The current US presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is an important milestone for women in politics, and, as such, is a visible arena for how such specific instances play out and contribute to the historical exclusion of women. An examination of an excerpt of their final debate informed by Fairclough (2014) shows how Trump’s use of language toward Clinton works to establish precedents that further marginalize women from the political sphere.
by Hayden Kesterson According to figures from the Center for American Women in Politics, women make up only 19.4% of the current US Congress and only four women ever have been Supreme Court justices, including the three currently presiding (“Current Numbers,” 2016). Considering that an estimated 50.8% of the United States’ population is women (“Quick Facts,” (n.d.)), these are startling statistics. The exclusion of women from public office does not only play out on grand, statistically measurable scales, however. It can be traced to specific instances of sexism enacted along different levels of interaction in public settings.
The current US presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is an important milestone for women in politics, and, as such, is a visible arena for how such specific instances play out and contribute to the historical exclusion of women. An examination of an excerpt of their final debate informed by Fairclough (2014) shows how Trump’s use of language toward Clinton works to establish precedents that further marginalize women from the political sphere.
3 Comments
by Jessica Lewis In this particular segment of conversation during the third presidential debate Donald Trump was asked by the moderator, Chris Wallace, why a number of women would came forward with accusations of being assaulted. Trump proceeds to answer the question by claiming the women were hired by President Obama and Secretary Clinton to sabotage his rallies and cause violence. He also emphasizes violence that occurred at the rally was significant enough for people to have been seriously hurt or killed. During Secretary Clinton’s turn to respond to this question she begins her statement by proclaiming that previously Trump had stated the women who came forward with accusations were not attractive enough for Trump to be interested in them. As Clinton is continuing to respond she is interrupted by Trump multiple times. There is a time when both candidates are speaking when Clinton is answering the question and Trump is interjecting with his disapproval of Clinton’s statements. by Anonymous Student The Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has used anti-immigrant rhetoric throughout his campaign, and at the third presidential debate, he was asked to defend his stance on immigration. He sparked controversy by concluding his response (transcribed above) with the phrase “bad hombres.” By using this phrase, Trump mocked the value the Democratic party places on diversity and manipulated the interactional regime of the debate to play to his own strengths.
by Michael Broughton Every four years for the past half century, Americans have watched presidential candidates spar for political glory in televised presidential debates. Because of this history, viewers expect each debate to operate within a set of established conventions. The actors involved in presenting the debates -- the candidates, the moderator, the audience -- are expected to behave linguistically in ways consistent with Fairclough’s (1989) socially constructed “orders of discourse.” These are composed of conventions regarding verbal behaviors like turn-taking and word choice, as well as nonverbal elements like eye contact and gestures. Nonverbal Cues and the Monopolization of Screen Time in the Third Presidential Debate of 201611/2/2016 by Ryan Sheehan “It's how you looked when you said it, not what you actually said.” (Pease 2006). This long held sentiment is one particularly important to keep in mind while watching the third presidential debate of 2016. The debate, featuring presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, in addition to moderator Chris Wallace, is about 90 minutes overall and includes the 30-second long segment that is transcribed above. Through an analysis of this brief interaction in particular, it is possible to understand the role of nonverbal elements in the candidates’ discourse and to conclude that Clinton and Trump are involved in a power struggle in which they are both attempting to monopolize screen time through the use of their body language. Before doing that, however, one must better understand the context of the debate as a whole. In general, the accepted standards for a presidential debate include formal language, respectful disagreements when necessary, and allotted time slots for both candidates to have an equal opportunity to speak. Although there is a live audience, they are expected to remain quiet throughout. During the debate, Trump and Clinton are to stand on a stage in front of the live audience at their respective podiums facing Wallace, and Wallace is to sit at a table that is exactly halfway between both candidates in order to express the inherent neutrality of his position. |
Main AuthorJamie A. Thomas is a linguistic anthropologist and digital media producer. Her forthcoming book Zombies Speak Swahili is all about the undead, videogames, and viral Black language. She teaches at Santa Monica College and CSU Dominguez Hills. Archives
January 2022
Categories
All
|