is trying to implement with ideas that will further their vision (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). move people's neutral sta te of either non support for convention or non encouraging people's desire for non convention; or, (b) encouraging people to fear not changing 2008). Furthermore, leaders often attempt to obscure their overall goals and intentions by relying heavily on ambiguity, references to the future, and vivid imagery (Fiol et al., 1999). By utilizing these strategies, leaders are able to link their values and visions to utopian outcomes (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). Frame Realigning inspire their followers by affirming their newly held values, those which were encourag ed by the leader, and motivating them to embrace change (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). This stage generally involves solidifying values that have been constructed in the first two stages, and reinforcing them with concrete plans for the future, as well as with optimistic promises. During this time, it becomes most appropriate for leaders to express their tenacity, and take action on issues they
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 18 may have shied from during the earlier stages in order to avoid appearing too aggressive. By examining Hitler and Gand to identify these three phases on a shorter timeline. The Formula rhetoric of leaders. While th is will be expanded upon throughout this paper, the basic formula consists of: High usage of commonality and low usage of optimis m in the frame breaking stage, low use of realism in the frame moving stage, and high usage of activity and certainty rhetoric in the frame realigning stage. Each construct in this formula will be expanded upon in the hypotheses. Theoretical Framework of the Hypotheses The hypotheses in this research were formed based on research and results of studies mentioned previo usly, e.g. Fiol et al. (1999), Seyranian and Bligh (2008), and Robinson and Topping (2012 ), and were modified to fit the direction of this study. This study attempts to confirm some of the hypotheses presented in earlier studies in hopes to build upon the field of rhetoric and its correlation with power. All hypotheses presented in this paper generate from the research by Hogg (2001), and Berscheid and Reis (1 998). Liking can be compared to social
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 19 Forgas, & Hippel, 2005, p. 250). The stronger liking that occurs in a leader follower distribution, the greater ability the leader has to exercise reify an intra political figure. Thus, the hypotheses of this research emphasize that leaders use rhetoric to intentionally increase liking, and that this increase of liking correlates to an increase in their power. Leaders are not likely to use language or pursue acts that will in any way decrease their liking, therefore we can assume that Hitler and Gandhi use certain rhetorical strategies only to increase liking. Hypothesis I Hitler and Gandhi will use the highest amount of rhetoric that refers to commonality during the frame breaking stage of their rise to power. This hypothesis was developed as a response to the study by Fiol et al. (1999), which found that charismatic leaders tend to use more rhetoric that favors cooperation and inclusion in the earliest phases of the ir career. Their use of inclusive rhetoric early in their careers during the frame l inclusion by means of speech (Fiol et al., 1999). Early on, leaders aim to create a group consciousness, which allows them to more readily identify with their followers, and to change the beliefs of their followers to the beliefs they themselves hold (Fi ol et al., 1999). Hogg (2001), in his Social Identity Theory of Leadership prototypicality gradient that invests the most prototypical member with the appearance of h aving follower power
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 20 structure would be the leader. By acting as a prototypical member, it allows the leader to implement his or her ideas in a way that seems as if the group has come to a common consensus, and downplays the power structure in place between leaders and followers To act as the prototypical member, while still maintaining t he identity as part of the group, a leader will use inclusive and cooperative rhetoric. Furthermore, to support our proposed hypothesis, Shamir et al. (1993) proposes that leaders m and potential followers in order to demonstrate his belonging to the same collectivity, and to and for their emulation of the leader's beliefs and acceptance of the leader's mission (p. 65) In sum, a leader will present himself or herself as common to his or her followers so that the followers feel most fairly and wholly represented by the lead er. Hypothesis II Hitler and Gandhi will use the least amount of rhetoric that refers to optimism during the frame breaking stage of their rise to power. Fiol et al. (1999) posit that in the early phase, or frame career, reinforce the idea that the only way to remedy the problems that may or may not exist is to follow the new plan of the new leader. This, like inclusive language, aids in the frame breaking process that occurs in the early careers of charismatic leaders. In the frame breaking stage, it is
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 21 fears of change (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 453). By using tactics of blame, and emphasizing hardship under the current state, leaders are able to create the idea that their followers should be dissatisfied with the present situation. effect, places more faith in the leader because t hey are removed from the conflict, and subsequently the people feel united against what they believe to be a common enemy. Hypothesis III Hitler and Gandhi will use the least language that pertains to realism in the frame moving stage of their rise to p ower. moving, which happens when they wish to negate values previously held by their followers, and begin to replace those with their own values (Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). This process generally occurs after the leaders have successfully created the idea of a dystopia in the first phase, making their followers open for solutions, and ready to shift their values to those which they perceive will help themselves and their society. It is in this phase that Fiol et al. (1999) argue that realism will be lowest, and abstraction by employing high levels of abstraction abstract language following the Persian Gulf intervention of 1991, where he used the phrase
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 22 little or no concrete meaning, but still aided in President Bush gaining a large following that was willing to accept his values and trust him as a leader (Fiol et al., 1999, p. 463). In support of this hypothesis is also the work of Eisenberg (1984) strategically by leaders to achieve goals by causing follow ers with different views to believe they are supporting the same value system. Eisenberg (1984) stresses the necessity of ambiguity as a 1984, p. 236 237). Furthermore, strategic ambiguity used by a leader who has established c redibility works to maintain the power structure in any organization. Ambiguity bolsters credibility by not providing the receivers with any new information that may affect the leader negatively (Eisenberg, 1984, p. 241). In essence, the less real, concret e language that the leader is to use during the frame moving phase, the more unity, credibility, and positive reactions they will gain. Hypothesis IV Hitler and Gandhi will exhibit highest levels of activity in the frame realigning stage of their rise t o power. In his 1998 study of American presidential proactivity, Deluga (1998) found that is proactivity described by Deluga (1998) is exhibited through rhetoric that promotes an active stance, and stresses
