Leadership style by metaphor in crisis political discourse

5.1 Fear-inducing metaphors in crisis political discourse

While communicating their lockdown measures, male leaders discursively enact politics of fear through the thematic source domains of War, Threat, Struggle, Enemy, Killer, and Natural Phenomena. By comparison, female speakers resort to some of these metaphors with a lesser frequency of use (Figure 1). Male leaders tend to focus more on uncertainty and instability that are discursively mediated through six fear-inducing metaphors, namely War, Threat, Struggle, Enemy, Killer, and Natural Phenomena. The differences in coverage range between male and female political leaders for fear-inciting metaphors are observed in all six categories, as summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Coverage range between genders for FEAR-inducing metaphors.

Very marked differences are observed with the WAR metaphor used for male political leaders at their range of 0.85–8.83, while the range for the same metaphor for female political leaders is 0.29–6.4. The same trend is seen with the metaphor of THREAT with its overall male range of 0.52–7.06 and female range of 0.7–4.19. Similarly, the metaphor of NATURAL PHENOMENA is used by men in the range of 0.64–4.42, while the female range occurs at 0.74–1.91. Moreover, the metaphor of STRUGGLE was mostly used by men (except for Angela Merkel’s one coded reference), while the ENEMY and KILLER metaphors were exclusively used by male speakers. A more detailed coverage across genders is provided in Table 4.

The differences in coverage range are partially complemented by the specific features of metaphor use. The first difference lies in the semantic scope of the WAR metaphor. In the case of the male leaders, there is a high variability of metaphorical expressions emphasising confrontational attitudes with a clearer populist intention to mobilise people in their national “fight against the virus,” while the female leaders tend to use the WAR metaphor more generically, e.g.

WAR (MALE)

1. We’re going to mobilise all our forces as an Argentine community (Alberto Fernandez, 15 references). <> But in this fight we can be in no doubt that each and every one of us is directly enlisted (Boris Johnson, 7 references). <> And if you know someone who is working on the frontlines (Justine Trudeau, 2 references). <> I am confident that every Indian will not only successfully fight this difficult situation but also emerge victorious (Narendra Modi, 6 references). <> The example of a successful and timely fight against the virus (Gitanas Nausėda, 3 references). <> We have mobilised all the capabilities and resources for deploying a system of timely prevention and treatment (Vladimir Putin, 10 references). <> To confront a foreign virus in modern history (Donald Trump, 12 references. <> Joint preparation for the operational deployment of mobile hospitals (Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 8 references). <> The people’s war for epidemic prevention and control was launched/resolutely win the fight against the epidemic (Xi Jinping, 52 references).

   WAR (FEMALE)

2. I want to pay tribute to the women and men leading that fight (Ursula von der Leyen, 8 references) <> Fight this virus (Nicola Sturgeon, 1 reference) <> Alongside the controlled dismantling of restrictive measures (Sanna Marin, 2 references) <> Frontline (Queen Elizabeth II) <> In the fight against COVID-19/will help give our healthcare system a fighting chance (Jacinda Ardern, 14 references) <> At the forefront of this struggle (Angela Merkel, 5 references).

   ENEMY/KILLER (MALE)

3. The virus will not have a chance against us (Donald Trump, 2 references) <> But we must not forget that in addition to fighting the invisible enemy, we have a war in eastern Ukraine (Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 2 references) <> The devastating impact of this invisible killer (Boris Johnson, 2 references).

   The WAR metaphor in the male sample has recurrent populist features discursively realised together with the all-inclusive “we” (see underlined expressions in (1)), as “Coronavirus attacks us all” (Alberto Fernandez), “each and every one us is directly enlisted” (Boris Johnson) and leaders’ appeal to a “people” (De Cleen and Stavrakakis 2017) defined on the level of the nation-state, as in “an Argentine community” (Alberto Fernandez), “every Indian” (Norendra Modi), “people’s war” (Xi Jinping). Less explicit populist rhetoric is observed in the ideological purpose of the WAR metaphor used by the male leaders, who implicitly describe it as their national threat (e.g. Donald Trump’s “foreign virus”), enemy or a killer, as in (3). By contrast, the female leaders tend to use the WAR metaphor in its more generic meaning without any specific ideological features by recurrently using the “fight” metaphorical expressions, as in (2).

