“Dissent” can be both a noun and a verb. The Cambridge Dictionary defines the noun, dissent, as a “strong difference of opinion; disagreement esp. about official decisions,” “a legal opinion by a judge in a court that differs from the opinion of most of the other judges,” or “a strong difference of opinion on a particular subject, especially about an official suggestion or plan or a popular belief”. As a verb, it is defined as “to disagree with other people about something” or “to offer a legal opinion in a court that differs from the opinion of most of the other judges of the court.”Footnote1 The act of dissenting has been widely studied in the field of communication. Within organizational communication, constructs such as organizational dissent have been extensively studied.Footnote2,Footnote3,Footnote4 Organizational dissent is the expression of contradictory opinions or disagreement over organizational practices and/or policies.Footnote5 Within the field of rhetorical studies, the act of dissent has been studied extensively. Researchers have explored dissent within political movements, democratic dissent, ideological dissent, judicial dissent, and the rhetoric of scientific dissent.Footnote6,Footnote7,Footnote8,Footnote9 It is this diversity to the study of dissent and communication that drives this themed issue on dissent and communication.
Rahako and Craig’sFootnote10 piece, “Prophetic dissent in dark times: The new Poor People’s Campaign and the rhetoric of national redemption,” explores a social movement challenging Christian nationalism in the United States, the new Poor People’s Campaign. In their essay, they rhetorically analyze Bishop Dr William J. Barber II’s strategic use of the jeremiad to dissent against the rise of Christian nationalism. They conclude that Barber’s rhetorical calls for reconstruction, redemption, and democracy are reminiscent of those of leaders such as the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This essay’s inclusion in this themed issue demonstrated the rhetorical power of dissent as a form of social movement.
Zornitsa Keremidchieva’s piece,Footnote11 “Globalizing dissent: The Soviet response to the Truman doctrine at the United Nations and the (Re)making of global governance at the end of ideology,” considers the role of dissent in (re)making international relations. Keremidchieva argues that dissent is not just a simple expression of disagreement, but it is inherently a political act. Through this analysis of the Truman Doctrine and the Soviet Union’s dissent, Keremidchieva showed how dissent elevated the status of the UN (for at least a few years) and created a form of declarative discourse at the UN, how documentary trails would override oral debate and deliberations, and how in the coming years after this dissent, such dissent became core communicative practice in the UN. Essentially, Keremidchieva shows how the Soviet dissent to the Truman doctrine changed how communication took place at the UN, and thus changed international relations.
Zararsiz and Seyhan’s piece,Footnote12 “Traditional origins of populist political discourse in Türkiye: A visual discourse analysis on Erdogan’s Instagram posts,” explores the opposite of dissent. Through a qualitative visual discourse analysis of 685 photos shared on Erdogan’s Instagram account, the authors explore how the leader’s image promotes a populist understanding. Portraying himself as “one of the people,” a traditional populist trope, is a rhetorical tool to minimize public dissent. The more people see him as “one of them,” the less likely they are to be critical of his leadership and policies.
Mahutga, Bisel, and Di’s piece,Footnote13 “The Upward Ethical Dissent Scale: Development and Validation,” presents a new measure of upward ethical dissent. Combining research on upward/articulated dissent and ethical problems in organizations, the authors focused on ethical dissent that is communicated upwards. They modified an existing measure, and they also provided validity and reliability results for readers. Two key take aways from this piece are: a validated measure of upward ethical dissent scale, and a discussion of the links between ethical dissent and moral identities in organizations.
As with previous themed issues in the Review of Communication, I encourage you to engage with each article. Each of these essays has approached dissent in different ways and added to our understanding and appreciation for the links between communication and dissent. Enjoy reading all of them.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dissent.
2 Jeffrey W. Kassing and Theodore A. Avtgis, “Examining the Relationship between Organizational Dissent and Aggressive Communication,” Management Communication Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1999): 100–5.
3 Jeffrey W. Kassing, Dissent in Organizations (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2011).
4 Stephen M. Croucher et al., “A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Organizational Dissent and Workplace Freedom in Five European Economies,” Communication Studies 64, no. 3 (2014): 298–313.
5 Jeffrey W. Kassing, “Development and Validation of the Organizational Dissent Scale,” Management Communication Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1998): 183–229.
6 Katie L. Gibson, “In Defense of Women’s Rights: A Rhetorical Analysis of Judicial Dissent,” Women’s Studies in Communication 35, no. 2 (2012): 123–37.
7 R. Allen Harris, “Assent, Dissent, and Rhetoric in Science,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 20, no. 1 (1990): 13–37.
8 Robert L. Ivie, “Enabling Democratic Dissent,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 101, no. 1 (2015): 46–59.
9 Kendall R. Phillips, “The Event of Dissension: Reconsidering the Possibilities of Dissent,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 101, no. 1 (2015): 60–71.
10 Stephen E. Rahko and Byron B. Craig, “Prophetic Dissent in Dark Times: The New People’s Campaign and the Rhetoric of National Redemption,” Review of Communication 24, no. 1 (2024): TBD.
11 Zornitsa Keremidchieva, “Globalizing dissent: The Soviet Response to the Truman Doctrine at the United Nations and the (Re)making of Global Governance at the End of Ideology,” Review of Communication no. 1 (2024): TBD.
12 Ömer Faruk Zararsiz and Ahmet Selman Seyhan, “Traditional Origins of Populist Discourse in Türkiye: A visual Discourse Analysis on Erdogan’s Instagram Posts,” Review of Communication no. 1 (2024): TBD.
13 Justin Mahutga, Ryan S. Bisel, and Da Bi, “The Upward Dissent Scale: Development Validation,” Review of Communication no. 1 (2024): TBD.