Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

Free Content Do citizens use storytelling or rational argumentation to lobby politicians?

Download Article:
 Download
(PDF 222.6 kb)
 
What should count as legitimate forms of reasoning in public deliberation is a contested issue. Democratic theorists have argued that storytelling may offer a more accessible form of deliberation for marginalised citizens than ‘rational argumentation’. We investigate the empirical support for this claim by examining Swedish citizens’ use of storytelling in written communication with the political establishment. We test whether stories are used frequently, as well as by whom, and how they are used. We find that storytelling is (1) rare, (2) not more frequent among people with nonmainstream views, and (3) used together with rational argumentation. In line with some previous research, we show that stories still play other important roles: authorising the author, undermining political opponents and, most often, further supporting arguments made in ‘rational’ form. The results suggest that people rely more on rational argumentation than storytelling when expecting interlocutors to be hostile to their views.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: communication; deliberation; everyday politics; immigration; narrative; norms; reasons; storytelling

Affiliations: 1: Uppsala University, Sweden 2: Södertörn University, Sweden

Appeared or available online: September 17, 2019

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
UA-1313315-21
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more