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 23 leaders to assure their followers that th ey are capable of putting their plans into action, and succeeding when they do. It is important that use of rhetoric that denotes activity and action comes after the leader has broken and moved the frames of their followers. If this language is used too ea rly in their rise to power, it may have a detrimental effect on perceptions of followers. Instead of creating the perception that a leader is ambitious, followers may perceive the leaders as menacing or overly aggressive. In the frame realigning stage of argue that a leader will use more activity desire for non convention to a desire for change or innovation; or, substituting the fear of not changing either case, a leader is working to motivate their followers to take action to support a new vision or value system. Moreover, Seyranian and Bligh posit that rhetoric rela ting to action is used most frequently during the frame realigning & Bligh, 2008, p. 58). By highlighting this activity, it fosters the idea that the leader has accomplished many tasks, which in turn creates the perception that these victories will occur in perpetuity. Seyranian and Bligh (2008) note two case studies that support this hypothesis as well; they de scribe the rhetoric of President George W. Bush following September 11, 2001, and the Bush used active language to motivate followers to rally for invasion of the Middle East,
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 24 & Bligh, 2008, p. 58). Clinton uses similar lang uage, including a high amount of progressive increasing border controls by 50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. A nd tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal p. 58). Hypothesis V Hitler and Gandhi will demonstrate highest levels of certainty in the frame realigning stage of their rise to power. In the frame realigning stage, leaders must appear definitively confident in the choices that they have made so that their followers will entrust them to carry out their vision. Throughout the first tw o phases, the leader must negotiate with followers, remain ambiguous, and be open to changing their position on issues to please followers. However, in the final phase, leaders gain more by being steadfast in their choices and expressing high levels of c ertainty This hypothesis corroborates the study by Fiol et al. (1999), who found that in the frame realigning phase, leaders use the least conceptual language. Lewin (1951) also notes in his research that during the final 1951, p. 229) It is important for the leaders to not become too specific and certain too early in their careers. As Stephen Denning (2007) describes in The Secret Language of Leadership: How Le aders Inspire Action Through Narrative, is established, they are likely to be heard as so much noise. Worse, if the audience is skeptical, cynical, or hostile, the reasons tend to flip and become ammuni tion for the opposite point of
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 25 committing to a certain set of values that followers are to concur with. Denning goes on to contrast the use of a high level of certa inty reasons come after an emotional connection has been established with the change idea, then the reasons can reinforce it, because now listeners are actively searching for reasons to support a decision t certainty can also be perceived as a high level of finality. Seyranian and Bligh (2008) posit that when ons may no longer be perceived as a viable option (p. 68) Variables strategies. This is in part due to the abundance of variables that must be considered in a content analysis of discourse from leaders of different cultures and time periods. In order to create an unbiased analysis of rhetoric, several variables must be assumed as constants, such as leadership power. Charisma in the Research Design This paper will first hold charisma as an independent variable. The dearth and unreliability of primary accounts of these traits makes qualitative deductions about the charisma of Hitler and Gandhi difficult though not wholly impossible. Thus, to assess the charisma of
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 26 Gandhi quantitative methods have been employed by a previous study, which used the s ame software our study will use: DICTION 5.0. Bligh and Robinson (2010) found that Gandhi exhibits traits similar to those of United States Presidents, esp ecially his ability to articulate the 2010), Bligh and Robinson conclude t hat Gandhi, while not exhibiting traditionally thought charismatic attributes, does maintain a charismatic leadership style. Bligh and Robinson (2010) analyze morality, temporal orientation, tangibility, adversity, act conclusion. As a result, Gandhi will be considered a charismatic leader in this investigation using the criterion and conclusions put forth by Bligh and Robinson ( 2010 ) A quantitative study on the charisma of Adolf Hitler, to my knowledge, does not presently exist. However, a greater amount of objective resources regarding the personality of Hitler exist, making him a better candidate for a qualitative definition of charisma There are three basic attributes of a charismatic leader as theorized by Max Weber that are met by Hitler. [whereby] the le ader claims ultimate authority [and] the followers accept obedience as the during his leadership that he would relieve Germany of the economic and political crisis they had fallen into following World War I. He effectively presented himself as the means by which Germany would re ach stability. Hitler presented a situation which stressed only two outcomes: to accept Hitler as the ultimate authority or to let Germany perish; the people of Germany thus accepted obedience as their duty.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 27 The second attribute of a charismatic leader i s that he or she is able to create standards under which his followers must comply (Lepsius, 2006, p. 175). Once again, by offering no alternatives to success except by accepting his system of values Hitler made it impossible for his followers to be in no ncompliance with even the most ludicrous of his policies. Though friends and neighbors of Jewish people, many of his German followers were quick to turn in the Jewish people, as long as it meant Germany would be saved. Hitler repeatedly stressed his person al commitment to his policies, suggesting that if he was to make sacrifices, his followers should as sacrifices and, if necessary, every sacrifice, then I am ent itled to it. For today I am myself, as I Those internal to the regime were also in compliance so as to not fall out of good faith with the leader. Lepsius describes t submit to his authority lost all support within the Party and any charismatic qualifications that The third characteristic of a community bound by personal devotion to the leader and organ ised by followers chosen by him (Lepsius, 2006 p. 182 ). This was achieved by Hitler through bribery, perceived socialism, and secret c greater importance than in a hierarchical, regulated bureaucratic orga 182). By creating a sort of brotherhood or exclusive club, Hitler worked to intensify the bonds he had created with his followers and with led millions to a common idea l that was inspired by motives which were opposite from normal
