dogwhistles, political manipulation and philosophy of ... · this is a draft. please do not cite...
Post on 17-Aug-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
1
Dogwhistles,PoliticalManipulationandPhilosophyofLanguage
JenniferSaul
Youstartoutin1954bysaying,"Nigger,nigger,nigger."By1968,
youcan'tsay"nigger"—thathurtsyou.Backfires.Soyousaystuff
likeforcedbusing,states'rightsandallthatstuff.You'regettingso
abstractnow[that]you'retalkingaboutcuttingtaxes,andall
thesethingsyou'retalkingaboutaretotallyeconomicthingsanda
byproductofthemis[that]blacksgethurtworsethanwhites.And
subconsciouslymaybethatispartofit.I'mnotsayingthat.ButI'm
sayingthatifitisgettingthatabstract,andthatcoded,thatweare
doingawaywiththeracialproblemonewayortheother.You
followme—becauseobviouslysittingaroundsaying,"Wewant
tocutthis,"ismuchmoreabstractthaneventhebusingthing,and
ahellofalotmoreabstractthan"Nigger,nigger."
LeeAtwater,quotedinLamis1990
Inrecentyears,twoverywelcomechangeshavecometophilosophyoflanguage.
ThephilosophyoflanguagethatIwas“raised”inwasthatoftheeightiesand
ninetiesintheUS.Ourfocuswasalmostexclusivelyonsemanticcontent,
referenceandtruthconditions.Isay“almostexclusively”becauseGrice’snotion
ofconversationalimplicaturewasanotableexceptiontothis—thisnotionwas
thetopicofgreatinterest,becauseitallowedsemantictheoriststoexplainaway
intuitionsthatseemedtoconflictwiththeirpreferredtheoryas“merely
pragmatic”.
Recently,philosophyoflanguagehasbroadenedintwosignificantways.The
mostimportantshift,tomymind,isamovetoconsidertheethicalandpolitical
dimensionsoflanguage.Thesewereneverforgottenbyphilosophersmore
broadly,butuntilrecentlytheywereleftalmostexclusivelytoethicistsand
politicalphilosophers.Now,however,philosophersoflanguageareworkingto
understandhatespeech,politicalmanipulation,propagandaandlies.These
issues—vitalintherealworld—havenotyetbecomecentraltophilosophyof
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
2
language.Buttheyareatleastapartoftheconversation,inawaythatthey
weren’ttwentyyearsago.Withthisshift(thoughnotwhollyasaresultofit),has
comeanincreasingphilosophicalinterestinmattersotherthansemanticcontent
andreference.Implicature,accommodationandspeechactsarethecentral
notionsinthesenewdebates,ratherthansemanticcontent.1
Andyet,Iwillbearguing,thesenewdiscussionshavenotyetmovedfarenough
awayfromthefocusoncontent.Fullymakingsenseofpoliticallymanipulative
speechwillrequireadetailedengagementwithcertainformsofspeechthat
functioninalessconsciousmanner—withsomethingotherthansemantically
expressedorpragmaticallyconveyedcontent;andwitheffectsofutterancesthat
aretheirverypointandthatnonethelessvanishassoonastheyaremade
explicit.Noneofthemachinerydevelopedindetailsofarisequippedforthis
task.
Thistask,however,isanabsolutelyvitalone.Dogwhistles,wewillsee,area
disturbinglyimportanttoolofcovertpoliticalmanipulation.Theyareinfactone
ofthemostpowerfulformsofpoliticalspeech,allowingforpeopletobe
manipulatedinwaysthattheywouldresistifthemanipulationwascarriedout
moreopenly—oftendrawingonracistattitudesthatareconsciouslyrejected.If
philosophersfocusonlyonmoreovertspeech,whichdoesitsworkviacontent
expressedorotherwiseconsciouslyconveyed,theywillmissmuchofwhatis
mostpowerfulandperniciousinthespeechofourpoliticalculture.Thispaperis
acalltostartpayingattentiontothesemorecovertspeechacts,andafirst
attemptatbeginningtotheorisethem.
