Tiivistelmä ) Refe~at ) Abstract This is an analysis of international rhetoric against war rapes. By this rhetoric is meant the academic studiesand other reports and documents through which concepts and theories of war rapes and strategies of prevention are being produced. In this study, the focus is on central concepts, ideas and arguments and their assumptions on women and their position in the prevention of war rapes. The central assumptions of the rhetoric against war rapes are critically reviewed in the light of Inger Skjelsæk's three theoretical approaches to women and war rapes, as well as feminist epistemologies formulated and utilised by other international politics scholars. The purpose of this study is to answer to the question whether there is an additional or alternative and, crucially, a non-essentialist approach to women and war rape prevention in the rhetoric against war rapes. The tool of the analysis is Perelman's approach to the study of rhetoric. The material of analysis, which represents the rhetoric against war rapes, consists of a number of academic analyses, studies and other material produced within the international organisations, as well as a few international resolutions. The analysis shows that many values, concepts and arguments can still be seen promoting stereotypical and essentialist assumptions on women's role in war rapes and war rape prevention; women are seen as passive victims who are dependent on male protection, and are associated with peace and non-violence as agents. In the light of two critical approaches, women are seen as capable of and, partly, responsible for the prevention of rapes through individual or collective self-defence techniques. This view can be seen as alternative non-essentialist and alternative essentialist approach.

This study examines the leader’s speeches given by Prime Minister Theresa May during the years 2016–2018 after the result of the Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016. The study aims to answer questions concerning what kinds of speech acts, pronouns, and rhetorical devices May uses to refer to Brexit, what are the intended meanings conveyed in her utterances related to Brexit, and how the rhetoric concerning Brexit has changed over time. All utterances in the speeches that have their meaning related to Brexit were selected for the analysis. The identification of speech acts is based on Searle’s (1979) taxonomy for types of illocutionary acts. The most common speech act used by May in relation to Brexit is an indirect commissive. In the 2016 speech, all but one of the commissives are made indirectly. The speech in 2017 focuses on making direct assertive statements instead, whereas the 2018 speech contains both direct assertives and indirect commissives more equally. May’s use of pronouns and rhetorical devices varies between the three speeches. While all speeches contain the devices of lexical choice and repetition, these are not used similarly and to the same extent in all of them. Only the speech in 2016 makes use of the device of metaphor. Repetition is often linked to the use of pronouns across the speeches. Comparison of the findings reveals that the rhetoric concerning Brexit has changed over the years. May’s role as the Prime Minister heavily influenced her choices of rhetoric. In the speeches in 2016 and 2018, May employed indirect speech acts as a strategy in making promises, and she used the rhetorical device of repetition in both speeches to provide emphasis in semantically connected groups of utterances. Throughout both speeches, May remained dedicated to realizing Brexit and her stance did not change. Her use of the personal pronoun we is linked to her stance, and she used the pronoun as means of persuasion to inclusively refer to the Conservative Party, her government and the British people. However, May’s strategy for persuasion changed over the years. She connected Brexit with patriotic ideas in the speech in 2016, but she no longer used similar rhetoric in the two later speeches. The 2017 speech contains few references to Brexit and May appears to have been avoiding discussion on the topic. Brexit is again a central topic in the speech in 2018, and May’s focus was on convincing the audience on her approach to Brexit and the importance of securing a favourable deal before Britain leaves the European Union. The results of the study provide insight into the ways Theresa May used rhetoric in her role as the leader of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister of Britain to shape the discussion concerning Brexit during her time in office.

This research forms a discursive analysis of almost two decades of key statements delivered by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, secretary-general of the Lebanese nationalist militia and political party, Hezbollah. The statements, sourced primarily from a translated compilation edited by Nicholas Noe and published by Verso (2007), reflect the continually evolving populist strategies of a party which has, against many odds, gained a large and impressively cross-sectarian support base in Lebanon and the surrounding region. The aim of the study is two-pronged. It hopes to offer an insightful analysis into the pragmatic politicking of a democratically elected, yet demonstrably lethally armed political party which is possessed of the potential to greatly influence peace and conflict in the region. It also seeks to promote an alternative theoretical perspective to research which continually seeks to locate similar such case studies on an ideologically loaded matrix of'terrorism vs. freedom fighter'. The theory outlined in Ernesto Laclau's 'On Populist Reason' (2005) functions as the framework for analysis. This non-pathological theory of populism provides an excellent lens through which to more objectively examine the way in which popular support is mobilized by what may be essentially democratic, yet highly controversial political movements. After analyzing constructions of 'the enemy', 'the people' and the role of the signifier of resistance over three separate chronological time periods, the research concludes that the politicking of Hezbollah has witnessed a significant discursive shift away from the rhetoric of extremism and towards that of political moderation. This analysis is noteworthy at a time when dominant western political discourses proclaim the dangers of openly 'fundamentalist' or extremist discourses as a threat to the ideals of global liberal democracy. It is concluded that political research should not underestimate the intelligence and pragmatism of groups who build, mobilize and maintain their support as powerful, armed and potentially dangerous non-state actors. A theoretical approach which allows for the insightful analysis of discursive phenomena, within the context of important socio-political factors, retains more likelihood of offering genuine insight into the popular political as it relates to a volatile regional and potentially global context.