   Another difference is observed with the use of the THREAT and STRUGGLE metaphors in the collected data sample. The male leaders’ use is inclined towards the politics of emotion, with fear being manipulated the most. In the national lockdown speeches, fear of the unknown is raised by using the THREAT metaphor and such metaphorical expressions as ‘in the face of this threat’, ‘great risk’, ‘real danger’, and ‘hidden danger’, as illustrated below:

   THREAT (MALE)

4. The world is facing a threat and Argentina is also at risk <> We are co-responsible in the face of this threat. (Alberto Fernandez, 10 references). <> The biggest threat this country has faced for decades/that is the moment of real danger. (Boris Johnson, 2 references). <> A dangerous pandemic/puts your life at great risk (Narendra Modi, 3 references). <> Poses a major hidden danger to public health safety (Xi Jinping, 3 references).

   By contrast, the female leaders ideologically reverse the politics of fear into the politics of hope, where the metaphor of THREAT shifts focus to taking actions and protecting the national community against ‘the threat’:

   THREAT (FEMALE)

5. The federal government and the levels of government are doing this to protect everyone in our community (Angela Merkel, 2 references). <> To protect New Zealanders from the worst (Jacinda Ardern, 2 references). <> To protect the capacity of the healthcare system and to protect people (Sanna Marin, 1 reference). <> This is for the protection of each and every one of us/the protection of yourself, your loved ones, your community and our national health service (Nicola Sturgeon, 5 references).

   As seen from the examples in (5), the female leaders demonstrate their ability to manage crisis communication with empathy. In the case of the THREAT metaphor, they not only emphasise their readiness to protect against the threat, but also communicate their social and ethical responsibilities to behave empathetically. This communicative stance is achieved through such metaphorical expressions as “protect everyone in our community” (Angela Merkel), “the protection of yourself, your loved ones, your community” (Nicola Sturgeon), “one thing more contagious than this virus, it is love and compassion” (Ursula von der Leyen). By contrast, male political leaders emphasise their need to protect against economic threats and thus focus on “financial safety”, e.g.

   THREAT (MALE)

6. At the same time, our government is doing everything it needs to do to keep you safe – to keep your family safe, and to keep our economy strong. (Justin Trudeau, 11 references). <> Secure Australians’ jobs and livelihoods (Scott Morrison, 2 references). <> Life, health and jobs are threatened (Stefan Löfven, 3 references).

   Female leaders’ emotional safety (5) is replaced by male leaders’ messages of “economic safety” (6), illustrated by such metaphorical expressions as “keep our economy strong” (Justin Trudeau), “jobs are threatened,” “protect jobs” (Stefan Löfven), “financial hardship” (Donald Trump). The economic aspect of the STRUGGLE metaphor is explained by the underlying primary metaphor of STATE IS A PERSON, where the economy is perceived as its health. The ideological function of this metaphor in political discourse is to justify quantity over quality, and commercial transactions with costs and gains over actions (Lakoff 2012).

   The same tendency is observed with the use of the STRUGGLE metaphor, which is more frequently used by male political leaders (range, 0.24–4.60), and its emphasis on the economic “struggle,” as in (7) “struggling businesses” (Vladimir Putin) or identifying “cadres in the practice of struggle” (Xi Jinping). Alberto Fernandez used this metaphor to mobilise his listeners’ emotional response by also evoking the military frame of “unequal struggle against this invisible enemy” (see (7)), e.g.

   STRUGGLE (MALE)

7. We must examine and identify cadres in the practice of struggle (Xi Jinping, 3 references). <> Struggling SMEs and micro businesses/companies experiencing hardship (Vladimir Putin, 2 references). <> You can be sure that as from today the Argentine state commits itself to never weakening our collective struggle./It’s an unequal struggle against this invisible enemy (Alberto Fernández, 7 references).

   Only one instance of the STRUGGLE metaphor was found in Angel Merkel’s speech, with her reference to health care system workers, as in (8) below:

   STRUGGLE (FEMALE)

8. I would like to take this opportunity to address first and foremost all those who work as doctors, in the nursing service or in any other function in our hospitals and in the health care system in general. They are at the forefront of this struggle (Angela Merkel, 1 reference).