1. Dogwhistles
Myfocusinthispaperisondogwhistles.‘Dogwhistle’isarelativelynewtermin
politics,arisingoutofUSpoliticaljournalisminthe1980s.Thefirstrecordeduse
1Thisisn’tmeanttosuggestthatspeechacttheoryisnew,justthatithadfallenoutoffashionatleastinthecirclesImovedin.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
3
ofthetermseemstohavebeenbyRichardMorinoftheWashingtonPost,
discussingacuriousphenomenonthathadbeennoticedinopinionpolling.
Subtlechangesinquestion-wordingsometimesproduceremarkablydifferent
results…researcherscallthisthe‘DogWhistleEffect’:Respondentshear
somethinginthequestionthatresearchersdonot.(1988)
Theideaofapoliticaldogwhistleshiftedsomewhatoverthenextdecadesto
focusmainlyonakindofdeliberatemanipulation,usuallybypoliticians(ortheir
handlers),designedtobeunnoticedbymostofthepublic.(Wewillrefinethis
definitionoverthecourseofthispaper.)Wewillsee,though,thatthissortof
manipulationcomesinimportantlydifferentvarieties,whichwewillteaseapart
andexamineoverthecourseofthispaper.Dogwhistlesmaybeovertorcovert,
andwithineachofthesecategoriestheymaybeintentionalorunintentional.
2. IntentionalDogwhistles
2.1 OvertIntentionalDogwhistles
KimberlyWitten(forthcoming)isoneofveryfewlinguistswhohasworkedon
dogwhistles.HerfocusisexclusivelyonthesortofdogwhistlethatIcallanovert
intentionaldogwhistle,andherdefinition(of‘dogwhistle’)isanexcellentonefor
anovertintentionaldogwhistle.
A[novertintentional]dogwhistleisaspeechactdesigned,withintent,to
allowtwoplausibleinterpretations,withoneinterpretationbeingaprivate,
codedmessagetargetedforasubsetofthegeneralaudience,andconcealed
insuchawaythatthisgeneralaudienceisunawareoftheexistenceofthe
second,codedinterpretation.(Witten:2)
Althoughthemaininterestofdogwhistlesliesintheirpoliticaluse,Witten
rightlyarguesthattheconceptappliesmorebroadly.Asaparent,Iwasshocked
torevisitsomeofmyfavouritechildhoodentertainmentsandseemuchthatI
hadmissedasachild.WatchingBugsBunnywithmysmallson,Iwassurprised
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
4
toseereferencestooldmoviesthatchildrencouldn’tbeexpectedtoknow,and
evenmoresurprisedtoseethatoneofthesewasLastTangoinParis.Finding
thesereferencesofcoursemadetheendlessre-viewingslesstedious.And,of
course,thiswastheintentoftheirmakers.Wittensuggeststhatthisshouldbe
consideredadogwhistle—aconcealedmessageforasubsetofthecartoons’
generalaudience.2
Themostimportantsortofintentionalovertdogwhistle,however,isthatused
bypoliticians.Dogwhistleutterancesallowacandidatetosendamessagetoone
portionoftheelectoratethatotherportionsmightfindalienating.Thesewillbe
mymainfocushere.We’llstartwithsomeexamples.
