Abstract
This article explores the role of subjective agency and politicised union leadership in exercising societal (discursive) power through a frame and rhetorical analysis of the writings, speeches and media interviews of Mick Lynch, General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (UK). Findings demonstrate Lynch engaged in a dynamic process of framing identity fields to support a collective action frame around the redistribution of wealth in society, developing a complex network of protagonist, antagonist and audience characteristics under three main categorisations: value, power and action identity fields. He did so in dialogic response to opponents’ counter-identity frames, utilising rhetorical techniques to present opposing arguments (dissoi logoi and logoi versus anti-logoi), other argumentation (inventio) and figures of speech (elocutio) for public persuasion. These findings extend literature on union power resources by illuminating how discursive power is generated through identity field framing as a dialogical and rhetorical process.
Introduction
‘If you’re an anonymous trade union leader I think there is something wrong with the campaigning that your union is doing’, Mick Lynch, General Secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT, UK) (BBC Political Thinking podcast, 22 May 2022). The pivotal role of trade union leadership in mobilising resistance to hegemony is well acknowledged (Kelly, 1998). Yet in developed economies which have experienced a decades-long decline in union membership, the power resources that leaders can utilise in challenging hegemony are arguably constrained (Preminger, 2020). The question of union revitalisation weighs heavily (Murray, 2017). Part of the issue has been ‘an erosion of credible rhetorics’, where in the ‘battle of ideas . . . Unions have to recapture the ideological initiative’ (Hyman, 2001: 173). Thus, industrial relations scholars increasingly look to cultural-cognitive perspectives on social movement theory, highlighting societal (discursive) power (Schmalz et al., 2018) and framing as critical to a union’s repertoire in revitalising themselves (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013). Framing is the process of developing and disseminating interpretive schema of grievances to organise and legitimise action, instil follower resilience and encourage bystander solidarity (Benford and Snow, 2000; Kelly, 1998).
The capability and skill of activists in framing is critical (Benford and Snow, 2000). Significantly, Lynch has become a public figure in leading collective action in the RMT, a traditionally militant and politicised union, as well as influencing solidarity from the wider public, other unions and workers. This comes amid the Cost-of-Living Crisis, a remarkable spike in collective action across UK industries during 2022/23 and the longest ever UK rail dispute in history. What is especially striking is the publicity and reputation Lynch garnered while other British union leaders remained largely anonymous in the public’s consciousness. Though his industrial relations strategy can be critiqued, both the British public and media widely acknowledge Lynch’s skills in framing the RMT dispute, competently defending it against antagonists and distilling key messages for public consumption around the wider role of unions in affecting social outcomes.
Accordingly, this article seeks to reawaken academic interest in the subjective agency of union leadership, particularly politicised leadership, which has long been neglected (Darlington, 2018). It enlightens how leaders can use discursive power as one important part of their repertoire, engaging in high-profile public debate on the role of unions in securing worker and societal outcomes and catalysing resistance against neoliberalist ideology. I thematically analyse Lynch’s writings, speeches and media interviews since becoming RMT General Secretary in May 2021 to explore how he used framing (Snow and Benford, 1988) and rhetoric as exercises in ideational power to affect identity construction, resistance, solidarity and change. Analysis demonstrates he constructed a collective action frame (CAF) on the redistribution of wealth in society to appeal to a wider audience than his RMT constituents. To support this CAF, he engaged in boundary framing of identity fields, constructing a complex network of subject protagonist (Lynch, RMT and trade unions) and antagonist (employers and the government) characteristics, positioning audiences (RMT constituents and society) as relational objects to these antithetical identities to affect their own identity choice and allegiance. Emergent from the findings are three main categorisations: value, power and action identity fields. Lynch often constructed these identity fields in dynamic response to counter-identity frames from antagonists, and to persuade wider audiences of the validity of his framing he utilised several rhetorical techniques such as opposing arguments (dissoi logoi; logoi versus anti-logoi; Billig, 1996), other types of argumentation (inventio) and figures of speech elocutio (Aristotle).
This study contributes to the literature on trade union power resources by enlightening how union leaders can employ discursive power to mobilise and organise, as well as revitalise public interest in the role of unions in work and society. Extant literature focuses on union restructuring, partnership approaches, or the recruitment and representation of non-standard employees or marginalised groups (Murray, 2017). Research on the subjective agency of politicised union leadership has been largely neglected (Darlington, 2018), as has the use of public discourse (Ainsworth et al., 2014; Barranco and Molina, 2021; Però and Downey, 2024) and rhetoric in industrial relations (Hamilton, 2001). Lévesque and Murray (2013) highlight how unions need to explore alternative power resources by redeveloping their communication strategies. Accordingly, this article illuminates how a leader’s discourse can be used within communicative unionism (Però and Downey, 2024) to affect ideation as power (Carstensen and Schmidt, 2016).
Second, this article extends the literature on framing by developing our understanding of the process by which framing is achieved. Previous literature focuses on key framing concepts (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013; Gooberman and Hauptmeier, 2023); however, in-depth analysis of the process of framing itself is lacking (Royle and Rueckert, 2022). Studies tend to discuss frames as outcomes, with much more research required into how discursive processes result in frames (Snow et al., 2014), including their inherent identity constructs (Benford, 2013). This article responds by elucidating how identity fields within frames are dialogically and rhetorically produced, adjusted and refined within social discourse.
The power resources of trade unions and leader framing
Of paramount concern for trade union revitalisation is how far unions can increase their power resources (Schmalz et al., 2018). With traditional structural, associational and institutional power decreasing in liberal market economies (Preminger, 2020), a reorientation from the traditional market-class axis towards the societal axis and associated power resources is critical (Hyman, 2001). Societal power involves coalitional power (external networking) and discursive power, where unions successfully intervene in public debate to challenge hegemony (Schmalz et al., 2018). Yet the discursive power of trade unions has weakened over the last 50 years with their narratives commonly viewed as outdated. Accordingly, scholars are turning towards how unions can redevelop their ideological, narrative and communicative resources (Lévesque and Murray, 2013), particularly through public discourse as a way of legitimising their identity and cause, organising support and increasing their influence as political actors (Ainsworth et al., 2014; Barranco and Molina, 2021). In this vein, Però and Downey (2024: 141) delineate ‘communicative unionism’ which ‘combines self-mediation practices for the public arena with direct action’. Herein unions take specific control of their media representation and engage in public framing to such a degree that ‘communicative action becomes constitutive of the dispute itself’ (Però and Downey, 2024: 151). Journalists and others who share material online are strategically important. While journalists usually follow the ‘protest paradigm’ (prioritising secondary commentary and framing strikes as illegitimate or unworthy of public debate), the goal of communicative unionism is to encourage them to publicise a union’s direct voice (whether in support or opposition) thereby validating its legitimacy in public debate.
