The third dimension includes variations of an interpretive approach that sidelines instrumental concerns to instead focus on analyzing the role of language as a maker of meaning. According to Peregrine Schwartz-Shea and Dvora Yanow, an interpretive approach seeks “to understand what a by learning what it does, how particular people use it, in particular thing ‘is’ Therefore, when examining political language, the aim is explore what it contexts” (2012, 23). means to particular actors in particular contexts and then consider explanations of these attributions of meaning. The fundamental question asked by interpretive scholars is: does it How mean? This approach is best exemplified in the work of Murray Edelman (1977, 1988) and its applications to the study of presidential rhetoric are best represented by David Zarefsky’s (2002, 2004a, 2004b) notion of “presidential definition.” My project aims to demonstrate the explanatory value of this third approach. As seen in the case study above, political language was employed as a strategic instrument—both Obama and Romney sought to define the other by creating strawmen of their respective arguments. Their purpose was to raise questions about their character and beliefs in efforts to mobilize opponent’s their political bases. And yet, while insightful, this instrumental understanding does not and cannot address the question of how these competing narratives made meaning or why the rhetorical response to build remark transformed into a formidable and Obama’s “you didn’t that” lasting political spectacle. By contrast, an interpretive approach reveals (or raises questions about) “potentially assumed, unspoken or taken-for-granted ideas about a range of values, beliefs, and/or feelings,” which tell us a lot about the world of which it is and Yanow 2012, “can part” (Schwartz-Shea 23). Drawing on this approach, we can explore the build episode as a window “you didn’t that” through which we might better view some of the features and dynamics of contemporary
The third dimension includes variations of an interpretive approach that sidelines instrumental concerns to instead focus on analyzing the role of language as a maker of meaning. According to Peregrine Schwartz-Shea and Dvora Yanow, an interpretive approach seeks “to understand what a thing ‘is’ by learning what it does, how particular people use it, in particular contexts” (2012, 23). Therefore, when examining political language, the aim is explore what it means to particular actors in particular contexts and then consider explanations of these attributions of meaning. The fundamental question asked by interpretive scholars is: How does it mean? This approach is best exemplified in the work of Murray Edelman (1977, 1988) and its applications to the study of presidential rhetoric are best represented by David Zarefsky’s (2002, 2004a, 2004b) notion of “presidential definition.” My project aims to demonstrate the explanatory value of this third approach. As seen in the case study above, political language was employed as a strategic instrument—both Obama and Romney sought to define the other by creating strawmen of their respective arguments. Their purpose was to raise questions about their opponent’s character and beliefs in efforts to mobilize their political bases. And yet, while insightful, this instrumental understanding does not and cannot address the question of how these competing narratives made meaning or why the rhetorical response to Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark transformed into a formidable and lasting political spectacle. By contrast, an interpretive approach “potentially reveals (or raises questions about) assumed, unspoken or taken-for-granted ideas about a range of values, beliefs, and/or feelings,” which “can tell us a lot about the world of which it is part” (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow 2012, 23). Drawing on this approach, we can explore the “you didn’t build that” episode as a window through which we might better view some of the features and dynamics of contemporary
holtzman.docx