2.1.1 “Wonder-workingPower”
GeorgeW.Bushfacedatrickysituationwithrespecttohisfaiththroughouthis
candidacies.HedesperatelyneededthevotesoffundamentalistChristians,and
yetitwasalsoclearthatmanyothers—whosevoteshealsoneededforthe
generalelections—weremadenervousbyfundamentalistChristianity.The
solutionhisspeech-writersusedwastodogwhistletothefundamentalists.A
niceexampleofthisisBush’sutteranceinhis2003StateoftheUnionspeech:
Yetthere'spower,wonder-workingpower,inthegoodnessandidealismand
faithoftheAmericanpeople.(Noah2004)
Toanon-fundamentalistthisisanordinarypieceoffluffypoliticalboilerplate,
whichpasseswithoutnotice.ButafundamentalistChristianwillhearthe
dogwhistle.Amongstfundamentalists,“wonder-workingpower”isafavoured
phrasethatrefersspecificallytothepowerofChrist.Therearetwomessagesa
fundamentalistmighttakefromthis.Thefirstisakindoftranslationintotheir
idiolect,toyieldanexplicitlyChristianmessagethatwouldalienatemany:
2Wittendiscussesdifferentexamples,buttheideaofdogwhistlesforparentsinchildren’sentertainmentishers.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
5
Yetthere'spower,thepowerofChrist,inthegoodnessandidealismandfaith
oftheAmericanpeople.3
ThesecondissimplythefactthatBushdoesspeaktheiridiolect—indicatingthat
heisoneofthem.4
Thefirstmessageisveryclearlyanovertintentionaldogwhistle:itisacoded,
concealedmessage,intendedforjustasubgroupofthegeneralaudience.Infact,
itfunctionsratherliketheexploitationofalittle-knownambiguity.Thesecond
isalittlemessier.Itissomewhatlikespeakinginaregionalaccentthatgivesa
feelingofkinshiptoaparticularaudience.Butit’scruciallydifferentbecause,
unlikeanaccent,itcan’tbeheardbyeveryone.Arguably,then(assumingthatit
isdoneintentionally),thisisstillanovertintentionaldogwhistle—itisacoded
messageforasubgroup,concealedbyanapparentlystraightforwardmessage.
2.1.2 “DredScott”
GeorgeW.Bushalso,likemanyconservatives,makesapointofdeclaringhis
oppositiontotheDredScottdecision,whichin1857affirmedthatslavesremain
theirowners’propertyevenwheninfreeterritories.Thisissomewhatbaffling
tothoseit’snotdirectedto,whotakeitforgrantedthatevenaright-wing
Republicanopposesslavery,andwhothinkthisoppositionshouldgowithout
saying.ButmostviewerswerenotwhoBushwasaddressingwiththis
dogwhistle.Bushwasaddressingtheanti-abortionright,andhewas
dogwhistlingabouthisoppositiontoabortion.
3PresentingthispapertoaudiencesintheUS,I’vefoundthatthisinterpretationiscontroversial.SomeChristiansthinkit’sexactlyright,whileothersthinkitwouldbewrongtoreaditthisway,andthatdoingsowouldyieldahereticalutterance.Forthelattergroup,obviouslythesecondinterpretationinthetextwillmakemoresense.4ThisideaofsignalinggroupmembershipbywordchoicefindsaniceparallelinNunberg’saccountofslurs(thisvolume).
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
6
Thisdogwhistlefunctionssomewhatdifferently:itworksbecauseitisvery
commonforright-wingcommentatorstodiscusstheDredScottdecisionwhen
discussingabortionrights,butinavarietyofways.Sometimesitisanexample
ofabadSupremeCourtdecisioninneedofoverturning(likeRoeVWade).
Sometimesitisapartofananalogybetweentheunrecognizedpersonhoodof
slavesand(purported)unrecognizedpersonhoodoffetuses.Butitissocommon
todiscussitwhendiscussingabortion—and,crucially,sobafflingtodiscussit
otherwise—thatitcanservetosignalBush’soppositiontoabortion,andhis
desiretoseeRoeoverturned.
Theexactdetailsofhowthisoneworksarealittlebitmurky.Itmayworklike
theoldmoviereferencesinchildren’scartoons:designedtotriggerallusionsfor
thoseintheknow.ThosewhoknowtheprominentroleofDredScottinanti-
abortiondiscussionswillknowthatBushisdeliberatelyremindingthemof
these,andtakefromthisthemessagethathetooisanti-abortion,andthinksRoe
shouldbeoverturned.Alternatively,itmayevenbethat“IopposeDredScott”
andsimilarutteranceshavecometoserveasgeneralizedconversational
implicaturesindicatingoppositiontoabortion.Onecancertainlytellastoryof
howthey’dbecalculated:He’sstatinghisoppositiontoDredScott.Buteveryone
opposesDredScott,andthat’snotrelevanttothequestionhewasbeingasked.He
mustbetryingtoconveysomethingelse—thatheisopposedtoabortion,likethose
otherpeoplewhotalkaboutDredScott.
Eitherway,thisisanovertintentionaldogwhistle:itisaconveyingofacoded,
concealedmessagetoasubsetofthegeneralaudience.
2.2 CovertIntentionalDogwhistles
Covertintentionaldogwhistlesarefarmorecomplicatedtomakesenseof.They
playaspecialroleinAmericanracediscourse,duetopresenceofwhatTali
MendelbergcallstheNormofRacialEquality.(Mendelbergdoesnotusetheterm
‘dogwhistle’forthese,thoughlaterwriterssuchasIanHaneyLopez2014do.She
simplyrefersto‘implicitpoliticalcommunication’.)Priortothe1930s,
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
7
Mendelbergarguesthatitwasacceptabletoexplicitlyexpressracistattitudesin
Americanpoliticaldiscourse.Morespecifically,shenotesthatitwasacceptable
touseobviouslypejorativeterminology;toassertthatblackpeopleareinnately
inferiortowhitepeople;andtoexpresssupportforlegaldiscrimination,suchas
legallyenforcedsegregationorrefusaltohireblackpeople.Noteveryonedidso,
ofcourse—butdoingsodidnotrenderonebeyondtheboundsofacceptable
politicalengagement.Thosecourtingracistvoterscoulddosobysimply
proclaimingtheirracistviews.Fromthe1930stothe1960s,accordingto
Mendelberg,theprevailingnormofracialinequality“begantoerode”
(Mendelberg67).Afterthe1960s,however,overtracismbecameincreasingly
unacceptable.Mostvotersnownolongerwantedtothinkofthemselvesas
racist.
However,thisaversiontoovertracismconcealsamorecomplicatedpicture.
Whitevotersarehighlyunlikelytoendorseclaimsofinnateblackinferiority,or
legallyenforcedsegregation.However,abeliefsystemthatpsychologistshave
called‘racialresentment’5remainswidespread.Racialresentmentincludesfour
mainclaims:“blacksnolongerfacemuchdiscrimination,(2)theirdisadvantage
mainlyreflectstheirpoorworkethic,(3)theyaredemandingtoomuchtoofast,
(4)theyhavegottenmorethantheydeserve.”(TeslerandSears2010:18,citing
HenryandSears2002,2005.)Psychologistsstandardlytestforracial
resentmentbyaskingfordegreeofagreementordisagreementwiththe
followingstatements(TeslerandSears2010:19):
• Irish,Italian,Jewishandmanyotherminoritiesovercame
prejudiceandworkedtheirwayup.Blacksshoulddothesame
withoutanyspecialfavours.
• Generationsofslaveryanddiscriminationhavecreatedconditions
thatmakeitdifficultforblackstoworktheirwayoutofthelower
class.
5TeslerandSears,whoIquotebelow,usetheterm‘symbolicracism’,buttheynotethattheyuseitinterchangeablywithMendelberg’spreferredterm,‘racialresentment’.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
8
• Overthepastfewyears,blackshavegottenlessthantheydeserve.
• It’sreallyamatterofsomepeoplenottryinghardenough;ifblacks
wouldonlytryhardertheycouldbejustaswelloffaswhites.
Thevariouspossibleresponsesareassignedscoresonascorerangingfrom
mostraciallyliberaltomostraciallyconservative.WhiteAmericansare,overall,
ontheraciallyconservativeendofthespectrum,andRepublicanssignificantly
moresothanDemocrats.
Mendelbergdescribesthissituationasoneinwhicha“normofracialequality”is
inplace,despitethepersistenceofracialresentment.Herphrasingmaybe
somewhatmisleading,however.Itseemstomecertainlynotthecasethatthe
majorityofwhiteAmericansassenttoanyverystrongnotionofracialequality,if
theygivetheanswersthatcountasraciallyresentfulontheaboveitems.
Moreover,itisclearlystillquitesociallyacceptabletomakereferencetotheills
ofblackculture,blamingblackpovertyandevenpolicekillingsofunarmedblack
peopleonthiscause.WhatMendelbergcallsthe‘normofracialequality”clearly
doesn’tprecludethesesortsofutterances.Indeed,sheherselfnotesatendency
toconformtothenorm“inthemostminimal,symbolicwaypossible”
(Mendelberg2001:92).Oneplausiblewayofunderstandingthisisthatwhite
Americansfeeltheneedtopaylipservicetosomethingthatcouldbecalled
“racialequality”.Exactlywhatthiscomestomayvarysomewhat,butitseemsto
precludetheuseofobviouspejoratives,assertionsofgenetic(thoughnot
cultural)inferiority,andsupportforobviouslydiscriminatorybehavior(legally
enforcedsegregation,rulesagainsthiringblackpeople,etc).Theonlykindof
racialequalitythiscommitsonetoisanextremelythinsortofformalequality.
ButMendelbergisclearlyrightthattheboundsofpermissibleracialdiscourse
haveshiftedsomewhat,eveniftheydonotyetrequiresupportforany
substantivesortofequality—e.g.onewhichrejectsstructuralracism,
acknowledgestheexistenceofimplicitbias,inquiresintoequalityofoutcomes,
andsoon.6Despitethesereservationsaboutterminologywewillfollow
6Itisalsoworthnoting,andexploringatadifferenttime,thatmanywhiteAmericanshavecometothinkofthemselvesasvictimsofracialdiscrimination,
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
9
MendelbergandrefertothecurrentsituationasoneinwhichtheNormofRacial
Equalityisinforce.
Politicianswhomightinadifferenterahaveexplicitlyexpressedobviouslyracist
viewsinordertoreachproudlyracistvotersnowneedtofindasubtlerwayto
signalakindofpsychologicalkinshipwiththese“raciallyresentful”voters.7An
explicitracistdogwhistlemightnotwork—whileitwouldimproveonan
unambiguouslyracistutterance,itwouldverylikelystillberecognizedasracist
byitsintendedaudience.8Andmostofthisaudiencewouldrejectsomething
thatwasexplicitlyandunambiguouslyracist—doingotherwisewouldcallinto
questiontheirnow-cherishedcommitmenttoegalitarianism.Certainly,it
wouldbeariskymovetouseadogwhistleofthissort.(Importantly,ofcourse,
noteveryonewouldrejectexplicitracism.Butourfocushereisonthelarge
segmentofthepopulationthatwould.)
ThisiswherewhatMendelbergcalls“implicitpoliticalcommunication”comes
intoitsown.Adogwhistlethatpeoplefailtoconsciouslyrecognizeturnsoutto
beaverypowerfulthing.Iwillcallthisa‘covertdogwhistle’.Suchanutterance
wouldappearonitsfacetobeinnocuousandunrelatedtorace—lending
deniabilityifconfrontedwithracismaccusations.And,ifthedogwhistled
contentcoulddoitsworkoutsidethedogwhistle-audience’sawareness,itwould
notberejectedinthewaythatanexplicitlyracistdogwhistlewouldbe.
andtoopenlyassertthis(Lopez,citingGreenberg:71).ThismaybeanotherwaythatracialresentmentcanbeexpressedwithoutviolatingtheNormofRacialEquality:thosewhoexpressthisviewwouldclaimthattheysupportequality,butthatthey(notblackAmericans)aretheonesbeingtreatedlesswell.7Whichutterancesareobviouslyracistisobviouslyamatteronwhichdisagreementarises.Itseemstomethatassertionsofblackculturalinferiorityareobviouslyracist,butitisclearthatformanywhitepeoplethesearenotobviouslyracist.Butasnoted,thesehavesurvivedthepresenceofthe“normofracialequality”.8I’mgenuinelyuncertainhowwellitwouldwork.Ofcourseitsefficacywouldvaryfromvotertovoter,butthedeniabilityitwouldbringmightwellallowforasubstantialdegreeofsuccess.WhenIinitiallydraftedthispaper,Ithoughtanexplicitracialdogwhistlewouldfail,butI’mnow(post-Trump)notatallconvinced.ManythankstoDanielHarrisforraisingthispoint.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
10
Buthowcouldadogwhistleworkinthisway?Howcanaracistmessagebe
communicatedeffectivelyenoughtoinfluenceanaudience’svotingdecisions,
withouttheaudiencebeingawareofit?Workingthroughexampleswillhelpus
toseethis.
2.2.1 WillieHorton
Themostfamousexampleofacovertintentionaldogwhistleistheimmensely
successfulWillieHortonad,usedinGeorgeH.W.Bush’scampaignagainst
MichaelDukakis.(ItakemydiscussionofthisfromMendelberg,Chapters5-8.)
Thisadcriticizedtheprisonfurloughprogrammethatwasinplaceduring
Dukakis’stimeasgovernorbytellingthetaleofafurloughedconvict,Willie
Horton.Hortonassaultedacoupleintheirhome,rapingthewomanand
stabbingtheman.Raceisnotmentionedatanypointinthead.However,the
illustrationfortheadisaphotoofWillieHorton,andHortonisblack.TheBush
campaignmadeHortonakeyissue,andthisledtotheadreceivingenormous
airplayonthenews.
PriortotheWillieHortonad,Dukakiswassubstantiallyaheadintheopinion
polls.Astheadairedandwasdiscussed,heimmediatelybegantoplummet.
Duringmostofthistime,theadwasnotdiscussedinconnectionwithrace.It
wasdiscussedasapartofstoriesontheroleofcrimeinthecampaign,or
negativecampaigning.However,quitelate,JesseJacksoncalledtheWillie
Hortonad“racist”.Thischargewasatthetimeviewedwithgreatskepticism
(thoughit’sextremelywidelyacceptednow),andviewedasanillicitattemptby
Democratsto“playtheracecard”.Butitwaswidelydiscussed.Assoonasthe
possibilityofracismwasraised,theadceasedtofunctionwhollyonanimplicit
level.Viewersbegantoconsiderthepossibilitythatsomethingracialmightbe
goingon.Andatthispoint,Dukakisstartedtoriseinthepollsagain—some
indicationthattheadhadceasedtobeeffectiveonceracewasexplicitlyunder
discussion.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
11
Butofcourse,noneofthisreallyshowsthattheadwasresponsibleforthese
effects,orthatracehadanythingtodowithit(thoughtheeffectoftheJackson
interventionissuggestive.)Farmoreinformativeisthedatagatheredduringthe
campaignabouttheeffectsonvoters.Thesedatashowthatwhilelevelsofracial
resentmentwereunaffectedbyviewingthead,therelationshipbetweenracial
resentmentandvotingintentionswasstronglyinfluencedbythead.Specifically,
increasingexposuretotheadincreasedthelikelihoodofraciallyresentfulvoters
favouringBush.And,crucially,assoonasJacksoncriticizedtheadasracist,this
correlationbegantodecline.
Mendelbergarguesthatthedogwhistleactsuponpre-existingracialattitudes,
unconsciouslybringingthemtobearwheretheymightpreviouslynothavebeen
drawnupon—inthiscaseonvotingpreferences.Butshealsonotessomething
elsethatisvital:onceracestartstobeconsciouslyreflectedon,thedogwhistle
ceasestobefullyimplicit.Thisdrasticallydiminishesitseffectiveness,
presumablyduetothewidespreadconsciousacceptanceofthenormofracial
equality.AsMendelbergwrites,“Assoonasapersonisalertedtotheneedtopay
consciousattentiontoherresponse,accessibilityisnolongersufficienttomake
herrelyuponracialpredispositions”(Mendelberg2001:210).Mendelberg’s
experimentaldatabackthisup,showingasizablerelationshipbetweenracial
resentmentandpolicypreferencesafterviewinganimplicitlyracialad,butno
relationshipafterviewinganexplicitlyracialad(Chapter7).
2.2.2 “InnerCity”
IntheUnitedStates,‘innercity’hascometofunctionasadogwhistleforblack.
Thus,politicianswhowouldberebukediftheycalledforharshermeasures
againstblackcriminalscansafelycallforcrackingdownoninnercitycrime.
