Heresthetic is a theoretical approach within political science that examines how political actors strategically manipulate the structure of political situations, decision-making processes, and agenda-setting to achieve favorable outcomes even when they lack majority support.[1] The term was coined by political scientist William H. Riker in the 1980s, combining the Greek words "hairesis" (choosing) and "rhetoric" to describe tactics beyond mere persuasion.[2]
Riker argues that herestheticians win because they compel or persuade others to join them in voting or political coalitions.[5] Heresthetic focuses both on the use of rhetoric and political strategy. Riker argues that there are three vital components to heresthetic.[6]
Agenda control: political agents may structure debate in ways that highlight favorable or eliminate undesirable policy alternatives.[7] Depending upon the order that policy options are discussed, debate can produce different outcomes, including outcomes that are not preferred by the heresthetician.[7] The order of choice matters.[8] Riker's concept of agenda control differs from conventional accounts of agenda-setting involving policy-makers, which focus on how policy-makers’ agendas are influenced by exogenous factors, such as the media and public opinion.[9] Riker's focus is on how policy-makers affect the ordering of items on the political agenda, and how that ordering can be manipulated.[10]
Strategic voting: in deliberative settings herestheticians can take advantage of voting procedures to influence outcomes.[11] For example, agents may vote against their own interest in the short-term to secure a better long-term position. Another element of strategic voting is vote trading.[12] Policy-makers may informally trade votes with others in exchange for future votes or benefits.[13]Strategic voting is common in legislative settings because of open rules and sequential voting procedures.
Dimension manipulation: herestheticians can manipulate the dimensionality of political decision-making by introducing new dimensions or modifying existing framing.[14][15] Dimension manipulation can either expand a decision-making space by reconfiguring acceptable topics of debate and policy alternatives, or shrink dimensions by eliminating certain topics or alternatives.[16] The manipulation of dimensions is important because once an agent manipulates framing, it cannot be removed from debate.[17]
These components allow herestheticians to manipulate political outcomes by structuring debate, rhetorically or structurally, to be more advantageous to their preferred position.[6]
Example
The British Parliament is scheduling upcoming referendum votes to determine Scottish independence from the United Kingdom and if the UK should remain a member of the European Union. A member of parliament who has influence on how the votes will be structured, has a preference that Scotland will remain in union with the UK and that the UK will leave the EU. Scottish independence and the UK remaining a member of the EU is an undesirable outcome for the MP. While polling indicates that a majority of Scottish voters do not support independence, voters are more likely to support independence if the UK leaves the EU.[18] In order to receive his preferred outcome, the MP seeks for the referendum votes to be held in a sequence in which Scottish independence is determined first, and then UK withdrawal from the EU. This voting sequence demonstrates how herestheticians can manipulate the decision-making process so they can win.
^Riker, William H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
^McLean, Iain C. (2002). "William H. Riker and the Invention of Heresthetic(s)". British Journal of Political Science. 32 (2): 535–558. doi:10.1017/S0007123402000224. JSTOR4092252.
^Riker, William H. (1982). Liberalism Against Populism. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
^Riker, William H. (1962). The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
^ abRiker, William H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
^ abSmith, Alex P.; Phillips, Stephen C. (2021). "Ways and Means: Teaching Political Strategy and Heresthetic by Simulating the Budget Process". Journal of Political Science Education. 17: 1–11. doi:10.1080/15512169.2021.1897602. S2CID236762572.
^Stoker, Gerry (2017). Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work. New York: Palgrave.
^Epstein, Lee; Shvetsova, Olga (2002). "Heresthetical Maneuvering on the US Supreme Court". Journal of Theoretical Politics. 14 (1): 93–122. doi:10.1177/095169280201400106. S2CID154391466.
^Enelow, James M.; Hinich, Melvin J. (1990). Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
^Riker, William H. (1982). Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
^Robertson, David B. (2006). "A Pivotal Politician and Constitutional Design". American Political Science Review. 100 (2): 303–308. doi:10.1017/S0003055406062186. S2CID145452373.
_(cropped).svg)
