Power Projection in American Congressional Hearings' Questions: A Critical Discourse Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1508.17Keywords:
power dynamics, hard power, soft power, congressional hearings, questioningAbstract
This study explores power dynamics in an American congressional hearing, held in the House of Representatives on June 3rd, 2024. The study develops a typology of power types for the oversight congressional hearings, based mainly on Yukl and Tracy (1992) and Nye (2011). Moreover, it integrates Reisigl and Wodak’s (2017) Discourse Historical Approach to critically examine the power dynamics in the questions. The findings reveal the dominance of hard power in the questions, heavily represented by coercion (pressure and legitimation). Soft power, on the other hand, is employed to address the public opinion without direct confrontation. The critical analysis shows that questioners rely on the discursive strategies, especially perspectivization and argumentation to boost their power and control over the hearing and challenge the witness. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of how discourse can be utilized as a tool of power in congressional hearing. It highlights the strategic use of the questioning process which serves to display power dynamics for political gains.
References
Birkland, T. A. (2016). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. New York, USA: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. New York, USA: Public Affairs.
Partington, A. (2003). The Linguistics of Political Argument: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk: Language and interaction in institutional discourse. London, UK: Routledge.
Bisbee, J., Fraccaroli, N., and Kern, A. (2022). Yellin'at Yellen: Gender bias in the federal reserve congressional hearings. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at SSRN 4030121.
Davis, C. (2009). House Committee Hearings: Witness Testimony. CRS Report. Retrieved December 20, 2024 from https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/98-338.pdf
DeCoux, E. (2008). Does Congress Find Facts or Construct Them-The Ascendance of Politics over Reliability, Perfected in Gonzales v. Carhart. Cleveland State Law Review, 56(1), 326-336.
Fischer, J., Fischer, P., Englich, B., Aydin, N., and Frey, D. (2011). Empower my decisions: The effects of power gestures on confirmatory information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1146–1154.
Hay, C. (1997). State of the art: Divided by a common language: Political theory and the concept of power. Politics, 17(1), 45–52.
Levin, C., and Bean, E. J. (2018). Defining Congressional Oversight and Measuring Its Effectiveness. Wayne Law Review, 64, 1-22.
Martin, S., and Whitaker, R. (2019). Beyond committees: Parliamentary oversight of coalition government in Britain. West European Politics, 42(7), 1464–1486.
MCCUBBINS, Mathew D. and Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 168. Retrieved December 29, 2024, from http://www.jstor.com/stable/2110792.
Mubarak, A. S. J., & Rhaif, K. K. (2021). Politeness strategies in motivational storytelling by American commencement speakers. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 22-39.
Parker, D. C., and Dull, M. (2013). Rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse: The politics of House committee investigations, 1947 to 2004. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 630–644. DOI: 10.1177/1065912912459566.
See, K. E., Morrison, E. W., Rothman, N. B., and Soll, J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272–285.
Yukl, G., & Tracy, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.