Communicative unionism relies on framing to resonate simultaneously with workers, the public and mainstream media (Però and Downey, 2024). Framing concerns the production and maintenance of collective action frames (CAFs) which represent a shared understanding of an issue that needs to change (diagnosis), what the desirable alternative is (prognosis) and ‘action-oriented sets of beliefs to inspire and legitimise social movement’ (motivation) (Snow and Benford, 1988). Importantly, CAFs redefine ‘misfortune’ as ‘grievance’ (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013; Snow and Benford, 1992). However, unions cannot assume their workers share an awareness of common interests opposed to the employer (Ainsworth et al., 2014; Kelly, 1998). Leaders must produce mobilising ideas through the expression of their interpretive meanings to legitimise activism (Benford and Snow, 2000) and shape followers’ understanding of the issue and the action required in response (Kelly, 1998).
Leaders themselves are influenced by master frames, which are existing cultural interpretive models that constrain, enable or generate CAFs (Benford and Snow, 2000). Common master frames include injustice, democracy, protection and rights (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013). Activists may also embrace political leanings in constructing frames around social justice (Gooberman and Hauptmeier, 2023) or class conflict (Babb, 1996). Though largely neglected in literature (Darlington, 2018), the role of left-wing political activists is particularly acknowledged by Kelly (1998). Utilising master frames further allows leaders to link to wider societal interests through frame alignment which can include frame-bridging (linking ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames), amplification (intensifying ideals), extension (linking primary interests to the wider interests of others) and transformation (changing old understandings and forming new ones) (Benford and Snow, 2000).
Therefore, framing gathers bystander support (Snow and Benford, 1988), contributing to ‘the effectiveness of trade unions as political actors’ (Ainsworth et al., 2014: 2511) and the building of societal power (Lévesque and Murray, 2013). Preminger (2020) further demonstrates ideational power building through discourse can be effective even when other traditional sources such as structural or associational power are lacking. Ideational power is ‘power through ideas, understood as the capacity of actors to persuade other actors to accept and adopt their views through the use of ideational elements’ (Carstensen and Schmidt, 2016: 318). Persuasion is accomplished using ideational elements such as narratives, collective memories, frames and identities.
Persuasive power, however, is not static but ensconced in struggles ‘over the production of mobilizing and countermobilizing ideas and meanings’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 613). Analysing framing within the ‘strategic action field’ (i.e. the sphere of public debate and framing contests), is therefore critical (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013). Literature demonstrates framing is a longitudinal, dynamic and contested process (Gooberman and Hauptmeier, 2023). Accordingly, Benford and Snow (2000) highlight the importance of the expertise of the articulator in influencing their frame’s credibility and salience. The synthesis of ideational structures demands creativity and critical faculty from the articulator (Carstensen and Schmidt, 2016), with the understanding that not all frames are equally powerful (Tsarouhas, 2011), culturally resonant (Benford and Snow, 2000), suited to new contexts (Babb, 1996), or fit both constituent and public perceptions (Preminger, 2020). Extant studies demonstrate how CAFs can be generated through collective agency; for example, analysing interviews from various activists and official union documentation. Yet the nature of the subjective agency of leaders is ‘understudied and inadequately theorised’, deepening the call to explore why workers agree to the visions of a leader’s CAF and how a leader can extend into social movement unionism (Darlington, 2018: 618). This article therefore explores the subjective role of the union leader as a key articulator in external framing.
Framing identity fields
For mobilisation towards a social object to take place, a target must first be identified through a structure of meaning in a relational field of actors (Snow, 2013). Identity construction in framing involves situating relevant actors in time and space, avowing or imputing moral, cathectic and relational characteristics and specifying their actions (Benford and Snow, 2000). Boundary framing further demarcates ‘us’ versus ‘them’ (Hunt et al., 1994). Accordingly, social identities are not antecedents but products of framing (Creed et al., 2002).
Hunt et al. (1994) and Snow (2013) signify three key CAF identity fields which alter across time and space as their interrelationships unfold. Antagonists (diagnostic framing) are the movement’s opponents personally blamed for the problem or obstructing the movement. Imputed characteristics often include villainy, immorality, lacking compassion and personifying ‘big business’. In contrast, protagonists (motivational framing) include the movement’s constituents, often portrayed as innocent victims or aggrieved populations with values and characteristics diametrically opposed to antagonists. The audience (alignment framing) consists of neutral or uncommitted observers who may react to or report on the movement, such as the public and the media. The imputation is they are fair and just people capable of looking favourably on the movement’s cause: a potential source of solidarity.
There are several problems, however, in theorising identity fields. First, protagonists are said to include both those capable of solving the problem as well as the movement’s followers (e.g. union members) and allies (Snow, 2013). Conceptually, this amalgamation does not adequately address subject / object relationships such as the leader / follower dynamic. Similarly, categorising the audience as bystanders does not account for the multi-purpose of CAFs in public communications where the aim is to simultaneously mobilise internal movement, defend against antagonists and organise external solidarity. In rhetorical terms, the orator is addressing a composite group of both particular and universal audiences (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969) which consist of mixed (individuals with different starting points in relation to the articulator’s message) and multiple audiences (groups with competing interests) (Van Eemeren, 2010).
