Dear readers,

My thesis in this essay is that I would like to add an extension to

Charlands theory of constitutive rhetoric, which states that
constitutive rhetoric is constructed through the narrative of the
constituted subject. My extension is that using Bushs speech, in the
case where the constitutive rhetoric is enhanced instead of created,
the narrative can be centered by a concept related to the constituted
subject. I try to develop this point by first proving that Bush is actually
using constitutive rhetoric in his speech. Then I proceed to prove how
Bushs narrative is different from what Charland theorizes. This is a
much different thesis than my original one. In my first draft, my thesis
is that I try to prove with Bushs speech that in Lakoffs theory of
framing, politicians do not need to use Orwellian language because
sometimes doing the exact opposite being very clear about ones
principle model and firmly supporting it can have the same effects on
persuading the audience.
What Im happiest about my revision is that I have a clearer thesis that
is not contradictory with my body paragraph. The most challenging
thing is to come up with a thesis. To do that, I try to reread all the
theories and find ones that I can add some extensions to using Bushs
speech.
In further revision, I would continue to work on trying to articulate my
ideas so that the difference between how Charlands narrative of
constituted subject and Bushs narrative of the concept of freedom of
the constituted subject of civilization are different.
I think my orientation is good in this essay as I define Charlands
theory of constitutive rhetoric and introduce Bushs speech clearly so
that a reader not familiar with the text will be able to understand my
essay.
I think I will need to work on my structure more. I try to arrange the
structure so that the paragraphs build on each other and the latter
support the first to avoid the 5 paragraph essay structure, but . I think
the order of my paragraph might also be confusing.

Nguyen 0

Linhchi Nguyen
Brendan Wright
WRI 134
11/8/2014
Charlands constitutive rhetoric: the case of a different type of
narrative
Are people prone to committing actions through a series of
identity manipulation by politicians? Yes at least to Maurice Charland.
In his paper Constitutive rhetoric: the case of the Peuple Qubcois,
Charland defines the concept of constitutive rhetoric and describes the
process in which it is created to manipulate people into actions.
Constitutive rhetoric is a widely recognized concept; however, there
can be several different ways in which the rhetoric is created. In this
essay, Id like to offer a critique on Charlands theory on the process of
creating a constitutive rhetoric.
Charland defines that constitutive rhetoric is creating or
enhancing an identity for the audience to prompt them to take
economic, social, or political actions by using a narrative history that
tells the story of that identity (Charland 139). In order for constitutive
rhetoric to work, the narrative needs to conceive a subject, tells the
story of that subject, and persuades the audience that they belong to
the subject (Charland 140). The narrative therefore prompts the
audience to take actions by having an incomplete closure, leaving the
task of narrative closure to their constituted subjects (Charland 143).

Nguyen 1

While I agree with Charlands theory of the creating process for

constitutive rhetoric, it is still lacking in including all the means in
which narratives can be used to achieve constitutive rhetoric. As an
example, in his Address of Joint Session of Congress given nine days
after 9/11, George W. Bush enhances the constitutive rhetoric of
civilization, which includes America and all countries that are against
the terrorists. However, unlike what is expected from Charlands
theory, to constitute the audience into believing that they are a part of
civilization, Bush does not use a narrative of civilization, instead, he
uses the concept of freedom and its narrative. Therefore, I propose
that Charlands theory needs an extension, which displays that
constitutive rhetoric can be conceived not only through a narrative of
constituted subjects, but also through a narrative of an associated
concept.
In Charlands theory of rhetoric, he uses the independence
movement in Quebec, Canadas French-speaking province, in which
supporters of Quebecs political sovereignty addressed and so
attempted to call into being a peuple Qubcois that would legitimate
the constitution of a sovereign Quebec state, as an example for
constitutive rhetoric (Charland 134). There, he argues that the
movement created an instance of constitutive rhetoric by creating the
term Qubcois to identify the French-speaking population of Quebec.

Nguyen 2

According to Charland, to create the constitutive rhetoric of Qubcois,

the movement relied on a historical narrative of the French settlers of
North America in the eighteenth century and link them as ancestors of
people in Quebec today, making the argument that todays Quebec
residents constitute a peuple and have a right to their own state
because members of their community have discovered, claimed, and
occupied the land (Charland 140). With the historical narrative, the
term Qubcois gains legitimacy, convincing the audience that the
identity actually exists. Thus, in Charlands argument, constitutive
rhetoric is achieved through the narrative of the identity it is trying to
create or enhance.
Applying constitutive rhetoric, Bush enhances the identity of
civilization, which includes America and countries that are against
the terrorists: The civilized world is rallying to Americas side (Bush
4). Unlike Qubcois, the concept of civilization has already existed,
therefore, Bush just enhances the identity by defining civilization as
those who do stand with America instead of the terrorists: Either you
are with us, or you are with the terrorists (Bush 3). First, he groups
America and the civilized world into one group of civilization, then
defines civilization as those who do not stand with the terrorists.
Since the audience Bush is giving the speech to most likely does not
consist of terrorists, he is essentially addressing them and including

Nguyen 3

them as a part of civilization. What Bush is doing here is

interpellation, which, according to Charland, is inscribing subjects into
ideology and also the first step for constitutive rhetoric (Charland
138). Bush gives the audience the identity of civilization not for the
sake of assigning a new identity; he does it with a motive. He wants to
unite the audience into a collective group with a common goal: This is
the worlds fight. This is civilizations fight. This is the fight for all who
believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom (Bush 4).
With the enhanced identity of a collective civilization, the audience is
now being persuaded to support the war as according to Bush, it is the
right thing to do as part of their identity of civilization. As Charland
states, in constitutive rhetoric, first, the audience members must be
successfully interpellated [] Second, the tautological logic of
constitutive rhetoric must necessitate action in the material world
(Charland 141), it can be seen that those are the exact two steps Bush
is taking in his speech. He interpellates the audience into the concept
of civilization, then poses the necessity of going to war for the sake of
the civilization, proving that what Bush does in his speech is, true to
definition, an act of using constitutive rhetoric.
Even though Bush uses constitutive rhetoric by Charlands
definition, the way he creates constitutive rhetoric is different from
what is stated in Charlands theory as Bushs method is not based on