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 28 be considered inaccessible to the ordinary person This study aims to find rhetorical similarities i n charismatic leaders, and time and resource constraints hinder this investigation from forming an independent theory on charisma that can be applied to both Hitler and Gandhi. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, the aforementioned quantitative and qualitative studies allow us to reach the conclusion that Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi were charismatic leaders, thus also permitting us to use this variable as a constant in this investigation. Time Frame Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi though existi ng independently of each other, existed in the same time period. This is important not necessarily for comparing the political atmosphere of the time frame, but rather for comparing the type of language that existed during the period. Both leaders began their rise to power in the 1920s, and remained in power until the late 1940s. Though this study will focus only on their respective rise to power, it is important to note that they we re born within twenty years of each other, Gandhi in 1869 and Hitler in 1889, and perished within three years of each other, Gandhi in 1948 and Hitler in 1945. The Apparent Time H ypothes is of S ociolinguistics posits that the speech of each generation is assumed to reflect the language more or less as it existed at the time when that generation learned the language (Bailey, Wikle, Tillery, & Sand, 1991). By this theory, it is possible to hold that the speech of Hitler is relatively similar to that of Gand hi, despite cultural and language differences. Though born twenty years apart, linguistic change occurs slowly, and it is likely that many of the
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 29 differences that exis t are negligible and will not be explained as a source of variance. Therefore, the variable of historical speech patterns will be considered a constant for this study. External Factors While the variables of leadership type and historical speech pattern s can be kept constant, it is much more difficult to treat external forces as such. In fact, it is nearly, if not wholly, Therefore, we must instead hold that t he speech situations are different, and that there are external factors that aided in the rise to power of Hitler and Gandhi. This will be identified as a limitation of the study. However, though a limitation, we must always assume correlation between rhet oric and rise to power, and never causation. Thus, while rhetoric can very well be
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 30 CHAPTER II I HYPOTHESES Hypothesis I Hitler and Gandhi will use the highest amount of rhetoric that refers to commonality during the frame breaking stage of their rise to power T he first hypothesis proposes that the most language referring to commonality with to form a group identity. Group identification also strengthens liking between the leader and his or her followers. Centrality, rapport, a nd cooperation relate to words which connote affinity for others and well (Hart, 2000). This terminology promotes the procuration and sustaining of group ideals, therefore enhancing collectivity. The terms that are subtracted from the operation are those which represent social isolation, freedom from group pressu re, and a difference in opinion Hypothesis II
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 31 Hitler and Gandhi will use the least amount of rhetor ic that refers to optimism during the frame breaking stage of their rise to power. I hypothesize that leaders will use the least amount of optimism in the frame breaking stage of their careers as they stress the horror of maintaining the status quo. As w ith the previous equation, each term represents a construct of DICTION 5.0. The first three terms convey positive qualities of a person or situation. Examples of these terms ee terms are subtracted from the positive language, and are those words which emphasize human fears, natural disasters, or unsavory political outcomes (Hart, 2000). These terms reify any fears that creating a desire to move away from the present, and denote unfortunate circumstances as a result of an external force that does not include the speaker (Hart, 2000). Hypothesis III Hitler and Gandhi will use the least language that pertains to realism in the frame moving stage of their rise to power. Realism is hypothesized to be lowest during the frame power. T he first six constructs include words that are tangible and material in nature (Hart, 2000, p. 47), thus eliminating words that might express an ambiguous picture or go beyond the scope of realism. This limits references to a spiritual being or higher power, as well as words that involv e cognitive processes. Instead, more tangible items, occupations, and people are included
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 32 words, which he calculates to be the most common words in the English l anguage, as well as terms which note location or time. The final two terms that are subtracted in the equation are those which emphasize ambiguity and time frames outside of the present. The complexity construct measures ambiguity by including those word s which have a high number of characters per word (Hart, 2000, p. 46). Longer words can add unnecessary convulsion to phrases, and as Rudolph Flesch's research abst Hypothesis IV Hitler and Gandhi will exhibit highest levels of activity in the frame realigning stage of their rise to power. Activity is hypothesized to be the highest in the frame realigning phase of their rise to power. Words that make up this construct are those that demonstrate tenacity, action, proactivity. personal triumph and goal directedness make up this construct (Hart, 2000, p. 46). Words that connote passivi ty are subtracted from this construct, as well as words that denote thinking or pondering. Hypothesis V Hitler and Gandhi will demonstrate highest levels of certainty in the frame realigning stage of their rise to power. Certainty is hypothesized to b e highest in the frame realigning stage of power. The construct of certainty includes words which demonstrate inflexibility, resoluteness, and
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 33 completeness. The first four constructs that are added in the equation exhibit characteristics such as a drive to accomplish tasks, insistence, commonality, and permanence (Hart, 2000, p. 46). The constructs that are subtracted from the equation are those which may represent ambiguity, blanket terms, or words that exclude followers, such as self reference terms. The equation used to test this hypothesis is: Certainty = [Tenacity + Leveling + Collectives + Insistence] [Numerical Terms + Ambivalence + Self Reference + Variety]. Overview of Hypotheses Table 1
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 34 CHAPTER I V METHODS Equations Used to Test Hypotheses Hypothesis I: Commonality = [Centrality + Cooperation + Rapport] [Diversity + Exclusion + Liberation]. Hypothesis II: Optimism = [Praise + Satisfaction + Inspiration] [Blame + Hardship + Denial]. Hypothesis III: Realism = [Familiarity + Spatial Terms + Temporal Awareness + Present Condition + Human Interest + Concreteness] [Past Concern + Complexity]. Hypothesis IV: Activity = [Aggression + Accomplishment + Communality + Motion] [Cognitive Terms + Passivity + Embell ishment].