Second, protagonist framing relies on legitimisation. Heery and Simms (2011) find the most common organising messages (1998–2004) are around opposition to employers (including militancy), union effectiveness, collectivism and the political role of unions. However, Gamson (1990) proposes that social movements are more frequently successful when opponents recognise challengers as legitimate. Relatedly, Heery and Simms (2011) also find common organising messages around employer acceptance of trade unions. Indeed, identity fields link protagonists and antagonists in relationships ranging from conflictual to collaborative (Hunt et al., 1994). This suggests unions may have to paradoxically reframe antagonists as potential partners to resolve a dispute.
Third, Hunt et al. (1994) explain that articulators also need to dialogically respond to counter-identity claims from opponents. A political struggle ensues over the contestation of meaning and identities (Barranco and Molina, 2021; Snow and Benford, 1988). Individual union leaders can be critical catalysts for resisting challenges to frame identities as illegitimate (Darlington, 2018). There are four main strategies: declaring the imputation is incorrect; viewing it as a reinforcement of positive identity avowals; interpreting it as a misunderstanding based on flawed self-impression management; or accepting it as the accurate depiction of real flaws (Hunt et al., 1994). As well as delegitimising the counter claims, the frame articulator can also engage in the alter-casting of identities (Creed et al., 2002). Therefore, the process of constructing identity fields may be more dynamic than supposed, where identities are continually being readjusted, refined and elaborated in response to counter-framing (Snow, 2013). Further research on the process of meaning making and identity construction within framing is therefore required (Benford, 2013; Creed et al., 2002), particularly how it evolves in the strategic action field over time through contestation (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013).
Rhetoric as discursive power
While Hunt et al. (1994) acknowledge framing as a rhetorical strategy, there is a dearth of literature on how rhetoric supports framing and the generation of societal (discursive) power. In applying rhetoric, this article follows others (Billig, 1996; Condor et al., 2013) in rejecting modern views of rhetoric as style without meaning. Rather, rhetoric is the instrument of persuasion: an exercise in power designed to move an audience to response or action. Persuasion is central to ideational power (Carstensen and Schmidt, 2016), particularly important in engendering consensus around identity fields where the audience is assumed to be suasible (Snow, 2013).
One major canon of rhetoric is inventio, the method of finding or inventing arguments (Aristotle; Corbett and Connors, 1999). There are three proofs of inventio: logos, pathos and ethos. In utilising logos, the articulator builds an argument based on facts, appealing to reasoning. Critically, the function of rhetoric ‘is to persuade, where it cannot convince, an audience’ (Corbett and Connors, 1999: 53). This is especially relevant in public and democratic debate (Condor et al., 2013). Herein anti-foundationalism rejects the essentialist perspective of rhetoric (Billig, 1996). As applied to political issues, logos recognises belief over truth.
Relatedly, the dialogic nature of argument in recognising alternative interpretations of truth is critical. Dissoi logoi, or opposing arguments, is a technique where both supporting and opposing arguments are presented and addressed by the same speaker. This gives an antithetical structure where ‘two-sided argument allows us to adjudicate . . . contending views’ (Lanham, 1991: 58). The audience is invoked to participate in the debate as jury. Billig (1996) further notes the purpose of rhetoric is to present contestation rather than consensus and in deliberation people are often moved to think by contradiction, two opposite sides of an argument, the logoi and anti-logoi. Gamson (1998: 74) also recognises ‘themes and counterthemes’ and the need to ‘neutralise the potential resonances of the most important rival frames’ as key to proving frame legitimacy (Creed et al., 2002).
The second proof of inventio is ethos or ethical appeal, where the speaker establishes their integrity through their articulation (Corbett and Connors, 1999). According to Aristotle, this is the most important proof because rhetoric deals with uncertain truths which cannot be solved by logical deliberation alone. The speaker needs to ingratiate themselves with the audience to gain their trust and admiration. Specifically, they must demonstrate sound sense (phronesis), high moral character (arete) and benevolence (eunoia).
The third proof of inventio is pathos or emotional appeal (Corbett and Connors, 1999). Rhetoric recognises an audience is often swayed more by emotions than rational thought. The speaker needs to identify which emotions should be triggered or subdued and how.
Like master frames, rhetoric utilises topics: general arguments available from cultural repertoire (Corbett and Connors, 1999). Special topics are those which suit a specific context or come from a particular tradition; for example, contrasting vice and virtue in ceremonial discourse. The purpose of ceremonial discourse is to praise or censure someone, which is relevant in framing identity fields. Like boundary framing, special topics can include antithetical structures such as justice versus injustice, altruism versus selfishness and gentleness versus brutality. Common topics, on the other hand, are used for general appeal and include definition, comparison, relationship (explicating causality), circumstance (indicating the possible and impossible, the past and future act) and testimony.
The conveyer of inventio also needs to be an effective communicator. The rhetorical canon of elocutio refers to how a speaker utilises figures of speech in deviation from the ordinary usage of words. Rather than ornamentation, figures of speech are important strategic argumentative devices (Condor et al., 2013). They are used to establish clear and effective communication of reasoned argument (logos), produce admiration for the speaker (ethos) and heighten the emotive response of the audience (pathos) (Corbett and Connors, 1999). Figures of speech include tropes where a word takes on a different meaning from its literal or original meaning (e.g. metaphors, hyperbole and synecdoche) (Corbett and Connors, 1999).
Mick Lynch
Mick Lynch came to public attention during the ‘summer of discontent’ where thousands of workers across the UK (including transport workers, firefighters, barristers, doctors, council workers and teachers) undertook non-coordinated strike action over wage disputes amid a Cost-of-Living Crisis, resulting in 2.472 million working days lost between June and December 2022. Intermittent RMT strikes lasted from June 2022 until October 2023 over wages, proposed closures of ticket offices and potential redundancies which the train operating companies (TOCs) set as conditions for negotiating pay rises. In England, where the UK Secretary of State was responsible for the negotiating mandate, Lynch claimed the UK government purposefully blocked resolutions to prolong the dispute and engender antagonism against railway unions, thereby building momentum for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which legally enforces minimum service levels within key sectors during strikes.