Psychologistshavestudiedtheeffectsofthephrase“innercity”,anditseemsto
functionverysimilarlytotheWillieHortonad.HorwitzandPeffley(2005)
randomlyassignedsubjectstotwogroups,withonegroupbeingaskedquestion
Abelow,andonegroupbeingaskedquestionB(differenceunderlinedbyme,
from102-3).
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
12
A. Somepeoplewanttoincreasespendingfornewprisonstolockupviolent
criminals.Otherpeoplewouldratherspendthismoneyforantipoverty
programstopreventcrime.Whataboutyou?Ifyouhadtochoose,would
youratherseethismoneyspentonbuildingnewprisons,oron
antipovertyprograms?
B. Somepeoplewanttoincreasespendingfornewprisonstolockupviolent
innercitycriminals.Otherpeoplewouldratherspendthismoneyfor
antipovertyprogramstopreventcrime.Whataboutyou?Ifyouhadto
choose,wouldyouratherseethismoneyspentonbuildingnewprisons,
oronantipovertyprograms?
Thissmallchange—theadditionof‘innercity’—turnedouttohaveasignificant
effectontheanswerthatsubjectsgave,butthenatureofthiseffectwasstrongly
influencedbysubjects’pre-existingracialattitudes.PriortobeingaskedAorB
above,subjectswerequestionedabouttheiracceptanceofracialstereotypesand
theirbeliefsregardingtheracialfairnessofthejusticesystem.“Racial
conservatives”tendedtoholdnegativestereotypesofblackpeopleandto
believethesystemtoberaciallyfair.“Racialliberals”weretheopposite.
When‘innercity’wasaddedtothequestion(asinB)subjects’attitudestoward
spendingwerestronglyinfluencedbytheirpre-existingracialattitudes—with
racialconservativesmorelikelytofavourprisonspendingandracialliberals
morelikelytoopposeit.Butwhen‘innercity’wasnotpresent(asinA)there
wasnorelationshipbetweenracialattitudesandanswerstothequestion.This
showsthat‘innercity’servestoraisesubjects’pre-existingracialattitudesto
salienceandbringthemtobearonaquestion,wheretheywouldnototherwise
bebroughttobear—justastheWillieHortonaddoes.9
9Itisnotclearwhatthecausewasofracialliberals’response.Itispossiblethatracialliberalsreflectedconsciouslyontheuseof‘innercity’asaeuphemismfor‘black’,ratherthansimplyhavingtheirracialattitudesraisedtonon-conscioussalience.Ingeneral,racialliberalshavenotbeenthefocusofstudiesonracialpriminganddogwhistles.ManythankstoRosieWorsdaleforraisingthispoint.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
13
3. UnintentionalDogwhistles
Thusfar,ourfocushasbeenonintentionaldogwhistles.However,acrucialfact
aboutthewaythatdogwhistlesdotheirworkintheworldisthewayinwhich
theycanbeunintentionallypassedon,withidenticaleffectstotheoriginal
dogwhistle.Thisiswhollypredictable,fromthefactthataudienceswillvery
oftenbeunawareofadogwhistle’spresence—theymay,anddo,repeatthe
dogwhistleunwittingly.Iwillcalltheseutterancesunintentionaldogwhistles,
andinthissectionofthepaperwewillworkthroughafewexamples.My
workingdefinitionof‘unintentionaldogwhistle’willbeasfollows:
Unwittinguseofwordsand/orimagesthat,usedintentionally,constitute
anintentionaldogwhistle,wherethisusehasthesameeffectasan
intentionaldogwhistle.
Toseethatthisispossible,justreflectbrieflyontheDredScottdogwhistlethat
we’vealreadydiscussed.Nowimagineadebate,inwhichtheleft-wingcandidate
ispuzzledbytheright-wingcandidateexpressingtheiroppositiontoDredScott:
theyhadnottakenslaverytobealiveissue,andtheyareunawareofthe
dogwhistle.Confused,theybecomeworriedthattheymightbetakentosupport
slaveryiftheydonotalsostartexpressingtheiroppositiontoDredScott—so
they,too,startwaxingeloquentonthewrongnessofthisdecision.Butsince
discussingDredScottdogwhistlesoppositiontoabortiontheyunintentionally
(andfalsely)dogwhistletheiroppositiontoabortion.
