Gender-based manipulations in political rhetoric (based on the English-language material)
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2025-3-67-75
Abstract
Despite the concept of non-binary gender actively promoted in Western society today and a pronounced trend towards degenderization of communication gender stereotypes continue to be actively used in English-language political rhetoric as a means of influencing the audience to form a certain opinion about the subject of the message. The article studies the manipulative use of gender stereotypes and perceptions in social and political rhetoric and public speeches of politicians of both sexes on the material of online publications of English-language media. It describes the manipulation of gender meanings for the purpose of agitation/discreditation, analyzes the role of gender archetypes in creating a political image, and considers the use of “preferred pronouns” as a means of political positioning Among the relatively new trends identified in the analysis are the manipulative use of anti-feminist rhetoric by women politicians and conceptual (ideological) diffusion – inclusive paraphrasing as a way of promoting “traditional” gender values. The methods used in this pilot study include semantic interpretation and multimodal discourse analysis.
About the Author
E. S. Gritsenko
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena S. Gritsenko - Dr. of Sci. (Philology), professor, MGIMO University.
76, Vernadsky Av., Moscow, 119454
References
1. Berkeley, I.S.N. (2019), “The curious case of connectionism”, Open Philosophy, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 190–205.
2. Brun-Mercer, N. (2021), “Women and men in the United Nations: A corpus analysis of General Debate addresses”, Discourse & Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 443–462.
3. Cameron, D. (2000), “Styling the worker: Gender and the commodification of language in the globalized service economy”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 323–347.
4. van Dijk, T. (2006), “Discourse and manipulation”, Discourse & Society, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 359–383.
5. Fairclough, N. (1989), Language and power, Longman, London, UK, New York, USA.
6. Golubeva, T.M. (2008), “Gender and discreditation strategies in electoral discourse”, Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo, no. 5, pp. 255–258.
7. Gritsenko E.S. (2009), “Women and womanhood in the US electoral discourse”, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 19. Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya, no. 3, pp. 112–123.
8. Gritsenko, E.S and Galochkin, A.E (2023), “Semantic dimensions of populism in English (dictionary and corpus data analysis)”, Voprosy leksikografii, no. 27, pp. 29–46.
9. Konovalova, S.A (2005), Gendernaya spetsifika vyrazheniya predikativnykh otnoshenii v tekste russkoi narodnoi volshebnoi skazki [Gender specifics in the predicative relations of Russian folk fairy tales], Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation (Philology), Moscow, Russia.
10. Pettersson, K., Payotte, S. and Sakki, I. (2023), “Harsh punisher or loving mother? A critical discursive psychological analysis of Marine Le Pen’s presidential Twitter campaign”, Ethnicities, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 905–930.
11. Sclafani, J. (2018), Talking Donald Trump: A sociolinguistic study of style, metadiscourse, and political identity, Routledge, New York, USA.
12. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995), Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Mass., UK.
13. Wodak, R., ed. (1989), Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Review
For citations:
Gritsenko E.S. Gender-based manipulations in political rhetoric (based on the English-language material). RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2025;(3):67-75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2025-3-67-75
Views:
21
Email this article 