While RMT members continued voting for Lynch’s mandate, low levels of railway use lessened the disruptive impact of the strikes, the RMT failed to set up a strike fund and the Conservative government continued to indemnify the TOCs against losses (Gall, 2024). Public support for the RMT was split but, despite the protracted length of the dispute, generally consistent. One longitudinal poll indicates between 27 June 2022 and 11 August 2023 support fluctuated between 40% and 46% and opposition between 42% and 53% (YouGov, 2023). A key success was the RMT’s ‘Save our railway ticket offices’ campaign. Passenger watchdog Transport Focus (2023) credited the RMT (whose membership is approximately 100,000) for generating a significant number of responses to the government’s consultation: 750,000 members of the public (the largest ever response to a UK government consultation) responded with 99% opposing. Subsequently, on 31 October 2023, the government dropped the closure plans and on 30 November 2023 RMT members accepted an unconditional (moderate) pay offer, with no compulsory redundancies until the end of 2024 and a continuing mandate to negotiate on modernisation reforms albeit on a company-to-company basis.
What is extraordinary is that unlike all other union leaders, including those of Unite and Unison (with 1.4 and 1.3 million members, respectively), Lynch alone went from being relatively unknown to being a household name in the UK and ‘turned 2022 into something of a “glorious summer” for the union movement’ (Gall, 2024: 5). He gave numerous radio media interviews and delivered rousing rally speeches. While some labelled him a troublemaker, several UK newspapers called Lynch a ‘working-class hero’, ‘working-class superhero’, ‘folk hero’, or ‘hero of our times’. There was a proliferation of Lynch and ‘Mick Mania’ references in social media, Google searches for Lynch rose by 1400% in June 2022 and the RMT gained more Twitter followers than it had members (Gall, 2024). Influencing the wider British trade union community, he spoke at social movement rallies such as Enough is Enough (EiE) and The People’s Assembly and was invited to give speeches to other unions, including the University and College Union (UCU) and the British Medical Association (BMA). UCU’s general secretary interviewed Lynch in October 2023 for leadership advice and the Trades Union Congress conferred the RMT with the Best Media Story award for ‘Creating the Mick Lynch media storm’ (2023 TUC Trade Union Comms Awards).
Lynch’s communicative unionism signifies his significant impact in securing the RMT dispute, and the wider union movement he advocated for increased purchase and weight. As Gall (2024: 198) asserts, Lynch became ‘a champion for union members who were becoming more collectively assertive’ and represented the ‘political, moral and discursive powers’ of the RMT (Gall, 2024: 5). Given the significance of framing and rhetoric in discursive power, exploring how Lynch developed a CAF and rhetorically constituted identity fields to mobilise followers and simultaneously influence public audiences is therefore valuable.
Methods
Accordingly, this study aims to answer: what identity fields did Mick Lynch construct to support his chosen CAF and how did he dialogically and rhetorically produce those identity fields in public discourse for the purpose of persuasion?
To answer these questions, I thematically analysed Lynch’s writings, speeches and media interviews between May 2021 (the commencement of his general secretaryship) and November 2023 (the end of the RMT dispute). Publicly available texts were selected comprising Lynch’s own words in full to allow for hermeneutic analysis. For example, newspaper articles which focused on secondary commentary with only brief direct quotes were excluded. Original sources of these same quotes, however, such as full interviews and speeches, were included. To gather a full picture of how Lynch linked to recurring themes, I analysed personal appearances in a variety of settings (i.e. select committees, interviews, writings and speeches). Texts were collated from oppositional, supportive and neutral media outlets to analyse how Lynch’s rhetorical style flexed before differing audiences. Overall, this comprised 26 ‘RMT News’ magazines (Lynch’s editorials and news items containing direct quotes); 14 RMT media appearances (pre-recorded messages, mass meeting and live question and answer session); four Select Committee transcripts; 18 speeches at rallies and events ranging approximately from 2 to 13 minutes; 16 newspaper / magazine interviews; and 58 television and radio interviews / appearances ranging approximately from 4 to 60 minutes. While the collated texts are comprehensive in number and timespan, they cannot represent the totality of Lynch’s verbal and written communications within this period, nor his complete ideology. Findings are therefore limited to the key themes arising from this high-profile collection of texts. Sufficient texts were gathered for saturation of key themes in relation to identity fields and the resolution of the railway dispute marked a suitable end point for this stage of analysis.
To answer the first research question, I analysed data through a hermeneutic circle, moving from individual texts to the relationships between texts, to the whole body of collated texts and back to individual texts. Data analysis and interpretation were context driven. Texts within this period pertained not just to the railway dispute, but to expressions of solidarity with other collective disputes (e.g. BMA), broader social movements (e.g. EiE) and political issues. I performed first order inductive coding to classify the key characteristics Lynch avowed / imputed to portray protagonists, antagonists and the audience. Given the political edge to the railway dispute and his frame extension to wider societal issues, I distinguished between direct employers and the government in coding antagonist identity fields. I then performed second order coding to group these characteristics into categories of identity fields. To answer the second research question, I undertook rhetorical analysis by considering the format of each text and its intended audience, identifying the techniques of argumentation (inventio) and figures of speech (elocutio) Lynch utilised to construct the identity fields and persuade audiences.
Results
Lynch’s CAF comprised the redistribution of wealth in society. The purpose of his CAF was to mobilise and maintain RMT resilience, engender solidarity from other union movements and garner bystander support as well as inspire wider social movement for trade union renewal and the building of a fairer society. Illustrative examples are given below of how Lynch supported his CAF through discursively constructing identity fields. These identities comprised the underlying motivations and actions of protagonists (himself, the RMT and trade unions) and antagonists (employers and the government) towards the audience (RMT constituents and society). Analysis shows he attributed characteristics to these identities across three broad categories which are elucidated in the following sections: value, power and action identity fields (Table 1). Analysis also elucidates how Lynch utilised rhetorical techniques to help persuade audiences to support his framing and how the rhetorical process itself resulted in his identity field development and refinement.
Mick Lynch’s framing of identity fields.
