Examples of Analysing Debates as Politics

Part of the Rhetoric, Politics and Society book series (RPS)


This chapter presents eight concrete but different examples of research into the presence of politics or the political in texts and debates. They illustrate that politics can be examined in the various forms it takes and using a variety of approaches. First, politics is related to different actors, strategies, issues and media, all of which can be researched. Second, the researcher can develop different research questions and interests, and choose different material types. And third, the interpretative tools and strategies used will differ from study to study, and from researcher to researcher. The examples highlight how the interpretative analytical tools can be used with regard to different cases and forms of the political and different types of material, along with the scholar’s own political literacy.


European Union Prime Minister European Union Member State European Parliament Constitutional Reform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Archival Sources

  1. Cambridge Union Society Laws.1827–1870. Laws of the Union Society. Cambridge: Cambridge Union Society.Google Scholar
  2. Cambridge Union Society Minute Books. 1823–1874. Minute Book [vols. 1–14]. Cambridge: Cambridge Union Society.Google Scholar
  3. Oxford Union Society Minute Books. 1831–1869. Minute Book [vols. I-X]. Oxford: Oxford Union Society.Google Scholar
  4. Oxford Union Society Rules.1837–1867. Rules and Regulations. Oxford: Oxford Union Society.Google Scholar

Databases, Websites and Treaties

  1. Deutscher Bundestag. 2010. Plenarprotokoll 16/157. Accessed 1 Apr 2010.
  2. European Commission. 1997. Bericht der hochrangigen Arbeitsgruppe zu Fragen der Freizügigkeit unter dem Vorsitz von Frau Simone Veil. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.
  3. ———. 1999. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Certain Community Measures to Combat Discrimination. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.
  4. ———. 2001. Third Report from the Commission on Citizenship of the Union, COM (2001) 506 Final. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.
  5. European Council. 1957. The Treaty of Rome. Accessed 11 Feb 2013.
  6. ———. 2000a. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 Implementing the Principle of Equal Treatment Between Persons Irrespective of Racial or Ethnic Origin. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  7. ———. 2000b. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.
  8. European Court of Justice. 1976. JUDGMENT OF 8. 4. 1976—CASE 43/75. Accessed 9 Oct 2015.
  9. European Parliament Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 8th Parliamentary Term. Accessed 15 July 2014.
  10. European Union. 2001. Der Vertrag von Amsterdam: Gebrauchsanweisung Unionsbürgerschaft. http// Accessed 25 Aug 2005.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2004. DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.
  12. ———. 2010. Consolidated Treaties. Charter of Fundamental Rights. Accessed 5 Feb 2013.
  13. Hansard Debates. Accessed 15 May 2016.
  14. House of Commons, Parliamentary Papers (ProQuest), Subscription University of Jyväskylä Library. Accessed 09.05.2016.
  15. Report from the Select Committee on the House of Commons (Procedure), together with the proceedings of the committee, minutes of evidence and appendices 1914-070470-p1to345.pdf. House of Commons, Parliamentary Papers (ProQuest), Subscription University of Jyväskylä Library, https://jy, Accessed 09.05.2016.