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 35 Hypothesis V: Certainty = [Tenacity + Leveling + Collectives + Insistence] [Numerical Terms + Ambivalence + Self Reference + Variety] Research Design To examine the rhetorical characteristics of these speeches, a qualitative content analysis searches via a 10,000 word corpus, and any number of user created custom dictionaries for particular research needs. [Moreover], DICTION reports about the texts it p rocesses and also writes the results to numeric files for later statistical analysis. Output includes raw totals, percentages, and standardized scores of data to be quantitatively analyzed, thus nineteen speeches could undergo content analysis without the subjectivity that arises in doing so by hand. The program has been used in many past studies to analyze political rhetoric (e.g., Robinson and Topping [ 2012 ] Bligh et al. (2004), and Seyranian and Bligh (2008)), which will be referred to throughout this research. The program analyzes thirty nine constructs pertaining to rhetoric by calculating the occurrence of certain words that make up each construct. The program then tests the resul ts from each entry, in this case speeches, against the statistical mean, and reports the standard scores of each category. Negative results indicate that the construct occurs less frequently than the average range, and positive results can indicate that th e construct occurs more frequently than the average range. Because this program is highly standardized, it is useful for looking objectively at data and observing trends in a comparative analysis. The constructs analyzed are available in Appendix B and C
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 36 Sample Selection The intent of this research is to predict if all leaders adhere to certain rhetorical strategies, which then translates into amassing a greater following overtime. This will be tested by using a small sample size of two very different lea ders: Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi. To test the use of rhetorical strategies overtime, we will look at the data in the context of frame breaking, frame moving, and frame realigning. To accomplish this, the data is split into time periods of early rise t category or those falling into the frame breaking stage, consists of speeches given within the first two years of Hitler or Gandhi becoming realigning category consists of speeches given in the last five years leading up to the time that each figure reached climax of power, or had amassed the greatest quantity of followers before relatively or frame moving speeches are any that fall between the two latter categories. The data consists of nine speeches for Adolf Hitler, performed publicly between the years of 1920 and 1930. These speeches were chosen on the basis that Hitler performed his first recognized public speech in 1919, for which a transcript is unavailable, and began regularly giving public speeches in 1920. This marks the beginning of his career as both an orator and a political figure. The year 1930 marks the finality of his pre chancellor career, as he was elected chancellor of Germany in 1933. There are te n speeches selected for Gandhi between the years of 1919 and 1930. being given in 1919, and his last speech in 1930 before he became the unofficial leader of the no n violent civil disobedience movement. Therefore, the timelines of these speeches represent
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 37 The speeches had to be greater than 500 words in length. Furthermore, in addition to meeting the criteria of being within a s pecific timeline, the speeches also had to be delivered to a public audience where there were more than approximately fifty listeners in attendance. Thus, this study excludes those speeches which were delivered in private, or those speeches only delivered to an audience of less than approximately fifty people. This ensured that the style of the speeches was consistent over time. Data Analysis The data was collected from DICTION 5.0, and the standard scores were uploaded into an excel spreadsheet. From th is, the speech data was divided into the three time frames, and an average was taken of the data in each time frame. This resulted in three data points that were the average standard score of the speeches in the frame breaking, frame moving, and frame real igning stages. This allowed the data to be analyzed on a more manageable scale. While each category was analyzed, this study looks mainly at the five constructs created by the DICTION 5.0 software: Activity, Optimism, Certainty, Realism, and Commonality T hese constructs contain many of the categories that DICTION 5.0 analyzes, and thus present the larger picture of trends in political rhetoric overtime. Therefore, to analyze the data, this study looks the averages of the five previously mentioned construct s in each of the three temporal phases. The averages of each phase from each leader were then compared against each other to see if their data adhered to the hypotheses outlined above.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 38 CHAPTER V RESULTS Numerical Values Each value presented in the charts below indicates an average of the amount of words relating to each construct used per every 500 words in each speech. DICTION 5.0 calculates the number of instances that a word relating to, for example, a construct of com monality occurs in every 500 words of a speech. The program then takes these raw numbers and averages them to show a per speech average use. Then, the values from all speeches in each category (frame breaking, frame moving, and frame realigning) were avera ged to create three values presented below. Thus, these final numbers in the graphs below represent the average use of words of any construct per 500 words of all speeches in one entire stage. This allows us to view the data aggregately by stage, and there fore better observe the changes that occurred over time. To abbreviate the explanation of each data point, w/500w
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 39 Table 2 Analysis of Hypotheses Hypothesis I The first hypothesis predicted that Hitler and Gandhi would use the highest amount of rhetoric that refers to commonality during the frame breaking phase of their rise to power. The results of the study do not wholly corroborate with the first hypothesis. The first hypothesis proves to be correct only for Gandhi. In the graph below, Gandhi uses an average of 49.713 w/500w relating to commonality and this number declines as time goes on. Confirmation of the original hypothesis would be evidence of social in clusion and cooperation in the frame breaking commonality during this stage Instead, he showed highest levels of use in the middle phase of his rise to power. This can be seen on the graph below, which indicates Hitler used an average of 50.527 w/500w relating to commonality compared to only 48.495 w/500w in the frame breaking stage, and 47.395 w/500w in the frame realigning stage. However, both Hitler and
