The making of: the creation of constituencies through implicit vs explicit representative claims

The study of representative claims struggles to analyse more implicit claims, being those that do not explicitly mention the object or referent of the claim. More implicit or covert claims are often left out of data sets due to a lack of clarity in conceptualisation and operationalizability. To address this problem, this paper aims to conceptualise the distinction between implicit and explicit representative claims by focusing on how the construction of (new) constituencies within claims relates to the level of implicitness of the claim. We argue that claims will be more explicit, when the intended content of the claim is not (yet) part of the political repertoire. The absent resonance with audiences necessitates explicitness to lay out the newly created script by makers of representative claims. Conversely, claims become more implicit as its contents are embedded in the established political repertoire and are thus able to tap into the subconsciousness of audiences. In short, we contend that the level of implicitness of claims is not due to a lack of clear communication, but reflects intention on the claim-makers’ part and a level of resonance on the audiences’ side. We apply our novel conceptual framework to climate debates in the Belgian federal Chamber of Representatives from 1988 to 2023 to track how explicitness changes over time, and how this relates to the claim-maker’s intent and the resonance within the intended audience.