Imagined relationships: political leadership in contemporary democracies

The image and style of political leaders are important elements of leadership, and of politics generally. They are related to both political culture and institutions, and are framed in ritual and ceremony. In democratic policies, where there is choice rather than coercion, the mediation of leadership/people relations creates imagined relationships between imagined leaders and their equally imagined interlocutors, the people or the electorate (who also, of course, actually exist). These relationships form part of the political process. By identifying, and adapting, classical Aristotelian distinctions in rhetorical studies, we can better understand this element or moment of the process, in particular the creation of an imagined intimacy in contemporary politics between leaders and followers. Political science should draw upon other disciplines and subdisciplines such as political psychology, cultural studies, rhetorical analysis, and social anthropology in order to understand how mediated relationships are inscribed into political institutions and exchange.

Shaping strategic action through the rhetorical construction and exploitation of ambiguity

This paper extends existing understandings of how actors' constructions of ambiguity shape the emergent process of strategic action. We theoretically elaborate the role of rhetoric in exploiting strategic ambiguity, based on analysis of a longitudinal case study of an internationalization strategy within a business school. Our data show that actors use rhetoric to construct three types of strategic ambiguity: protective ambiguity that appeals to common values in order to protect particular interests, invitational ambiguity that appeals to common values in order to invite participation in particular actions, and adaptive ambiguity that enables the temporary adoption of specific values in order to appeal to a particular audience at one point in time. These rhetorical constructions of ambiguity follow a processual pattern that shapes the emergent process of strategic action. Our findings show that (1) the strategic actions that emerge are shaped by the way actors construct and exploit ambiguity, (2) the ambiguity intrinsic to the action is analytically distinct from ambiguity that is constructed and exploited by actors, and (3) ambiguity construction shifts over time to accommodate the emerging pattern of actions.