  1. Bagehot, Walter. 1867 [2001]. The English Constitution. Edited by Paul Smith. Series: Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, Jeremy. 1843. An Essay on Political Tactics. In Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 2. Edinburgh: William Tait.
  3. ———. 1999. Political Tactics. Edited by Michael James/Cyprian Blamires and/Catherine Pease-Watkin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burman, Lars. 2012. Eloquent students: rhetorical practices at the Uppsala student nations 1663–2010. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  5. Campion, G.F.M. 1929. An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons. London: Allen & Co..Google Scholar
  6. Campion, Gilbert. 1953. Parliamentary Procedure: Old and New. In Parliament. A Survey, ed. C. Campion, L.S. Amery, and D. Brogan, 141–167. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1958. An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Clinchamps, Nicolas. 2006. Parlement Européen et droit parlementaire. Essai sur la naissance du droit parlementaire de l’Union Européenne. Paris: L.G.D.J.Google Scholar
  9. Crewe, Emma. 2015. The House of Commons. An Anthropology of the MPs at Work. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  10. Fawcett, Trevor. 1980. 18th-Century Debating Societies. Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 3(3): 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferguson, Priscilla Pankhurst. 1988. Reading City Streets. The French Review 61: 386–397.Google Scholar
  12. Flynn, Paul. 2012. How to be an MP. London: Biteback.Google Scholar
  13. Foer, Franklin. 2004. How Football Explains the World. London: Arrow Books.Google Scholar
  14. Gallie, W.B. 1973. An Ambiguity in the Idea of Politics and its Practical Implications. Political Studies 21: 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffith, J.A.G., and Michael Ryle. 2003. Parliament. Functions, Practices and Procedures. 2nd edition by Robert Blackburn and Andrew Kinnon. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  16. Gunn, J.A.W. 2009. When the French Tried to Be British. Party, Opposition and the Quest for Civil Disagreement 1814–1848. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haapala, Taru. forthcoming 2017. Political Rhetoric in the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, 1830–1870, Series: Studies in Modern History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Hatsell, John. 1818. Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons; with Observations. London: L. Hansard and Sons. Vol. 1, Privilege of Parliament:; Vol. 2, Relating to Members, Speaker etc.:; Vol. 3, Relating to Lords and Supply:; Vol. 4, Relating to Conference and Impeachment:
  19. Hexter, J.H., ed. 1992. Parliament and Liberty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ilbert, Courtenay. 1911. Parliament, Its History, Constitution and Practice. London: Williams and Norgate. Google Scholar
  21. Koselleck, Reinhart. 1996. A Response to the Comments on the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. In The Meaning of Historical Terms and Concepts. Occasional Paper No 15, ed. Hartmut Lehmann and Melvin Richter, 59–70. Washington, DC: The German Historical Institute.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2006. Begriffsgeschichten. Herausgegeben von Carsten Dutt. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  23. Kronlund, Anna. 2013. Parliamentary Oversight of the Exceptional Situations in a Presidential System. Debating the Reassertion of the Constitutional Powers of the US Congress. PhD dissertation, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  24. Markovits, Andrei S. 1987. Why There Is No Soccer in the United States? Variationen zu Werner Sombarts große Frage. Leviathan 30: 486–525.Google Scholar
  25. Palonen, Kari. 2003. Four Times of Politics: Policy, Polity, Politicking and Politicization. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 28(2): 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2006. The Struggle with Time. A Conceptual History of ‘Politics’ as an Activity. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2010b. The Parliamentarisation of Elections, Redescriptions 14, 133–156.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2012a. Rhetorik des Unbeliebten. Lobreden auf Politik im Zeitalter der Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2014c. The Politics of Parliamentary Procedure. The Formation of the Westminster Procedure as a Parliamentary Ideal Type. Leverkusen: Budrich.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2016. From Oratory to Debate. Parliamentarisation of Deliberative Rhetoric in Westminster. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Palonen, Kari, and Claudia Wiesner. 2016. Second Chamber, ‘Congress of Ambassadors’ or Federal Presidency. Parliamentary and Non-parliamentary Aspects in the European Council’s Rules of Procedure. Parliaments, Estates & Representation 36: 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pekonen, Kyösti. 2011. Members of the European Parliament as Delegates and as Parliamentarians. In Parliament and Europe, eds. Claudia Wiesner, Tapani Turkka, and Kari Palonen, 59–76. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peltonen, Markku. 2013. Rhetoric, Politics and Popularity in Pre-Revolutionary England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pierre, Eugène. 1887. De la procédure parlementaire. Étude sur le mécanisme intérieur du pouvoir législatif. Paris: Maison Quantin.Google Scholar
  35. Pocock, J.G.A 1998. The Ideal of Citizenship Since Classical Times. In The Citizenship Debates: A Reader, ed. Gershon Shafir, 31–41. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Redlich, Josef. 1908. The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of Its History and Present Form. Transl. from German by A. Ernest Steinthal, with an introduction by Sir Courtenay Ilbert. Vol. 2. London.Google Scholar
  37. Ricœur, Paul. 1971. The Model of the Text. Meaningful Action Considered as a Text. Social Research 38: 529–562.Google Scholar
  38. Roussellier, Nicolas. 2005. The Political Transfer of English Parliamentary Rules in the French Assemblies (1789–1848). European Review of History 12: 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Samuels, Arthur P.I. 1923. The Early Life Correspondence and Writings of the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Skinner, Quentin. 1988. A Reply to My Critics. In Quentin Skinner and His Critics, ed. James Tully, 231–288. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 1993. Two Concepts of Citizenship. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 55: 403–419.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2002b. Visions of Politics. Vol. 2: Renaissance Virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2006. Rethinking Political Liberty. History Workshop Journal 61: 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tiilikainen, Teija, and Claudia Wiesner. 2016. Towards a Political Theory of EU Parliamentarism. In Parliament and Parliamentarism. A Comparative History of a European Concept, eds. Pasi Ihalainen, Cornelia Ilie, and Kari Palonen, 292–310. Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  46. Tomkins, Adam. 2005. Our Republican Constitution. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  47. Turkka, Tapani. 2007. The Origins of Parliamentarism. A Study of Sandys’ Motion. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weber, Max. 1904 [1973]. Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, herausgegeben von Johannes Winckelmann, 146–214. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1918 [1988]. Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland. In Max-Weber-Studienausgabe I/15, ed. herausgegeben von Wolfgang J. Mommsen, 202–302. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 1919 [1994]. Politik als Beruf. In Max-Weber-Studienausgabe 1/17, herausgegeben von Wolfgang J. Mommsen, und Wolfgang Schluchter, 35–88. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  51. Weiler, Josef H. 1996. The Selling of Europe. Accessed 12 Feb 2013.
  52. Wiener, Antje. 1998. European Citizenship Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wiesner, Claudia. 2007. Bürgerschaft und Demokratie in der EU. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  54. ———. 2008. Women’s Partial Citizenship. In The Ashgate Research Companion to the Politics of Democratization in Europe: Concepts and Histories, eds. Kari Palonen, Tuija Pulkkinen, and José María Rosales, 235–250. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 2014a. Demokratisierung der EU durch nationale Europadiskurse. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. ———. 2014c. The European Parliament as Special Parliament and Political Actor. In The Politics of Dissensus. Parliament in Debate, eds. Kari Palonen, José María Rosales, and Tapani Turkka, 101–126. Santander: University of Cantabria Press/McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  57. Wright, Tony. 2012. Doing Politics. London: Biteback.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Jyväskylä and Technical, University DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations