A Rhetorical Criticism of Google’s European Identification Strategies Kristoffer Nordman Field of study: Rhetoric Level: One Year Master Credits: 30 credits Thesis Defence: Spring 2014 Supervisor: Mika Hietanen Department of Literature Master’s Thesis in Rhetoric Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Overall topic and motives .................................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Rhetorics and Humanities and the linkages to Law, Politics and Technology ......... 5 1.2.2 Google speaking at the European Commission Innovation Convention................... 8 1.2.3 Background, The European Union and ideology conflicts in Innovation Policy ...... 8 1.3 Previous research................................................................................................................ 12 1.3.1 Rhetorical Criticism and its application to corporate communication ................... 12 1.3.2 Research on Google .................................................................................................... 16 1.3.3 Adjacent fields of interest ........................................................................................... 17 1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 19 1.4.1 General topic of inquiry ............................................................................................. 19 1.4.2 Specific research questions......................................................................................... 19 1.5 Material ............................................................................................................................... 22 1.6 Research method and theoretical framework .................................................................. 23 1.6.1 Burkean identification theory .................................................................................... 24 1.6.2 The Burkean concept of consubstantiality ................................................................ 27 1.6.3 Terministic screens ..................................................................................................... 28 1.6.4 Burkean theory of dramatism .................................................................................... 30 1.6.5 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 32 1.7 Implementation ................................................................................................................... 35 2 An analysis of verbal strategies to get the audience to identify with Google’s message ....... 36 2.1 Google's Agent identity ...................................................................................................... 36 2.1.1. Commencement of the Agent construct .................................................................... 36 2.1.2. Innovator in “smart problems” ................................................................................. 38 2.1.3. Innovator that improves society ................................................................................ 40 2.1.4 Google as data collector .............................................................................................. 44 2.1.5 Google as promoter of education ............................................................................... 46 2.1.6. Google as an investor in Europe ................................................................................ 46 2.1.7. Audience question to facilitate the Agent identity construction .............................. 48 2.1.8 Summary of Agent identity elements ........................................................................ 50 2.2 Agent-Scene ratios - European Innovation as Scene ........................................................ 51 2.2.1 Engaging the Scene as Agent ..................................................................................... 52 2.2.2 History of science and technology .............................................................................. 53 2.2.3 Current European examples of Innovation and scientific breakthrough ............... 56 2.2.4 European integration.................................................................................................. 57 1 2.2.5 Political leadership ..................................................................................................... 58 2.2.6 Psychological mind-set ............................................................................................... 61 2.2.7 The competition between U.S., Asia and Europe ..................................................... 61 2.2.8 Scene-Agent ratios, summary .................................................................................... 63 2.3 Agent and Scene based identification strategies in light of Google’s advice to the EU.. 64 3 Results and discussion ............................................................................................................... 72 3.1 Results of the analysis......................................................................................................... 72 3.2 Discussion of Google’s strategies for audience identification .......................................... 74 3.3 Conclusion and outlook ...................................................................................................... 79 References .......................................................................................................................................... 80 Annex 1. Transcript of speech by Erich Schmidt, European Innovation Convention 2011 ........ 88 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Overall topic and motives The political processes surrounding Innovation Policy is an especially fascinating arena for the study of corporate political influence, since the evolution of our societies and civilisations are historically in tandem with the pace of technological progress, which in turn relies on societies’ institutions for its fruition and spread, on politics and law in particular. The commercial stakes are high and a lot of investments in time, money, intellectual endeavours, even hopes and dreams, can either be lost or rewarded, sometimes entirely depending on the actions of the legislator. No surprise then that in our time the political process is so influenced by special interest groups like the large global corporations. My specific interest is to examine how decision makers in that context might identify themselves and their political goals with a certain company’s interests and consequently listen to its suggestions on policy formulation, or at least take the needs of such companies into considerations in the legislative process. I seek to do so by analysing the verbal strategies of a powerful global company as it interacts with European policy makers in the setting of a conference speech. The particular company examined is Google. The particular artefact is a conference speech held in 2011 by its Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt to a gathering of influential European professionals and policy makers. The legislative processes to be influenced are those of the European Union and its member states. The particular field of politics concerned can broadly be described as Innovation Policy, the complicated “ecosystem” of culture, science, financing, laws and regulations that determine the possibilities for economic growth through adopting new ways of doing things in society. Through rhetorical criticism I wish to better understand Google’s communication in this area, and to gain further insights into the communication strategies used to influence the processes of such complex fields of politics. Google as a company is interesting since it is a large, economically powerful company with global reach. It is also a prominent example of the knowledge based industries of the IT sector, with fast growth capacity and a substantial impact on our lives and on society. Google also firmly carries its identity of being an “innovation engine” and has constructed its corporate culture extensively around harnessing and channelling creativity and innovation. As Google has become bigger and wealthier as a company and has gained more influence due to the widespread use of its products and services, it has also become more controversial as its 3 existence starts to affect society. Eric Schmidt joined Google in 2001, and has since moved from the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to Executive Chairman with the explicit mandate to “advis[e] the CEO and senior leadership on business and policy issues” as well as being responsible for “government outreach” and “technology thought leadership”.1 The choice of my topic emanates from the confluence of my interests in politics, law, business and communication. Having worked for the better part of a decade as a commercial lawyer in the fields of Intellectual Property-, Media- and Marketing Law, I have gotten to see the aspirations and struggles of companies and individual entrepreneurs and inventors in their endeavours to navigate the inescapable uncertainty produced by old legislation being applied to new technologies, solutions and circumstances. As a citizen, I recognize the challenge technology poses to our rights and liberties if not adequately regulated. As a consumer, I enjoy the options and possibilities