   Ideologically, the STRUGGLE metaphor is used by the male to raise the public fear about economic uncertainties and mobilise their listeners’ response to the virus as an external threat. By using this metaphor, the responsibility for future economic problems is indirectly assigned to the virus. By contrast, Angela Merkel’s thematic reference to the STRUGGLE source domain evoked the context of social accountability and respect for healthcare system staff.

   The last metaphor with an ideological bias for inciting public fear is that of the NATURAL PHENOMENA. Semantically, its use is associated with natural forces that cannot be controlled or easily prevented from happening. In the case of the male metaphor use, both the range (i.e. 0.64–4.40) and the contextual meaning disclose speakers’ attempts to foreshadow an unpredictability factor and a lack of control over the situation, e.g.

   NATURAL PHENOMENA (MALE)

9. In Argentina we are still in time to avoid this pandemic becoming uncontrollable/We know it’s going to hit us (Alberto Fernandez, 4 references). <> And we are buying millions of testing kits that will enable us to turn the tide on this invisible killer. (Boris Johnson, 1 reference). <> It spreads like wildfire (Narendra Modi, 4 references). <> It is impossible to stop it from spilling over into Russia (Vladimir Putin, 7 references). Coronavirus outbreak (Nausėda, 2 references). <> Virus hotspots (Scott Morrison, 1 reference). <> New clusters in the United States were seeded by travelers from Europe (Donald Trump, 8 references)

By contrast, the female leaders use the NATURAL PHENOMENA metaphor to highlight the concept of collective unity as a necessary factor in dealing with unpredictable consequences of the pandemic. Collective unity is expressed using the inclusive “we” (Fairclough 2001, 2013) that implies shared responsibility in the context of the consequences of the pandemic for the entire community, as in “we must reduce” (Angela Merkel), “we are facing the potential” (Jacinda Ardern), “we will not survive” (Sanna Marin), “we should focus,” and “we can withstand” (Ursula von der Leyen).

The least emotionally charging in the FEAR-inducing group of metaphors is MOVEMENT, also known as MOTION IN SPACE, and it is used by all political leaders, as shown in Figure 2. Differently from the previous metaphors, female speakers use the MOVEMENT metaphor with a higher coverage range of 3.03–13.21, in comparison to the male range of 1.03–11.01. Male leaders use the MOVEMENT metaphor in their references to the unpredictability of the virus and their economic response to the pandemic.

Figure 2

Coverage range between genders for the MOVEMENT metaphor.

The male leaders’ use of the MOVEMENT metaphor is ideologically enacted in the context of change. The negative change is implied by the use of such metaphorical expressions as “pandemic is expanding at tremendous speed,” “reducing the speed” (Alberto Fernández), and “it’s vital to slow the spread of the disease” (Boris Johnson), “Coronavirus is spreading at such a rapid pace” (Narendra Modi), “the quick spread of this disease” (Vladimir Putin), etc. Their use evokes a semantic frame of unpredictability caused by the spread of the virus that cannot be externally controlled. By contrast, positive change is related to positive economic changes, as in “accelerate < … > the consumption” (Xi Jinping), “our economy bounces back” (Scott Morrison), or political decision-making, as in “we made a life-saving move < … > on China” (Donald Trump), “we are working to provide space for mandatory observation” (Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

Differently from their male counterparts, the female leaders used the MOVEMENT metaphor mainly in their reference to ‘slowing down the spread’. The emphasis on “slowing down the spread” was paralleled with the thematisation of the collective response, as in “get through this together” (Jacinda Ardern), “there is only one thing we can do < … >” (Angela Merkel), and “we have also succeeded in slowing down the progression of the disease” (Sanna Marin).

The analysis of the FEAR inciting metaphors has revealed a focus shift between the two genders. Male political leaders metaphorically used the semantic categories of WAR, THREAT, ENEMY/KILLER, STRUGGLE, NATURAL PHENOMENA, and MOVEMENT for exploiting people’s natural fear of losing control over their lives and mobilising their trust in government and institutions (Rocatto et al. 2021). By contrast, the female used the same metaphors in the context of shared collective responsibility, accountability, and protective measures as a viable solution to the pandemic problems.

