Strategic Ambiguity in Australian Political Debate

Canberra.
The final speaker at ANZCA 2010 for this session is Myra Gurney, whose interest is also in Australian political debate; she notes the increasing intensity of judgment of politicians' public utterances and the fast dissemination of any soundbite. Speaking plainly, spontaneously, and unambiguously has become a risk for professional politicians, and is increasingly kept in check by their media minders.

Kevin Rudd has been pilloried for his sometimes overly verbose and prolix expression - and this hints at the perceived need for a vigorous control of political statements, as well as at the perception that politicians cannot be trusted and speak with forked tongues. This is not confined to Australia, nor to politics, but certainly highly noticeable here, too. Democracy is drowning in distrust, as John Faulkner has said. The politics of ideology and philosophy have been replaced by the politics of pragmatism and personality.

So what is the relationship betyween style, substance, the impact of modern poltical strategy, and the language used to craft it? How is language related to social practice and the establishment of dominant ideologies? Myra points to the idea of 'strategic ambiguity': a purposeful use of ambiguity to accomplish one's goals, achieve a 'unified diversity', and perhaps also to facilitate deniability. Communication competence is not measured only by a clarity of communication, in such contexts, but also by the ability to obscure and remain inconcrete. This deliberate vagueness is also a means of averting risk, allowing politicians the space to change their positions without being held to their previous statements.

This weakens the boundaries of the orders of discourse: weaselword discourse evokes a quasi-scientific, measured rationality, but may actually act to allow for multiple strategic interpretations - as evident at times in the 'rhetorical realignment' of policies (as Crikey's Bernard Keane has described it) by rebadging them with more publicly acceptable labels.

All of this is closely linked with the mediatisation of politics as well as the changing nature of political parties, of course; it is something of a defence mechanism especially in media interviews, which are now unequal communicative encounters. Politicians are no longer given any room for equivocation, and as a result escape into gibberish.

Technorati : ANZCA 2010, Australia, Kevin Rudd, journalism, media, politics, strategic ambiguity
Del.icio.us : ANZCA 2010, Australia, Kevin Rudd, journalism, media, politics, strategic ambiguity