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 40 Gan dhi show lowest le vels of commonality in the frame realigning phase of their rise to power, which means the data does indicate a relative downward trend over time. Perhaps with more speeches included, we would see that Hitler does, in fact, use the highest levels of commonality during the frame breaking stage. Further research would need to be conducted to investigate this. Hypothesis II The second hypothesis predicted that Hitler and Gandhi would use the least amount of rhetoric that refers to optimism during the frame breaking stage of their rise to power. The data confirms this hypothesis for Hitler and for Gandhi. The data supports the proposed hypothesis optimism is lowest, and nearly equal in the frame breaking stage, with an average difference in use of only .325 w/500w relating to optimism as
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 41 well as in the frame moving stage (difference = .623 w/500w ), and in the frame realigning stage (difference = .611 w/500w ). Both experienced similar trajectories, using the least level of optimism in the frame breaking stages with Hitler using an average of 47.935 w/500w, and Gandhi using an average of 48.260 w/500w. The use of optimism is highest in the frame realigning sta ge as indicated by the data below which shows Hitler and Gandhi peaking their use at 50.443 w/500w and 49.820 w/500w, respectively. Hypothesis III The third hypothesis predict ed that Hitler and Gandhi would use the least language that pertained to real ism in the frame moving stage of their rise to power. This hypothesis was
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 42 supported by the data from Gandhi, but was not supported by the data from Hitler. In the graph below, we can see that Gandhi uses a significantly lower amount of words relating to re alism than Hitler in the frame moving stage, with a difference of 2.397 w/500w. This is much higher of a difference than we see in the frame breaking and frame realigning stage, which only show a difference of 0.5 w/500w and 0.582 w/500w, respectively. The re was an obvious difference, then, in the stage that was examined for this hypothesis. We see that Hitler exhibited the highest use of language pertaining to realism in the frame moving stage of rise to power at 53.087 w/500w This result was surprising, as plentiful research concluded that a charismatic leader would be highly unlikely to use high levels of realism in the frame moving stage. Breaking down the category, it is evident that Hitler scored highly in this category in part because of his increas ed use of spatial terms. In the frame breaking and frame realigning phase, he used a low level of spatial terms (.065 w/500w and .008 w/500w respectively), compared to his frame moving phase where he used (.387 w/500w ). This might indicate that his speeches at this time were focused on describing locations, perhaps outlining the countries he planned to invade soon after the speeches were delivered.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 43 Hypothesis IV The fourth hypothesis predicted that Hitler and Gandhi would exhibit highest levels of activity in the frame realigning stage of their rise to power. The data supports this hypothesis only for Gandhi. Gandhi exhibits a strong upward trend of use of languag e pertaining to activity throughout his rise to power, and peaks in the climax of his power. This is indicated by the data below, which shows Gandhi using an average of 48.953 w/500w in the frame breaking stage, 49.647 w/500w in the frame moving stage, and 53.867 w/500w in the frame realigning stage. His greatest increase of use comes between the frame moving and frame realigning stage, with an increase of an average of 4.22 w/500w. He exhibits a more modest increase between the frame breaking and frame mov ing stage at an increase of only 0.694 w/500w. Though the data from Hitler does not support our hypothesis, and goes contrary to the hypothesis, we actually see moving and frame realigning
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 44 stage Hitler exhibits the greatest change in use, decreasing by an average of 3.048 w/500w, whereas between the frame breaking and frame moving stages he only decreases by an average of 1.837 w/500w. This data is interesting in that it correlates even though i t is opposite in nature. There is perhaps something that occurs between these two stages that can dramatically change the use of words relating to activity however further research would need to be conducted. erall decreasing trend of activity use, with the lowest use during the frame realigning stage at an average of 48.365 w/500w, some data does help to explain the results. R esearch from Bligh et al. (2004) notes that leaders might be more inclined to use les s activity power, the country was suffering from an economic crisis, with unemployment at thirty percent and increasing as Germany struggled to repay their debts from World War I. Hit ler focused many of his speeches at this time around pacifying the German people, and convincing them that Germany would survive this crisis (Frey, 1983). Moreover, Robinson and Topping (2012) found that Hitler used less powerful rhetoric than they had ant icipated, and hypothesized that it could perhaps be due to Hitler recognizing aggressive rhetoric might scare away his followers, and thus he could have toned down his rhetoric until he gained more power and did not have to worry about losing followers (Ro binson & Topping, 2012, p. 11). Both theories could be offered as an explanation, but fu rther research would need to be conducted.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 45 Hypothesis V The final hypothesis predicted Hitler and Gandhi would demonstrate highest levels of language pertaining to certainty during the frame realigning stage of their rise to power. The data supports this hypothesis for Hitler, but does not support this hypothes is for Gandhi. The data from Hitler demonstrates a very strong upward trend of certainty throughout his rise to power. He increases from a low of an average use of 46.795 w/500w in the frame breaking stage, to a high of an average use of 52.323 w/500w in t he frame realigning stage. The biggest change occurs between the final two stages, with an increase of 5.063 w/500w versus an increase of only 0.465 w/500w between the first two stages. Again, though the data from Gandhi did not corroborate with our hypoth
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 46 change in use occurring between the frame moving and frame realigning stages a change of 2.26 w/500w versus only 0.167 between the first two stages. Though Gandhi exhibits the highest l evels of certainty in the frame moving stage, and not in the frame realigning stage as predicted, using an average of 48.157 w/500w versus 45.897 w/500w, it could have much to do with external, qualitative factors. In fact, this data is perhaps unsurprisin g, when looking at the external factors that surrounded these times. Towards the climax and end of his rise to power, Gandhi was very uncertain about the world he was experiencing as he became increasingly aware of the atrocities of the government and thei r effect on the people He struggled to understand why innocent people were perishing more and more each day, and this uncertainty is likely reflected in his final speeches.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 47 Table 3
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 48 CHAPTER V I DISCUSSION Overview of Study and Discussion of Findings This study principally aimed to expand upon the research of Seyranian and Bligh (2008), Fiol et al. (1999), and Robinson and Topping (2012). To this end, this research was able to build upon these studies, and offer more insight int o similarities in rhetorical strategies in two very different leaders. Although the findings of this research were not always consistent with expectations, the findings offered interesting perspectives as to how leaders utilize rhetoric during their rise t o power. This study is part of a less developed area of quantitative research regarding rhetoric and its correlation to power, and one of the only to our knowledge that looks specifically at the rise to power, versus the entire career of a leader. The re sults of this study did not completely match the theories laid out by Seyranian and Bligh (2008) in their research on charismatic leadership. It was found that two out of five hypotheses were supported by data from Hitler, and four out of five were support ed by Gandhi. However, only a single hypothesis was supported by both leaders, and thus it can be inferred that between Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi, there is no single rhetorical formula that both leaders adhered to to aid in their rise to power. Thi s can be explained by many reasons. As noted by Robinson and Topping (2012) in their study of the rhetoric of Hitler and Martin Luther King, this study merely looks a t a fraction of the big picture, effects on the rhetoric of the leaders. Similarly, Seyranian and Bligh (2008) comment that factors
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 49 powerful rhetoric. Nonetheless, this study contributes to the ongoing research that assesses rhetoric qualitatively in hopes to draw comparisons between seemingly opposite leadership styles in order to discover an innate formula that results in leadership success. This study was especially useful in its analysis of Gandhi in that it corroborated many findings from Seyranian & Bligh (2008), and Fiol et al. (1999).
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 50 CHAPTER VI I SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY AND PRACTICE Summary In summary, we can conclude that Gandhi exhibits a pattern of rhetorical strategies similar to that of other charismatic leaders. Throughout his rise to power, Gandhi followed a pattern of promoting inclusion, voicing dissatisfaction with the sta tus quo, utilizing ambiguous language, and then maintaining an active stance on issues to create the perception of tenacity in his leadership. The only rhetorical construct that Gandhi did not seem to utilize was that of certainty ; instead Gandhi remained relatively uncertain throughout his rise to power. Hitler, surprisingly, did not conform to the majority of the hypotheses. However, it is worth noting that formed to many of the hypotheses established by Seyranian and Bligh (2008). Thus, it may be possible that Hitler did not utilize the same strategies as United States Presidents, or as other charismatic leaders. Robinson and Topping (2012) concluded that rh etoric strategies as they relate to increase power may differ between a moral and a toxic leader, and therefore this may be the case for the differences that exist between Hitler and Gandhi. This is also supported by the notion that a moral leader would in clude both Gandhi and presumably a United States President, and thus both would use different rhetorical strategies than a toxic leader such as Hitler. This point warrants further investigation and discussion. Limitations of the Study While this study h as many strengths, the limitations of the study should also be recognized. In this study there were only ten speeches studied for Gandhi and nine for Hitler,
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 51 because this study was limited by time constraints and depth of study. A greater amount of speeche s would aid in drawing a more complete and accurate picture of the rhetorical strategies of both leaders. Moreover, only two leaders were analyzed, which also limited the study because it was indiscernible whether or not differences existed as a result of leadership style (e.g. moral versus toxic ), or as a result of other factors. While the leaders were specifically chosen for their diversity, concrete conclusions about rhetorical trends cannot be drawn without a comparison amongst many leaders. The benefi t of conducting a quantitative study is that it eliminates bias that might come from the researcher ; however it also eliminates qualitative factors that might interplay with the rhetorical strategies. As previously noted, the information gathered in th is research is taken out of any social, political, and cultural contexts, and thus should be analyzed as such. It is important to not ignore these factors that also play into the success of a leader, but this study did not choose to focus on them. Examini ng how culture and political or economic climate might also have an with a quantitative study comes the inability for the computer to recognize polysemous words, thus discounting the use of some words that may have added to or subtracted from a category. However, though a limitation, the amount of words not recognized by the computer program is likely slim, and while noted as a limitation, should not be given too much weight when analyzing results. The three stages of early phase of frame breaking, frame moving, and frame realigning were adopted from several other studies of rhetoric and power. It should be recognized that these categories may not best fit this s entire political career in three and applied to only the rise to power of a leader. It was often