This study focuses on the role of Internet memes in the communication of two far-right groups in Finland. The material consists of 426 memes posted by Finland First and the Soldiers of Odin between the years 2015 and 2017 on Facebook. Multimodal discourse analysis was applied to understand the contents, forms, and rhetorical functions communicated via the Internet memes. The analysis shows that the contents of the memes revolve around six themes: history, humor, mythology, symbols, news and mottos. By using Internet memes, the groups aim to construe a heroic imagined past, to lend legitimacy to the nationalist cause, to arouse moral anger and hate toward refugees, and to encourage the movements' followers to fight. We argue that, for the extreme groups, Internet memes are tools to crystallize their arguments in an easily shareable and concise form, which makes the memes useful tools in persuasion and mobilization, as well as attracting new audiences.

rhetoric, deliberation, persuasion, new public management, higher education

Critical organization scholars have focused increasing attention on industrial and organizational restructurings such as shutdown decisions. However, we know little about the rhetorical strategies used to legitimate or resist plant closures in organizational negotiations. In this paper, we draw from New Rhetoric to analyze rhetorical struggles, strategies and dynamics in unfolding organizational negotiations. We focus on the shutdown of the bus body unit of the Swedish company Volvo in Finland. We distinguish five types of rhetorical legitimation strategies and dynamics. These include the three classical dynamics of logos (rational arguments), pathos (emotional moral arguments), and ethos (authority-based arguments), but also autopoiesis (autopoietic narratives), and cosmos (cosmological constructions). Our analysis adds to the previous studies explaining how organizational restructuring as a phenomenon is legitimated, how this legitimation has changed over time, and how contemporary industrial closures are legitimated in the media. This study also increases our theoretical understanding of the role of rhetoric in legitimation more generally.

Despite the central role of the media in contemporary society, studies examining the rhetorical practices of journalists are rare in organization and management research. We know little of the textual micro strategies and techniques through which journalists convey specific messages to their readers. Partially to fill the gap, this paper outlines a methodological framework that combines three perspectives of text analysis and interpretation: critical discourse analysis, systemic functional grammar and rhetorical structure theory. Using this framework, we engage in a close reading of a single media text (a press article) on a recent case of industrial restructuring in the financial services. In our empirical analysis, we focus on key arguments put forward by the journalists’ rhetorical constructions. We maintain that these arguments—which are not frame-breaking but rather tend to confirm existing presuppositions held by the audience—are an essential part of the legitimization and naturalization of specific management ideas and ideologies.

Every four years, the U.S. presidential elections and the political campaigns are intensely followed by the media both nationally and globally. The primary elections precede the general election and are to determine who the presidential nominee of each party will be. To aid in the selection of the nominee, multiple debates are held for the candidates. This election cycle was perhaps a bit more intriguing than usual, as one of the Republican primary candidates came from outside established politics. This person was businessman Donald Trump, who challenged the political status quo with his often-provocative comments. It became evident that his unconventional style appealed to many: Trump seized the office in January of 2017. Many of the comments the Republican candidates made about immigration gained plenty of media attention. In this thesis, the focus is on the Republican candidates’ immigration-related rhetoric throughout the primary season. The goal to distinguish the discourses immigration is linked with in the debates and examine the rhetorical methods employed by the candidates as they attempt to convince and persuade their audiences on the topic of immigration. The data used in this thesis consists of twelve Republican debates arranged during the primary season. The rhetoric is examined through various rhetorical devices as well as Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion—ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos attempts to make the speaker appear trustworthy and respectable to the audience: pathos is used to appeal to the audiences’ emotions; and logos is used to appeal to the audience’s senses and intellect. The analysis method applied in this thesis is rhetorical discourse analysis. The immigration-based history of the United States, its social, racial, and ethnic composition as well as its ever-changing demographics lay a very interesting backdrop to the entire topic. The U.S. is a country built by immigrants, yet its relationship with immigration has always been difficult. Many newcomers have traditionally been disliked or even feared, be it because of their exotic appearance, their religion, or their unfamiliar language. American nativists have throughout history attempted to keep America white and Christian and rejected those who do not easily fall into these categories. Originally even Catholics were shunned. Whiteness and Christianity are two features that have long prevailed as the most depictive characteristics of the United States, even if the white population is on the decline and soon no racial group will alone form racial majority. The twelve primary debates are analyzed through rhetorical discourse analysis. The goal is to distinguish the central discourses and the rhetoric that the candidates apply when discussing immigration. A total of five discourses were discovered. These are named the problem discourse, the legality discourse, the security discourse, the economic discourse and Americanness as a discourse. The problem discourse as well as Americanness as a discourse can be found within all of the other discourses. Within the problem discourse, immigration is generally depicted as a problem; immigration is portrayed as an issue pertaining to law within the legality discourse: the security discourse is founded on the idea of immigration as a security matter; within the economic discourse, immigration appears an economic problem; and lastly, Americanness as a discourse builds around the age-old discussion on who is American. The economy discourse appears the most dominant, but the security discourse is found to be intensified by candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The candidates’ rhetoric most often aims to increase their popularity in the race and the audience’s support. This is understandable as the crux of a presidential primary is to select one candidate as the party nominee for the general election. As could be then expected, of Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion—ethos, pathos, and logos—ethos is most commonly used.