5.2 Mobilising in-group identity in crisis political discourse

Another group of metaphors determined in the analysed data is that of ONENESS, STRENGTH, PARENTING, and RELATIONSHIP. These metaphors are aimed at raising public morale and establishing a positive emotional connection with the audience. Such a communicative style is also known as the politicians’ discourse strategy of the United We Stand Myth for appealing to the audience for support in challenging times (Charteris-Black 2011, Umar and Rasul 2017). Their gendered use has also pointed out specific ideological differences that are reflected in the coverage range, summarised in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Coverage range between genders for the INGROUP metaphors.

In the IN-GROUP mobilisation communicative model, the female leaders tend to use metaphorical expressions more frequently for the ONENNESS metaphor with the range 1.32–4.73, while the range for the male political leaders’ metaphor use stands at 0.30–3.20. In the rest of the metaphors, the male politicians have a higher range of use. To be more precise, their use of the STRENGTH metaphor is in the range of 0.37–8.45, in comparison to the female use at 0.09–2.90. Another striking difference is observed with the RELATIONSHIP metaphor, being used by the male at 1.61–13.20, whereas the female range is 0.38–4.98. Finally, the range of the PARENTING metaphor uses points to a similar pattern, with a higher range score for the male 0.64–4.42, as compared to the female 0.74–2.08. A more detailed coverage range across genders and political leaders is summarised in Table 5.

The ONENESS metaphor was used by all political leaders in their first national lockdown addresses. By comparison, the STRENGTH and PARENTING metaphors were used by 7 male leaders out of 11, while the RELATIONSHIP metaphor was used only by the 4 male leaders. A similar trend is observed among the female leaders, whose use of the RELATIONSHIP and STRENGTH metaphors were identified with the three leaders, while only one female leader evoked the PARENTING frame. Ideologically, the ONENESS metaphor aims at an expression of the collective affinity that tends to be more populist with the male representatives.

In the context of their speeches, the male leaders use the ONENESS metaphor to popularise their stance on solidarity and unity, as a necessary mobilisation factor. This was articulated using such metaphorical expressions as “one community,” “a united Argentina” (Alberto Fernández), “each and everyone of us” (Boris Johnson), “the work we’re doing together” (Justin Trudeau), “united efforts” (Narendra Modi), “solidarity” (Vladimir Putin, Stefan Löfven, Xi Jinping), and “unify together” (Donald Trump). The ONENESS metaphor was also the male leaders’ appeal to ‘a people’ on the level of the nation-state, known as a populist expression of nationalism (De Cleen and Stavrakakis 2017), illustrated with the following metaphorical expressions: “we need the state, society and the people to work together” (Vladimir Putin), “we will overcome together as a nation and as a world,” “unify together as one nation and one family” (Donald Trump), or “Show the spirit of unity and solidarity of the Chinese people” (Xi Jinping). Additionally, it was contextualised as a collective mobilisation effort against the virus (i.e. the WAR metaphor); e.g. “Each and every one of us is now obliged to join together/We will beat the coronavirus and we will beat it together” (Boris Johnson), and “the private sector is standing shoulder to shoulder with fellow citizens in full capacity” (Narendra Modi).

By contrast, female leaders focus on collective action during times of crisis. Instead of mobilising the public against a common threat, they reframe the public role of active engagement into cooperative measures. The ONENESS metaphor is realised via such metaphorical expressions as “our joint solidarity,” “all react together” (Angela Merkel), “get through this together” (Jacinda Ardern), and “do the right thing together” (Ursula von der Leyen). However, differently from their male counterparts, the female leaders emphasised the importance of cooperation constituting vulnerability and empathetic engagement. This is traced in their use of the following metaphorical expressions: “work closer together,” “do the right thing together – with one big heart,” “show that same trust, that same unity” (Ursula von der Leyen), “cooperate extensively and seek solutions together” (Sanna Marin), “our collective ability,” “support one another” (Jacinda Ardern), and “stand by each other” (Angela Merkel). The concepts of ‘trust’, ‘cooperation’, and ‘support’ contribute to an ideological narrative of the social arrangement between politicians and the public where vulnerability and social empathy prevail (Larios and Paterson 2021).

