‘Which side are you on – Mr. Westerberg?’ Reason, affect, and division in public debate

Abstract

This article studies affect and reason in practices of persuasion through a rhetorical-performative framework. Focusing on the Swedish economic crisis 1988–1993, this piece argues that the successful rise and installation of neoliberal discourse at the elite policy-making level – particularly regarding privatization – can be explained by the prominent role passion played in the presentation of its case outside mainstream media channels. In describing and explaining this shift in discourse away from a previously hegemonic social-democratic regime, the author draws on post-foundational discourse theory and rhetorical political analysis, as well as corpora from a range of fora during this period. Affect and reason are operationalized as the rhetorical concepts pathos and logos. The analysis reveals how they operate in entangled ways as combinations and constellations of etho-pathetic and logo-pathetic argumentation. A significant conclusion is that the eschewing of passion by conventional, mainstream media and hegemonic actors, made it possible for advocates of neoliberal policies to establish inroads into the Swedish political and economic establishment. The article contributes by anchoring the rhetorical-performative theory in empirical research to produce new insights into the role of affect and reason in discursive change and continuity.