Value identity fields
Value identity fields elucidated the underlying principles of subjects (protagonists and antagonists) and the consequent relational positionality of objects (audiences) in worlds built upon those principles. In framing antagonists, Lynch was undoubtedly influenced by left-wing master frames on social justice. He regularly cast employers as ‘profiteers’ and the government as ‘right wing’, whose combined agenda was to ‘change this society so the rich man’s on top and the workers are down below’ (EiE, 10 February 2022). Drawing from master frames on class conflict, he highlighted, indeed called for, the resurgence of the ‘working class’ (EiE, 10 January 2022) and ‘class struggle’ (We Demand Better Rally, 18 June 2022). This achieved two identity framing tasks. First, in terms of relational identity fields, he identified antagonists as grammatical subjects to the workers (whom they are oppressing) as objects. Second, he frame-extended beyond the labour market function to wider class interests. He appealed to a universal audience to identify as, or sympathise with, the whole working population and, reflectively, RMT workers.
Lynch often discussed his own personal ideology rather than the RMT’s. He explicitly identified as a working-class person and, thereby, with much of his RMT constituents and some of the wider audience. While interviewers attempted to divest Lynch of his working-class identity by probing his General Secretary salary, he strove to maintain his working-class persona, primarily by recounting his heritage, upbringing, work history and role model (James Connolly). His framing integrated socialism with the role of trade unions: all workers to be unionised; unions to be inclusive; community unions and community politics; tenants’ associations; public ownership of core services; balance of power between labour and employers; fair wages, terms and conditions; and levelling up. Therefore, the working classes are transformed into citizens in his alternative socialist plotline.
Moving into macro-societal issues, Lynch called for the redistribution of wealth, showcasing his benevolence (eunoia; ethos). He employed anti-foundationalist rhetoric by positioning choices for the audience to make:
Is it going to be this degraded, diluted, every-person-for-themselves society, or is it going to be an egalitarian society that strives for equality, strives for a redistribution of wealth? (BMA Rally, 14 December 2022)
By offering one desirable and one undesirable outcome, respectively, aligned with protagonist and antagonist identities, he encouraged the audience to support unionism as the vehicle towards a desirable future. In relation to the proposed ticket office closures, he again frame-extended to social issues by positioning the RMT as inclusive: railway staff were protectors of public safety, particularly for women travelling alone and disabled passengers.
He embellished these ideological positions by constructing additional related antithetical characteristics. He contrasted the inherent constancy of being guided by socialist values with the inconstancy of politicians. In one interview, his reasoned argument (logos) relied on the rhetorical equivalent of induction (the example) to strengthen his argument:
. . . if you look at Liz Truss she is the personification of that: she started as a liberal, Liberal Democrat, on the left of that party, as a republican in Britain, would you believe, to abolish the monarchy, and is now on the extreme right of the conservative party and that is just an archetypal career for some of these people. (Second Captains, 13 August 2022)
He discussed a series of politicians and used them as synecdoche to represent all modern high-profile politicians. Additionally, he often depicted antagonists as deceitful: the government were scaremongers and employers were liars. Lynch often presented facts to discredit antagonists’ claims:
I warned last month . . . that unscrupulous employers in the transport and maritime industries would use the cloak of the COVID crisis as a cynical opportunity to hammer down on our jobs and wages and in the past weeks that co-ordinated attack has gathered pace . . . The fact that these cuts are being rolled out when the government rail minister himself has admitted that he expects passenger numbers to return to pre-COVID levels shows that they are nothing to do with the needs of the service and everything to do with the opportunism of rogue employers seeking to exploit the pandemic for their own purposes. (RMT News, September 2021)
In the above, he not only won the logical argument (logos) through use of a factual example but enhanced his own reputation (ethos) by highlighting how his prediction, and thus his trustworthiness and soundness (phronesis), proved correct. His imputed identity of the antagonist both evidenced their ulterior motives, implicitly revealing their ideological position and their disingenuity, which impugned the trustworthiness of their past and future rhetoric (ethos). In other instances, he more directly positioned himself as of high moral character (arete): ‘you can always rely on me to tell the truth, so just listen to me and you’ll get the right answers’ (Good Morning Britain, 23 June 2022).
Depending on how particular or universal the audience was, however, the strength of Lynch’s socialist framing shifted. In interviews with a knowledgeable or sympathetic audience, he was more comfortable elucidating his socialist perspectives: ‘I am a socialist and I’ve got a set of principles based on traditional labour values’ (BBC Political Thinking podcast, 22 May 2022). In front of constituent audiences, he frame-amplified and differentiated his socialist identity: ‘I am not a centrist . . . in my community I am regarded as a radical and a leftist, but of course these things are relative’ (RMT News, May 2021).
His main concern, however, was how to communicate with universal audiences and reframe imputed identities that he was a Marxist. On some occasions, these counter-identity claims were explicitly put to him, necessitating his declaration that the imputation was incorrect:
No, I’m not a Marxist, I’m an elected official of the RMT, I’m a working-class bloke leading a trade union dispute about jobs, pay and conditions of service. So it’s got nothing to do with Marxism. (Good Morning Britain, 21 June 2022)
In addition to the denial, Lynch above redefined his identity by downplaying his socialism. He presented himself as a ‘working-class bloke’ to diffuse the political edge. To illustrate how the dialogic can further impact frame construction, consciously or subconsciously, this encounter fed into an interview appearance the following day where he reframed his identity again. In response to a question about whether the government wanted the railway dispute to continue, Lynch offered up the opponents’ arguments (anti-logoi) of his own volition:
They think they’re going to condemn everyone as communists and Marxists and all the rest of it. We’ve got ordinary men and women, who I think are heroes, who are conducting this dispute, and tell me what to do through our democratic processes, and they’re sick of being made poorer by this Tory government. (ITV Peston, 22 June 2022)
Rather than conceal or ignore his antagonists’ counter-identity frame, he willingly introduced it to a new audience and employed it as anti-logoi to engage in public deliberation. His past experience of the counter-identity claim impacted his new collective identity avowal. In response to the anti-logoi, he widened the protagonist identity field to include the RTM rather than just him alone. This allowed him to deny the imputation since a collective of ‘ordinary’ people is less likely to be considered revolutionary. Essentially, he used his constituents as a rhetorical shield. He dimmed his own position (his constituents were heroes, not he) and emphasised how the movement was a democratic one, bringing their unionism into a safer more relatable political field. Overall, he identified which audience emotion (fear) needed to be subdued as part of the emotional appeal (pathos) and used the master frame of democracy to align his movement with a universal audience.
