Rhetorical action has various possible outcomes, each of which depends on the reaction of the targeted actor. The actor may eventually adapt to the admired normative position and become rhetorically entrapped or may resist. Hence, connected to rhetorical action is the concept of rhetorical adaptation. Rhetorical adaptation enables understanding of complex and uncertain ways to respond to pressure to comply with shared norms. In rhetorical adaptation, an actor is deemed inconsistent or not compliant with social norms when it does not shift its behavior to adapt to the normative expectations. In agreement with schimmelfennig definition, Dixon views rhetorical adaptation as “drawing on a norm’s content in order to craft arguments that could diffuse pressures to comply with a norm or minimize perceptions that certain actions are
80
in violation of a norm” (Dixon, 2017:85). Hence, rhetorical adaptation refers to an actor’s behavioral adjustment relative to the rhetoric that asserts pressure to change. There are four types of actor’s reactions/adaptations to rhetorical actions:
• The first form of reaction is norm disregard. It involves an actor ignoring a norm that is connected to a given action. Despite being fully aware of the norm, an actor deliberately chooses not to reference it. Actors use such a strategy when the norm involved is weak, or there exists a little consensus on the logic of appropriateness of the opponent’s idea. Actors can avoid being entrapped through norm disregard when the norm is not socially institutionalized or in the absence of severe consequences in case of norm violation (Ben-Josef and Dixon, 2019). When a norm is widely accepted and acknowledged as appropriate, it becomes difficult for an actor to ignore it. In this case, the strategy of norm disregard is less likely to succeed. In a situation of a highly established norm, actors try to avoid the cost of violation of the norm.
• The second form of reaction to rhetorical action is norm avoidance. The strategy starts by acknowledging the validity of the norm. However, an actor might argue that its motivations and actions are not within the scope of the norm under concern and therefore denies any norm violation. Such denial is termed by Cohen (2001, chapter 2) as ‘interpretative denial,’ which involves admitting raw facts without placing those facts in specific contexts (see also Bruna, 2010; Martin, 2015).
• The third type of response to a rhetorical action is norm re-interpretation. This arises when one or more understanding of a norm is contested. Such a strategic response aims to narrow the scope within which a norm is interpreted in an attempt to delink any action that might appear to contradict the norm. Moreover, this defensive strategy is associated with the re-interpretation of the norm’s prescription and the context under which a norm applies.
81
Unlike norm avoidance, where an actor refrains from the norm, re-interpretation tends to redefine the norm (Dixon, 2017).
• The fourth form of reaction in rhetorical action is rhetorical entrapment. Park defines rhetorical entrapment as “a process of social influence that alters the range of possible future actions by eliminating or exaggerating the political cost of, specific – including previously used – policy options” (Park, 2017:490). Entrapment involves a situation where an actor cannot reject the validity of the understanding of a norm, and any attempt to do so generates inconsistency and double standards. As a form of rhetorical adaptation, rhetorical entrapment takes place in two ways. Rhetorical entrapment starts with norm signaling - that Dixon refers to as ‘talking the talk.’ Actors start to rhetorically acknowledge the need for change towards the proposed normative stance. Later there is ‘walking the walk’ – adjusting the behavior to resonate with the implied normative direction (Dixon, 2017; Hansen, 2006). At this point, the rhetorical action is viewed to have achieved a successful entrapment, which leads to the other actor’s behavioral change.
Nevertheless, when all the actors engaged in rhetorical action do not share a normative commitment and depend on just the procedural norm of consensus-seeking, they are likely to find themselves in a never-ending argument, unable to persuade each other or be persuaded.
When the interlocutor does not accept norm-avoidance, norm disregard and norm re-interpretation, actors end up with an unworking relationship. Morin and Gold clarify that in rhetorical action, “actors unwilling to suffer reputational costs by having behaviors inconsistent with their previous discourse and unwilling to build trust with their interlocutors by ignoring their previous behaviors, can close their debate by adopting an unworking agreement” (Morin and Gold, 2010: 566). In this case, actors do not mind behaving contrary to their own claim of commitment to normative practice. In other cases, they are prepared to suffer reputation costs. Scholars explain that the EU’s decision to initiate talks on turkey’s
82
accession was due to Turkey’s attempt to entrap the EU. However, Turkey's efforts to rhetorically trap the EU were not successful. Turkey did not have sufficient materials to entrap the Turkey-skeptic EU member states: its European identity was controversial(Bürgin, 2010;
Saatcioglu, 2012; Schimmelfennig, 2009, 2011). But when the actors claim to be committed to the shared norms, rhetorical entrapment occurs.