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 52 difficult to characterize which speeches should fall into which category, as it was up to the the process was not foolproof. However, there was strength in choosing three separate stages, in that change over time can be analyzed in a way that does not require viewing each speech as a separate data point. Suggestions for Further Research rhetoric. By analyzing two very different leaders, it was hoped that glaring similarities could be found that would aid in this research. While some findings pointed loosely at a formula, there are obvious opportunities for furthering this research to strengthen the results. This study can be expanded in the breadth of information analyzed, and the type of information analyzed. For the breadth, more leaders can be analyzed to discover general trends in all leaders. Even comparing two toxic leaders as Hitler, and two moral leaders as Gandhi (Robinson & Topping, 2012) could offer mor e insight into trends in political rhetoric. Also, as mentioned in the limitations, it would be interesting to study which other factors might have an effect on the speech of a leader. Noted by Robinson and Topping (2012) was the factor of speech writers and how they might have an effect on the speeches that a leader delivers. Examining speeches that were unscripted would perhaps give more interesting insights Final Thoughts In all, this study aided in b uilding upon research conducted by Seyranian and Bligh (2008) and Robinson and Topping (2012) The study produced interesting results that suggests
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 53 there may be a certain formula to political rhetoric leaders to gain a large following. Presently, the world finds itself in a situation where there are many changes in leadership. It is our duty as researchers, students, and human beings to look past the formulaic political rhetoric and elect leaders that will truly work in our best interests. Furthermore, by u nderstanding certain features of political rhetoric that might aid in the electability of a leader, it becomes easier to predict election results even in seemingly unpredictable elections. Though this research answered many questions, but also created many more to be answered in the future.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adolf Hitler Collection of Speeches 1922 1945. (2005). Retrieved June 27, 2015 from https://archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerCollectionOfSpeeches19221945 Bailey, G., Wikle, T., Tillery, J., & Sand, L. (1991). The apparent time construct. Lang. Var. Change Language Variation and Change, 3 (03), 241. Retrieved September 2, 2015. Barrett, F. J., Thomas, G. F., & Hocevar, S. P. (1995). The Central Role of Discou rse in Large Scale Change: A Social Construction Perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31 (3), 352 372. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193 281). New York: McGraw Hill. leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 (5), 844 855. Retrieved November 23, 2015. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12 (4), 637. Retrieved January 24, 2016. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behav., 15 (5), 439 452. Retrieved January 24, 2016. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998 ). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 55 Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9 (3), 265 291. Retrieved August 05, 2015. De nning, S. (2007). The Secret Language of Leadership: How Leaders Inspire Action Through Narrative. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51 (3), 227 242. Retriev ed January 24, 2016. Famous Speeches by Mahatma Gandhi. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2015, from http://www.mkgandhi.org/speeches/speechMain.htm Fiol, M. C., Harris, D., & House, R. (1999). Charismatic leadership: Strategies for effecting social change. The L eadership Quarterly, 10 (3), 449 482. Retrieved August 15, 2015. Flesch, R. (1949). New Facts about Readability. College English, 10 (4), 225. Retrieved January 24, 2016. Frey, B. S., & Weck, H. (1983). A statistical study of the effect of the great depressi on on elections: The Weimar Republic, 1930 1933. Political Behavior, 5 (4), 403 420. Retrieved February 25, 2016. GandhiServe Foundation. (2015). The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Retrieved June 27, 2015. Hart, R. (2000). DICTION 5.0 The Text Analysis Program. Retrieved July 01, 2016 Hava, D., & Kwok Bun, C. (2011). The Charismatic Enigma: Three Extraordinary Singaporeans. Charismatic Leadership in Singapore 13 25. Retrieved August 17, 2015. Hitler Speeches Complete Text A Selection. (n.d.). Retrie ved June 28, 2015, from http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Hitler Speeches/Hitler Key Speeches Index.htm
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 56 Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (3) 184 200. Retrieved September 2, 2015. Toward a Move based Model. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98 (1) 917 924. Retrieved October 19, 2015. Krebs, R. R., & Jackson, P. T. (2007). Twistin g Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations, 13 (1), 35 66. Retrieve d September 3, 2015. Lepsius, M. R. (2006). The Model of Charismatic Leadership and its Applicability to the Rule of Adolf Hitl er. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 7 (2), 175 190. Retrieved August 17, 2015. Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers. D. Cartwright (ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Mohandas Gandhi (1869 1948) Columbia University. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/weai/exeas/asian revolutions/pdf/gandhi timeline.pdf Robinson, J. L., & Topping, D. (2012). The Rhetoric of Power: A Comparison of Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. Journal of Man agement Inquiry, 22 (2), 194 210. Retrieved August 15, 2015. Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of social change. T he Leadership Quarterly, 19 (1), 54 76. Retrieved August 3, 2015. Shamir, B., Ho use, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4 (4 ), 577 594. Retrieved December 4, 2015.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 57 Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber (Gerth, H.H. & Mills, C.W., Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Pr. Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & Hippel, W. V. (2005). The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Psycholo gy Press.