Power identity fields
Power identity fields classified how power is, should or should not be exercised and/or shared between subjects (protagonists and antagonists) and in relation to objects (audiences). A recurring theme was Lynch’s portrayal of the RMT as democratic. From the beginning of his secretaryship, Lynch defined the RMT as a ‘member-led union’ (RMT News, May 2021). In media interviews he often used the example to invite audiences to agree with this projected identity. He elucidated the balloting process, emphasised his technical mandate to speak for his constituents and publicised voting percentages.
In public appearances, however, he also constructed this protagonist identity in response to perceived counter-identity frames, utilising opponents’ arguments (dissoi logoi). For instance, he vocalised imputed identities of himself and fellow leaders as ‘barons’ who moved ‘troops’ around and instead avowed identities as ‘elected spokespeople’ (Burston Strike School Rally, 8 September 2022) to highlight his moral character (arete). A more detailed example follows:
Every interview we do or that Mick Wheelan does or that Sharon [Graham] does they say ‘Well, you’re just a club of the in-house staff, you’re just a group of people that are in a privileged position because you’ve got this leverage, you’re holding the country to ransom’. I don’t know if you have ever met my national executive but I do know what being held to ransom looks like (laughter) and we’re not doing that. We’re being held to ransom because what did they think after Covid? They thought, ‘These people are never going to fight back, they’re scared, they’re cowed, we can make the RMT and ASLEF and Unite an enemy. Nobody’s going to support them. They won’t get any public opinion.’ Well they’ve got another thing coming. These meetings are packed all over the country. People are coming out. They’re coming out to support us and the other unions, but they’re coming out to support themselves because they want that change, they’re ready for it, and we’ve got to deliver it, but it’s got to be broader than transport. (RMT Rally, London, 31 August 2022)
The above demonstrates a myriad of rhetorical and framing techniques used to persuade the audience. He introduced his own perception of his opponent’s arguments (anti-logoi) while deflecting it as a personal attack. He engaged in counter-frame amplification to present it as a collective attack on trade unionists by naming two other trade union leaders. Lynch’s immediate response to the anti-logoi was to discredit it through humour, implicitly inviting the audience to laugh at the absurdity of the antagonists’ claim and thus weaken their reasoning (logos) and credibility (ethos). He then used the antagonists’ own words to refine his antagonist identity framing: it is not the unions who hold to ransom, but the government and employers. The use of a rhetorical question can be used in persuasion to influence the audience response. They can be more effective than an assertion as the audience is induced to make an answer and become part of the speech (Corbett and Connors, 1999). Lynch thus invited the audience to recall their lived experience of real wage cuts at a time of worker fatigue and economic uncertainty (where bargaining power was assumed to be with employers) and enjoin that experience as an example to his reasoned logic (logos) ‘because what did they think after Covid?’.
Lynch frame-bridged to a different set of counter-identity frames, of workers as ‘cowed’ and unions as ‘the enemy’ and unsupported. He then gave real examples to prove the critics were wrong in their estimation, calling on the audience to invest their lived experience of being at the rally as testimony that the antagonist framing was incorrect. He presented the people as the core support for the RMT, other unions and, critically, self-determination. Therefore, if the antagonists’ counter-frame here is incorrect, their trustworthiness (ethos) is impugned and they are also wrong about the first set of opposing arguments (anti-logoi) in this passage. Overall, Lynch invited the audience and their experience into the speech, asking them to adjudicate between competing identity claims.
Drawing again on master frames of democracy, Lynch also cast himself as an exemplar negotiator, simultaneously refining antagonist identities:
. . . so he told me face to face and on the telephone on a one-to-one call that the offer would be made and then he had to ring back and say, ‘I’m very sorry, I’m not allowed to make that offer’. (BBC Newsnight, 22 November 2022)
Instead of failure, Lynch demonstrated he secured an offer from the employer but that the government intervened. This allowed him to reframe the employer antagonist as a potential partner who was constrained by an arch-antagonist – the government. Lynch often frame-extended in interviews, reminding the audience that the Secretary of State had final responsibility for the negotiating mandate even though they did not directly bargain with unions. Utilising figures of speech (elocutio) through metaphor, Lynch referred to the government as a ‘stage director’ who ‘choreographed and stage-managed’ . . . ‘according to a timetable’ . . . ‘pre-arranged’ events (Select Committee, 11 January 2023) to lengthen the dispute and engender unnecessary disruption to rail services. Metaphors are an assertion of identity and prompt the audience to engage in the transformative process by interpreting which characteristics to transfer to the target (Corbett and Connors, 1999). Further utilising the common topic of relationship (causality), Lynch often frame-extended to argue this stage-management mobilised political support for the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which removed the rights of the RMT and many other workers to strike under ‘totalitarian regimes’ (Sky News, 10 September 2023).
Lynch also frequently employed fighting metaphors to frame the RMT’s utilisation of power. He positioned himself as a general with his troops: ‘I am personally proud that you have given me the honour of leading this trade union from the front as we face that threat together’ (RMT News, May 2021). Traditional trade union slogans related to ‘fighting’, ‘striking’ and ‘pressuring’, ‘winning’, ‘busting’ and ‘stopping’ appeared in the headlines of 16 RMT News editorials written by Lynch. In public, he was transparent that ‘unions have got to make a militant stand – and use the strike weapon wherever it’s appropriate’ (The Guardian, 8 May 2021).
