arbiter
JournalsAccount

Let me be perfectly unclear: strategic ambiguity in political communication

Parker Bach et al.

Communication Theory2025https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf001article
ABDC A
Weight
0.44

Abstract

While clarity is often upheld as a core element of successful communication, we argue that a lack of clarity can also benefit a speaker, a concept called strategic ambiguity. This concept has been used across disciplines for decades, but its definitions are often overly context-specific. In this article, we follow Chaffee’s (1991) framework for explication to survey the literature and provide a unified definition of strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical tactic in which a communicator creates a: (1) polysemic message with multiple reasonable interpretations supported by the text, that is: (2) aimed at audiences from varying interpretive communities; and (3) by which polysemy the communicator stands to gain some specific advantage. We offer methodological suggestions on the study of strategic ambiguity, accompanied by two case studies of strategic ambiguity, centering Congressional newsletters and conservative political satire. We close with suggestions for scholarships that could be informed by incorporating strategic ambiguity.

3 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf001

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{parker2025,
  title        = {{Let me be perfectly unclear: strategic ambiguity in political communication}},
  author       = {Parker Bach et al.},
  journal      = {Communication Theory},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf001},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Let me be perfectly unclear: strategic ambiguity in political communication

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.44

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13
M · momentum0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.