In this study, we analyse the rhetorical strategies of legitimation used by professionals when their conduct is exposed as wrong. Focusing on banking as a professional field and the conduct of bankers during the 2007–8 global financial crisis we ask two questions: what rhetorical strategies did senior bankers use to justify their actions and defend the legitimacy of their profession in the face of widespread public disapproval of banking practices? How did bankers use their professional field to legitimize their behaviour? To answer these questions, we analyse the justificatory rhetoric used by UK banking executives during the Treasury Select Committee hearings following the crisis. Drawing on our analysis we developed a typology of rhetorical strategies of legitimation used by the bankers, based in part on the concept of neutralization techniques. We argue that bankers, with some exceptions, drew largely on intra-field rhetoric, deeply embedded in institutionalized practices, to justify their behaviour and legitimize their profession. The lack of more convincing inter-field rhetoric only accentuated the mismatch between the moral universe of the bank executive and that of the traditional citizen, voter, and taxpayer.

中文翻译：

---

银行业专业领域合法化的修辞策略

在这项研究中，我们分析了专业人员在其行为被暴露为错误时使用的合法化修辞策略。专注于银行业作为一个专业领域以及 2007-8 年全球金融危机期间银行家的行为，我们提出两个问题：面对广泛的公众反对，资深银行家使用什么修辞策略来证明他们的行为是正当的并捍卫其职业的合法性银行的做法？银行家如何利用他们的专业领域使他们的行为合法化？为了回答这些问题，我们分析了英国银行业高管在危机后财政部特别委员会听证会上使用的辩解言辞。根据我们的分析，我们开发了银行家使用的合法化修辞策略的类型学，部分基于中和技术的概念。我们认为，除了一些例外，银行家们主要利用深深植根于制度化实践中的领域内言论来为他们的行为辩护并使他们的职业合法化。缺乏更有说服力的跨领域言论只会加剧银行高管与传统公民、选民和纳税人的道德世界之间的不匹配。