Lynch was acutely aware, however, of the negative identity imputations of the RMT being militant, in terms both of being the aggressor, ‘People ask me “why are you fighting?”’ (Durham Miners’ Fundraiser, 18 February 2022) and of employing the disproportionate use of force (strikes). He reframed one interviewer’s statement that the RMT had been portrayed ‘as militant, as extreme’ by substituting the term ‘assertive’ instead (BBC Political Thinking podcast, 22 May 2022), thus directly declaring the imputation was incorrect. With a less sympathetic interviewer his response was to position them as holding undesirable values:
You are asking us to be passive in the face of aggression from our employers. They are seeking thousands of jobs cuts, and they and you seem to want us to just passively accept that. Where workers have done that over the last 20 or 30 years, they have been driven into minimum wage, they’ve been driven into having their conditions cut, they’ve been driven into the gig economy, insecure employment, flexible working hours, as it’s called, zero hours contracts. It’s time now for workers to stand up for themselves and get a square deal from this company, these companies and from society in general. (Good Morning Britain, 8 June 2022)
Again, in this excerpt, Lynch frame-extended to wider socio-economic issues and the role of trade unions in society, citing examples of what happens when unions do not fight. He invoked sympathy (pathos) for workers who can either be disempowered victims or empowered soldiers. These considerations of opposing arguments (anti-logoi) also fed into Lynch’s communications with RMT follower-audiences. Pulling on master frames of protection, he often referred to being engaged in a ‘defensive dispute’ which necessitated a ‘fight-back’ (RMT Rally, London, 31 August 2022). Thereby he reassured his constituents, bestowing on them the ideological material to justify their activism to themselves (motivational framing) and others.
The rhetorical techniques he used here were in direct contrast to the language he used to impute the power identity field of antagonists. Utilising war metaphors, Lynch heightened audiences’ emotional response (pathos) through frame-amplification, emphasising the violence of antagonists. Additionally frame-extending to wider working-class issues, he spoke of Tories ‘living in a dark bunker’ (Burston Strike School Rally, 8 September 2022) with ‘tanks on our lawn’ (RMT Rally, London, 31 August 2022) who ‘butcher the working class’ (We Demand Better Rally, 18 June 2022). His commentary on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill was that it would ‘conscript’ labour (Rally, Westminster, 2 November 2022).
Metaphors and hyperbole can be effective if used with restraint and for calculated effect (Corbett and Connors, 1999). Here he amplified the effect with a historical example:
. . . that period of discontent in this country where we had mass strikes, we had troops on the street facing down transport workers, that great hero Winston Churchill putting troops into signal boxes and railway depots and docks and shipyards, and to stop working-class people expressing themselves in the only way that they can collectively. We’re facing it again. (Burston Strike School Rally, 8 September 2022)
By utilising the common topic of circumstance (past and future act), he brought transformative images of violence into the realm of reality and possibility. If it happened once in recent history instigated by a UK government, it could happen again.
Action identity fields
Action identity fields clarified the manifest and/or intended action taken by subjects (protagonists and antagonists) towards objects (audiences), often reflecting past, present and future orientations. Actions are the enactment of values as moderated by power resources. Drawing on master frames of social justice, a focal antagonist identity field Lynch constructed was that of the rapacious exploiter (employers) and the corrupting (the government). Here he used the common topic of definition. By redefining ‘corrupt’ he attempted to win his own argument: ‘when I say that is corrupt I don’t mean it’s illegal’; rather he meant ‘structurally corrupt’ where the ‘rich just keep getting richer and richer because they’ve got their hands on the levers of power’ (PoliticsJOE, 8 October 2023). He also gave factual examples to support his local argument (logos); for example, he quantified disproportionate profits being given to train companies who were indemnified by the government against losses.
Frame-bridging to national services experiencing similar conditions to the railways, Lynch again strengthened the power of factual examples with emotive metaphors. He named the action of outsourcing as ‘the biggest evil’ (King’s Cross Rally, 25 June 2022) and ‘one of the greatest cancers’ in the economy (RMT Rally, London, 31 August 2022), depicting private companies who implemented outsourcing as evil and deadly. In discussing privatisation, he stated:
The NHS is being consumed by private sector companies, boa constrictors that are swallowing the clinical services, swallowing the hospitals, swallowing all the ancillary services for private profit . . . (Burston Strike School Rally, 8 September 2022)
Here Lynch used figures of speech (elocutio) by combining the metaphor of ‘boa constrictor’ with that of repetition (anaphora), repeating the phrase ‘swallowing’ three times. Repetition creates emphasis on the part of the metaphor the articulator wants the audience to focus on most and helps them remember the core message (Corbett and Connors, 1999). He deliberately used the National Health Service (NHS) as an example of one of the public services most valued by the public to help engage their vested interest and emotive response (pathos).
Another critical element was prognostic framing which looked to the future. For RMT members, Lynch again pulled on master frames of social justice, repeatedly stressing he was looking for a ‘square deal’ (The People’s Assembly, 6 November 2022) and that unions were the vehicle by which workers can secure such deals. Lynch tempered his language depending on the context and even in rallies balanced rousing calls to collective action with talk of moderate demands to manage the emotions of constituents and allay public fears, carefully handling the emotional appeal (pathos). Frame-bridging to the NHS at the BMA rally (14 December 2022), he was careful to balance hyperbole, ‘This is the fight of our generation, and the fight of our lives . . . and a fight for the nature of society that we live in’, with fairly routine talk of automatic pay rises and value for labour.
Ultimately, he positioned the unions as ‘progressive’ (EiE, 10 January 2022). In response to counter-identity frames that he was out-dated in seeking to revert to the industrial conflict of the 1970s and 1980s, he again declared the imputation as incorrect (BBC HARDtalk, 13 February 2023). He positioned his nostalgia as restorative: it was the role of unions in society he wished to reestablish rather than conflict. In support of his reasoning (logos), he used the common topic of circumstance (past and future act) to recall union heritage before knowledgeable audiences:
The Tolpuddle Martyrs and the Chartists, the suffragists and all of the reformers fought for our rights to get to this position. Where we can (if our members want it) take this action, it hurts us. It’s difficult to be on strike in a community. It’s difficult to be a trade union leader organising strikes, but it does bring results. (BBC Political Thinking podcast, 22 May 2022)
Here he solidified the necessary role of trade unions in society. He legitimised contemporary collective action of the RMT by situating it in the historical and continuing narrative of the trade union movement. Ultimately, his ambition was for the RMT to be ‘at the cutting edge of the trade-union recovery’ (RMT News, May 2021).