Nguyen 4

narrative of the constituted subject. Bush constructs his narrative for

constitutive rhetoric around the concept of freedom instead of around
its constituted subject, civilization. As the beginning of his speech, he
states: Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to
defend freedom (Bush 1). Not New York, not America, not civilization,
Bush states that what needs to be defended is freedom. In doing so, he
calls to the audiences mind the notion of freedom so that in later
points, he can make an association between freedom and the
constituted subject civilization. Later in the speech, Bush states that
Americans now live in a world where freedom itself is under attack
(Bush 2) and that what is at stake is not just Americas [] This is
civilizations fight (Bush 4). His association of freedom and civilization
gives meaning and value to the constituted subject civilization,
therefore defining the purpose of the existence of a civilization.
However, to make that purpose clear, Bush needs to justify the
importance of freedom.
After establishing the notion of freedom and associating it with
the constituted subject civilization, Bush provides the narrative of
freedom. In this technique, what Bush uses is not telling the story of
how freedom comes to be, but how the enemies of freedom have tried
to destroy it throughout history. Starting with the present, Bush calls
the terrorists enemies of freedom: On September the 11th, enemies of

Nguyen 5

freedom committed an act against our country (Bush 1). He then goes
back to history and gives the narrative of how the enemies of freedom
have acted against the interest of people in the past: We have seen
their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of
the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions
by abandoning every value except the will to power they follow in
the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow
that path all the way, to where it ends: in historys unmarked grave of
discarded lies (Bush 3). In telling the narrative of freedom constructed
by its enemies, Bush shows the importance of protecting freedom. As
interpreted from his speech, the enemies have always been trying to
actively destroy freedom by sacrificing human life and abandoning all
values. To protect life, and essentially to protect civilization, it is
necessary to defend freedom from those enemies. Therefore, by
proving that freedom has always been and is once again at stake They [the terrorists] hate our freedoms our freedom of religion, our
freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree
with each other (Bush 3) - Bush justifies the need for defending
freedom, prompting the audience into agreeing with him that going to
war is necessary.
How exactly, then, do Charlands and Bushs narratives differ?
According to Charland, narrative of the constituted subject for

Nguyen 6

constitutive rhetoric has three ideological effects: constituting a

collective subject, positing the subject into a history narrative, and
using the illusion of freedom in the narrative to force the subjects to
take action (Charland 140-143). In Bushs speech, his narrative can be
analyzed to also include ideological effects: constituting a subject,
introducing a concept that defines the value of the constituted subject
into a narrative constructed by the enemies, and forcing the subject to
take action to preserve its value. The difference is therefore mainly the
center of the narrative and the way in which the narratives are
constructed to influence the actions of constituted subjects.
Charland mentions that constitutive rhetoric not only create, but
also enhance identity of the subjects (Charland 147). What he does not
account for is how the process of enhancing identity of the subjects
might be different from creating it. In Charlands case of Qubcois,
the independence movement needed to rely on the narrative of the
constituted subject because the term Qubcois hadnt existed until
the moment the movement called it into existence. Thus, the
independence movement had to give legitimacy to the term, leading to
the narrative of Qubcois to justify its existence. On the other hand,
instead of using the narrative of civilization, Bush uses the narrative of
a concept that is important to the subject to constitute that subject
freedom because the concept of civilization has already existed; Bush

Nguyen 7

only needs to enhance the concept and redefine it in a way that

includes the audience so that they can identify with that identity. Since
the concept of civilization has already existed, Bush does not need to
justify its existence, but he needs to make his point by proving why the
audience should identify with the identity. Therefore, by telling the
narrative of freedom, Bush essentially proves that the value of
civilization lies in freedom, and protecting it is necessary in
maintaining the identity of civilization.
Thus, Bushs speech provides an extension to Charlands theory
in a way that constitutive rhetoric is not only be achieved through
narrative of the subject, but also through the narrative of a concept
that holds the value for the subject. This extension further proves that
political identities can be easily changed through different types of
narratives. The prospect of having ones identity changed so easily
merely through rhetoric is frightening, but as Charland says, constitive
rhetoric has always been there since the day we were born (charland
147), and accepting it will only help us identify the moments of
manipulation.

Nguyen 8

ThispaperrepresentsmyownworkinaccordancewithUniversityregulations.
LinhchiNguyen
Acknowledgment:IdliketothankmyfriendsAriaandJustinforproofreadingthefinal
versionoftheessay,professorWrightforgivingmedirectionofwheretogoformy
thesis,andwritingcenterfellowforhelpingmebrainstormideas.
Works Cited
Bush, George W. "Address to Joint Session of Congress." 20 Sept. 2001.
Blackboard. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
<https://blackboard.princeton.edu/webapps/portal/ frameset.jsp?
tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute
%2Flaunch er%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_227300_1&frame=top>.
Charland, Maurice. "Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple
Qubcois." The Quarterly Journal of Speech 73.2 (1987): 133-50.
Blackboard. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
<https://blackboard.princeton.edu/webapps/portal/ frameset.jsp?
tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute
%2Flaunch er%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_227300_1&frame=top>.

Nguyen 9