It is also interesting to observe how distinctively the STRENGTH metaphor is used by both genders, though much more frequently by the male at the range of 0.37–8.45, in comparison to the female range of 1.32–2.90. Being an ideological extension of the ONENESS metaphor, the STRENGTH metaphor is used by the male for the thematisation of the national unity aligned with strength and competitiveness. The competitive aspect of the STRENGTH metaphor is realised by the comparative form of ‘strong’, as in “we will come through it stronger” (Boris Johnson), “emerge from this challenge stronger” (Donald Trump), and the male reference to the on-going improvements such as “strengthening our amazing NHS” (Boris Johnson), “strengthening the medical infrastructure” (Narendra Modi), and “strengthen material allocation and market supply” (Xi Jinping). As with other metaphors, the source domain of STRENGTH is activated in the context of mobilisation, for instance “facing the crisis with our united strength” (Stefan Löfven), “we will withstand” (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), or “resolutely win the fight” (Xi Jinping). Only one male leader contextualised this metaphor in his reference to collective action and empathy, namely Justin Trudeau’s reference to the “strength of our country” as “our capacity to come together and care for each other.”

The female leaders, with almost three times lower coverage of the STRENGTH metaphor, continued their focus on the collection action as strength, e.g.

STRENGTH (FEMALE)

1. Be strong (Jacinda Ardern, 1 reference). <> If we remain united and resolute (Queen Elizabeth II, 2 references). <> The people of Europe are showing how strong that can be (Ursula von der Leyen, 5 references).

The female leaders used the STRENGTH metaphor in a more generalised manner to highlight the importance of collective action during the pandemic.

The last two interrelated metaphors to be discussed in this section are the RELATIONSHIP and PARENTING metaphors. Political leaders were trying to establish an emotional connection with their audience by using the RELATIONSHIP metaphor. This is done by infusing the lexical representation of interpersonal connections that involve feelings and behaviours into the context of the government pandemic policy.

The male leaders focus on the patriotic sentiment expressed by the RELATIONSHIP metaphor, i.e. a call “to take responsibility for < … > our country” (Stefan Löfven), “love your homeland” (Gitanas Nausėda), “put the well-being of America first” blends national identity with an individual identity and results in the conceptualisation of the State As the Self. At the same time, this metaphor allows political leaders to unilaterally engage citizens with their responsibilities for the state, as “we all have a role to play” and “we’ll do our bit” (Scott Morrison), or “your efforts for < … > Sweden” (Stefan Löfven).

By contrast, in the female speeches, this relationship is bilaterally engaging. The people-to-people and state-to-people relationships are enacted by such metaphorical expressions as “help each other,” “rely on one another” (Ursula von der Leyen), “looking out for each other (Nicola Sturgeon),” while the state-to-people RELATIONSHIP is evoked by the following “A Europe that is there for its people” (Ursula von der Leyen), “show love and solidarity for our fellow citizens” (Nicola Sturgeon). In addition, the metaphorical relationship between the virus and the people is described, as “how to live with the virus” (Sanna Marin). Such metaphorical use contributes to a less confrontational narrative highlighting communal share and collective well-being.

Another piece of evidence for more confrontational rhetoric among the males is the PARENTING metaphor, semantically representing the RELATIONSHIP thematic scenario. In the collected data sample, seven male political leaders and one female leader resorted to this metaphor with a varied degree of expressed care and nature of protection. The narrative of the government-as-a-parent care and support is illustrated by such uses as “we are prepared to see Canadians through this time,” “our government is doing everything it needs to keep you safe” (Justin Trudeau), “the state will protect the health of millions of other citizens” (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), “receiving the state support,” and “government assistance” (Vladimir Putin). With this metaphor, male political leaders also project populist sentiment by evoking the concept of the collective self, e.g. “the state takes care of the health and lives of all Argentines” (Alberto Fernández), “What the Lithuanian state has done and will do for its people” (Gitanas Nausėda), “unify together as one nation and one family” (Donald Trump). Finally, there are instances of the government-as-a-strict-parent metaphor, namely Xi Jinping’s “punished by discipline and law” and Vladimir Putin’s self-centred projection of his governance “Let me add that I propose < … > to support families with children and help people.”

The analysis of IN-GROUP metaphors has demonstrated how male political leaders’ communication style has resonated with the concepts of higher mobilisation, populism, patriotic sentiment, competitive individual and competitive collective strategies. By contrast, female leaders’ IN-GROUP metaphors highlighted the aspects of collective responsibility and community care network in a time of crisis.