On the basis of data collected during a year-long study of a
Congressional campaign in California in the mid-1990s, this article uses
semantic, pragmatic, and narrative analysis to show how candidates for
political office construct and defend the coherence of their actions,
including their choice to run for office. First, semantic and pragmatic
analysis is used to discuss two charges of lack of coherence against one
candidate. Second, three discursive strategies used by candidates for
building existential coherence are identified: (i) constructing a
narrative of belonging; (ii) casting the present as a natural extension of
the past; and (iii) exposing potential contradictions in order to show how
to solve them. After examining the extent to which each strategy is common
across candidates and situations, it is shown that candidates who frame
themselves as “independent” tend to use these strategies more
than those who choose to identify more closely with a party's
platform and ideology.The research on which
this article is based was in part supported by two small grants from the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1996–1997 and
1997–1998, and by a John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship
supplemented by funds from UCLA during the 1999–2000 academic year.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Discourse Lab in
the Department of Anthropology at UCLA on 2 June 2004. I thank my
colleagues and students for their generous feedback and comments. Among my
research assistants over the years, special thanks go to Jeff Storey,
Sarah Meacham, and Jennifer Reynolds for their help in transcribing the
talk in dozens of videotapes I recorded. I am also indebted to Anjali
Browning for her careful reading of the first draft of this article. Some
of the data and ideas presented in this article were first introduced in a
number of seminars, workshops, and conferences at the University of Rome
“La Sapienza,” the University of Florence, and the University
of California at Santa Barbara. I would like to thank the participants in
those events for their engagement with this material and their comments. I
am also grateful to Jane Hill, former editor of Language in
Society, and three anonymous reviewers for specific suggestions on
how to improve the organization and content of the
article. A number of people made the
project on which this article is based possible and a rewarding
experience. First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to the late Walter
Capps and to his wife Lois Capps – now Rep. Lois Capps
(D-California) – and to their extended family for letting me enter
their home and giving me access to their lives as they experienced an
extraordinary series of events. I am also very grateful to Walter's
brother, Doug Capps, who was Walter's campaign manager in 1996 and
has continued over the years to be my liaison with the rest of the Capps
family. Others members of the Capps-for-Congress campaign staff I could
rely on for information include Bryant Wieneke, always most generous with
his time, Steve Boyd, Thu Fong, and Lindsey Capps. After Walter
Capps's death, I benefited from conversations with Capps's
colleague and friend Richard Hecht, professor and former chair of the
Department of Religious Studies at UCSB. I am also grateful to the
1995–1996 Independent candidate Steven Wheeler, who, in June 1998,
consented to meet with me and to being interviewed. This project was born
out of conversations with Walter Capps's daughter Lisa while she was
a graduate student at UCLA. She remained a strong supporter of my efforts
to capture her father's adventure in politics after she accepted a
position in psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and even
during the last year of her life, as she struggled with cancer. This
article is dedicated to her memory.