Discussion and conclusions
This article extends labour movement literature on power resources (Schmalz et al., 2018) and communicative unionism (Però and Downey, 2024) by exploring how societal (discursive) power can be generated from the subjective agency of a politicised trade union leader through their framing and rhetoric. Previous studies focus on the content of frames developed by union activists as a collective, under-representing the role of specific leaders and their ideation in frame construction. Extant literature also fails to consider the linguistic elements required to persuade bystanders in external framing. In contrast, this study advances our understanding of the impact of subjective agency in authoring frames within public debate. It demonstrates how a leader’s rhetoric is an additional and specific power resource which unions can utilise to persuade universal audiences of the validity of CAFs and the legitimacy of union voice.
While the RMT’s associational power was strong, its industrial relations strategies were restricted by limited structural and institutional power; for example, the UK Conservative government indemnified the TOCs’ losses and the UK Secretary of State effectively vetoed negotiations. The resultant negotiated pay deal was only moderately successful, potential redundancies were delayed rather than halted and future negotiations predicated on fragmenting the bargaining unit (Gall, 2024). Despite these shortfalls, Lynch helped to increase the union’s societal power. He utilised self-mediation, making numerous personal appearances in a wide variety of public settings (UK television, radio, newspaper and online interviews; speeches at political rallies and other UK trade union meetings) and utilised framing and rhetorical techniques to appeal to the UK public. He overturned journalists’ protest paradigms to raise interest in the role of trade unions in society, prevented public support for the railway strikes waning too significantly through a lengthy dispute, inspired the trade union community and successfully led a public campaign to halt ticket office closures and thereby safeguard RMT jobs.
Accordingly, this article answers the call to explore why workers agree to the vision of a leader’s CAF and how a leader might extend into social movement unionism (Darlington, 2018), especially a left-wing leader in the context of a generally right-wing to centre-right political climate. Analysis demonstrates how Lynch extended into a strategic field of action by drawing from left-wing master frames on social justice (Gooberman and Hauptmeier, 2023) and class conflict (Babb, 1996) as well as frame-bridging to general master frames such as democracy and protection (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013) for public appeal. Frame-extending to socio-economic issues such as privatisation, exploitation and politics allowed Lynch to penetrate the consciousness of the UK media, public and union movement. Not every individual was persuaded by Lynch’s arguments and without him obtaining a wider political role, non-RMT members of the public could follow him only as far as the public consultation on ticket office closures. Nevertheless, considering the context of the ‘summer of discontent’ and the Cost-of-Living Crisis, his selection of master frames was suited to societal contexts (Babb, 1996), fitting to both constituent and public perceptions (Preminger, 2020) and culturally resonant (Benford and Snow, 2000). Furthermore, he utilised several classical rhetorical techniques to persuade the media and public audiences of this framing: inventio through appeals to reason (logos); emotion (pathos); integrity (ethos); figures of speech (elocutio); and common topics.
Findings provide valuable insight into the key identity field categories which may be particularly powerful in supporting a CAF of labour movements in democratic societies. Lynch developed three interlinked focal categories of identity field: value, action and power. Value identity fields allowed Lynch to position moderate socialist values against neoliberalism as the root cause of worker and societal ills (diagnostic framing). Action identity fields allowed Lynch to present the alternative reality of a fairer society under unionisation (prognostic framing). Power identity fields allowed him to justify militant action but also exemplify other forms of democratic empowerment against scrupulous oppressors, thus legitimising social movement (motivational framing).
Further applying rhetorical analysis allows refinement of identity field theory. In contrast to extant literature (Hunt et al., 1994; Snow, 2013), this article clearly distinguishes between protagonists (Lynch, the RMT and trade unions) and followers (the RMT, workers or the public). This helped Lynch to address both RMT constituents and frame-extend to wider society. Lynch positioned audience members as objects to the subject positions of protagonists and antagonists. In rhetorically constructing antithetical identity fields, Lynch also used special topics from ceremonial discourse such as contrasting altruism versus selfishness and gentleness versus brutality. Using culturally resonant value statements, he therefore invited the audience to choose between trade unions who would treat them as empowered, enfranchised and valued citizens, and profiteering employers and the Conservative government who would treat them as disempowered, disenfranchised and exploited working classes. Considering the composite nature of particular and universal audiences (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Van Eemeren, 2010), Lynch engaged in a fluid approach to frame-amplification and frame-extension, moderating the intensity of his identity fields while ensuring they still supported his main CAF. In future studies, applying rhetoric theory in this way may allow CAFs to be analysed through a leadership lens and illuminate how identity fields develop and change depending on the audience and purpose (for mobilisation, organisation or solidarity).
This article further extends scholarship on framing in an industrial relations context by developing our understanding of framing as a process. While previous studies focus on the content of frames, this study’s findings elucidate how a CAF can be supported by identity fields which are dynamically produced, adjusted and refined within contested social discourse. Consistent with prior literature (Heery and Simms, 2011), Lynch reframed employers as reasonable yet potential partners (who were constrained by an arch-antagonist – the Conservative government). Critically, his framing was often constructed through his personal interpretation of and dialogical response to antagonists, illustrating that in the strategic action field identity framing is continually readjusted and refined in response to counter-framing (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013; Snow, 2013). While many strategies for delegitimising counter claims are proffered in literature (Creed et al., 2002; Hunt et al., 1994), findings show Lynch’s main strategy was to declare antagonist imputations as incorrect and alter-cast antagonists. Moreso, however, Lynch inherently understood the anti-foundationalist nature of rhetoric by engaging in opposing argumentation (dissoi logoi) and it was through engagement with anti-logoi that he sometimes reframed his own logoi in direct dialogic response. Thus, a key contribution to framing theory is that the very engagement in rhetoric leads to the process of refining identity fields.
Overall, therefore, this article extends literature on trade union power resources by exploring how the subjective agency of a politicised trade union leader in both framing and rhetoric can generate societal (discursive) power. Furthermore, it contributes to theory on the process of identity field construction, explaining how engaging in dialogic response to counter-identity frames and rhetoric itself can influence the construction and refinement of identity fields.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Editor, Professor Michael Brookes, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments that have improved the article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