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 58 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix A1 Appendix A2 Year Date Words Audience 1 1919 January 1, 1919 1,710 Congress and those in attendance 2 1920 September 1, 1920 4,247 Congress 3 1920 November 26, 1920 953 Students at a university 4 1920 December 8, 1920 713 Public 5 1920 March 5, 1920 1,069 Public meeting in Bombay 6 1921 January 23, 1921 464 Public at Mirzapur Park 7 1921 January 27, 1921 3,240 Public 8 1925 April 5, 1925 1,848 London Missionary Society of India 9 1926 March 1, 1926 2,044 Congress and those in attendance 10 1930 March 11, 1930 1,007 Those 10,000 in attendance at evening prayer at Sabarmati sands at Ahmedabad. Year Date Words Audience 1 1920 Feb 15, 1920 10,880 Public at a public meeting in a town hall 2 1921 Apr 12, 1921 4,756 Public in Munich 3 1922 Sep 8, 1922 558 Public 4 1922 Sep 18, 1922 558 Public in Munich 5 1922 July 28, 1922 6,116 Public in Munich 6 1923 April 24, 1923 894 Public in Munich 7 1924 March 27, 1924 2,377 Public in Munich 8 1927 August 21, 1927 3,181 Public in Nuremburg 9 1930 September 16, 1930 794 Public
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 59 Appendix B 1 DICTION 5.0 Constructs Construct Sample words (not all inclusive) Accomplishment: Task completion (establish, influence, and proceed), Organized human behavior (motivated and influence), Modes of expansion (grow, increase, and generate), General functionality (strengthen and succeed), and Programmatic language (agenda and enacted) Agg ression : Physical energy (blast, crash, explode, and collide), Social domination (conquest, attacking, and violation), Goal directedness (commanded and challenging), Personal triumph (mastered, rambunctious, and pushy), Excess human energy (prod, poke, po und, and shove), Disassembly (dismantle, demolish, overturn, and veto), Resistance (prevent, reduce, defend, and curbed) Ambivalence: Hedges (allegedly and perhaps), Inexactness (vague, approximate, and almost) Blame: Social inappropriateness (nave), Evil (fascist and malicious), and Denigrations (cruel and illegitimate) Centrality: Indigenous terms (native and innate) and Legitimacy (orthodox and constitutional) Cognitive: Discovery (deliberate and consider), Ca lculative (analyze and diagnose), Rationalistic (estimate, reasonable, and examine) Collectives: Social groupings (crowd, team, and humanity), Task groups (army, congress, legislature, and staff), Geographical entities (county, world, and republic) Commu nication: Social interaction (listen and speak) and social purposes (respond and rebuke) Concreteness: Accountancy (finances and wages), Sociological units (Catholics and African American), and Political alignments (Communists and Europeans) Cooperation: Formal work relations (unions and caucus), Informal associations (chum, partner, and cronies), Intimate interactions (friendship and comrade), Neutral interactions (consolidate and mediate), Job related tasks (network, dtente, and exchange), Personal inv olvement 1 Source: Hart (2000)
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 60 (teamwork and contribute), and Self denial (public spirited and self sacrifice) Appendix B (Continued) Denial: Negative contractions (should not and are not), Null sets (nothing and nobody), and Negative functions (not, not, and nay) Diversity: Comparatively neutral (inconsistent and nonconformist), Positive (exceptional, unique, and individualistic), Negative (illegitimate, rabble rouser, and extremist), and Liability (factionalism, deviancy, and quirky) Exclusion: Seclusion phrased passively ( displaced and sequestered), Positively (self sufficient), Negatively (outlaws and repudiated), Voluntary forces (secede and privacy), Involuntary forces (ostracize and discriminate), and Personality factors (smallmindedness and loneliness) Hardship: Host ile actions (enemies and vices), censurable behavior (betrayal and despots), unsavory political outcomes (injustice and exploitation), and human fears (grief and apprehension) Inspiration: Moral qualities (faith, honesty, self sacrifice, and virtue), Attractive personal qualities (courage and dedication), and Social and political ideals (patriotism and justice) Leveling: Totalizing terms (everybody, anyone, each, and fully), Adverbs of permanence (always and inevitably), and Resolute adjectives (unco nditional and absolute) Liberation: Individual choice (autonomous and open minded), Rejection of social conventions (radical), Personality factors (eccentric and impetuous), Political forces (liberty, freedom, and emancipation), Dramatic outcomes (exodus and deliverance), and Subdued effects (loosen, disentangle, and outpouring) Motion: Movement (leap and hustle) and Physical Processes (momentum and circulate) Passivity: Compliance (allow, tame, and appeasement), Docility (submit, contented, and sluggis h), Cessation (arrested, capitulate, refrain, and yielding), Inertness (backward, immobile, silence, and inhibit), Disinterest (unconcerned, nonchalant, and stoic), and Tranquility (quietly, sleepy, and vacation) Praise: Terms isolating social qualities ( dear and delightful), Physical qualities (mighty, handsome, and beautiful), Intellectual qualities (shrewd, bright, and vigilant), Entrepreneurial
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 61 qualities (successful and conscientious), and Moral qualities (faithful, good, and noble) Appendix B (Conti nued) Rapport: Affinity (congenial, camaraderie and companion) assent (approve, vouched, and warrants), deference (tolerant, willing, and permission), and identity (equivalent, resemble, and consensus) Satisfaction: Positive affective states (passiona te and happiness) and Moments of triumph (pride and celebrating) Self reference: First person references (I, I have, me, mine, and myself)
THE RHETORIC OF POWER 62 Appendix C 2 Constructs Used in Hypotheses Construct: Description Formula Normal Ranges Optimism Language endorsing some person, group, concept, or event, or highlighting their positive entailments Formula: [Praise + Satisfaction + Inspiration] [Blame + Hardship + Denial] 47.97 53.07 Activity A measure of movement, change, [and] the implementation of ideas and the avoidance of inertia Activity = [Aggres sion + Accomplishment + Communality + Motion] [Cog. + Pass i v ity + Embellishment ] 47.25 52.53 Certainty A measure of language indicating resoluteness, inflexibility, and completeness and a tendency to speak ex cathedra Certainty = [Tenacity + Leveling + Collectives + Insistence] [Numerical Terms + Ambivalence + Self Reference + Variety] 47.68 52.59 Realism A measure of language describing tangible, immediate, recognizable matters that affect Realism = [Familiarity + Spatial Terms + Temporality +Present Condition + Human Interest + Concreteness] [Past Concern + Complexity] 48.42 53.47 Commonality Language highlighting the agreed upon values of a group and rejecting idiosyncratic modes of engagement [Centrality + Cooperation + Rapport] [Diversity + Exclusion + Liberation] 49.91 52.37 2 Source: Hart (2000)