Veryimportantly,though,wedon’tneedtorelyonfancifulcaseslikethis.
Unintentionaldogwhistlesarereal,andtheyareinfactoftenapartofthe
primarydogwhistlers’plan.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
14
3.1 WillieHortonandtheReporters
ThereisbynowampleevidencethattheBushcampaignwasdeliberately
dogwhistlingaboutracewiththeWillieHortonad.However,thereisnoreason
tobelievethatthereportersandTVproducersofthetimeweredoingthis.
Certainlysomemayhavebeen,butmanywerenot.Yetnonethelessthey
replayedtheadoverandover,anddiscussedHortonandhiscrimesoverand
overinthecontextoftheelection.This,infact,waswhatallowedtheeffects
Mendelbergdiscussestobesowidespreadandsopowerful:theoriginal
advertisementwasonlyshownbrieflyinasmallarea,butitwasre-shownagain
andagainasapartofnewsreportsostensiblyabout“negativecampaigning”or
“crime”.Itakethesere-showingstobeunintentionaldogwhistles.Thisshows
justhowimportantsuchunintentionaldogwhistlescanbeinaccomplishingan
intentionaldogwhistle’sgoals.Indeed,suchistheirimportancethatthey
deserveatermoftheirown.Iwillcallthese‘amplifierdogwhistles’,sincethey
greatlyincreasethereachoftheoriginaldogwhistle.And,justasanamplifieris
notresponsiblefortheoriginalsoundthatitamplifies,thosewhocarryoutacts
ofamplifierdogwhistlingarenotberesponsiblefortheoriginaldogwhistle
whosereachtheyareenhancing.
3.2 Racialisationof“GovernmentSpending”
Throughoutthe1980s,aconvertedeffortwasmadebytheRepublicanPartyin
theUStoassociategovernmentspendingwithracialminorities.(RonaldReagan
wasespeciallyimportanttothiscampaign.)Thiseffortwasenormously
successful:Mediacoverageofgovernmentassistance,forexample,cametofocus
disproportionatelyonblackrecipientsofassistance,despitethefactthattheyare
theminorityofthoseonsuchassistance(Valentinoet.al.75).And,wewillsee,
theseeffortshavebroughtitaboutthateventermslike‘governmentspending’
nowserveasracialdogwhistles.Utterancescontainingsuchtermsare,asa
result,sometimesintentionaldogwhistles—whentheutterancesaremadewith
theintentionofmakingracialattitudessalient.Butthesetermsarewidelyused,
aswhatthecountryshouldspendmoneyonisanissuethatsimplyhastobe
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
15
discussed.Andsotheywillextremelyoftenfunctionasunintentionalcovert
dogwhistles.Indeed,theywilloftenserveasamplifierdogwhistles.
We’llbeginbyexaminingtheevidencethatutterancesofthesewordscan
functionascovertracialdogwhistles.Wecanseeveryclearlythatthisisthecase
fromValentinoet.al.’sstudyofracialprimingandpoliticaladvertising.Their
studyinvolvesshowingparticipantsoneofseveralversionsofacarefully
constructedadvertisement.Ineveryversion,thewordsoftheadvertisement,
ostensiblyforGeorgeW.Bush,criticizesDemocratsfor“wastefulspending”and
says(totakeoneexamplefromacomplexad)thatBushwill“reformanunfair
systemthatonlyprovideshealthcareforsome,whileothersgowithout”(79).
Whatvariesacrossversionsisthevisuals.Oneversion,Neutral,useswholly
neutralvisuals,likemedicalfilesandtheStatueofLiberty.Thesecond,Race
Comparison,usesimagesofe.g.ablackfamilybeinghelpedwhilethewords
“healthcareforsome”areuttered;andimagesofawhitemotherandchildwhile
thewords“othersgowithout”areuttered.Thethird,UndeservingBlacks,does
notcontainimagescomparingtreatmentofwhitesandblacks,butdoesshow
imagesdesignedtriggerassociationsofraceandgovernmentspending.So,it
showstheblackfamilybeinghelpedjustasinRaceComparison;butitshows
medicalfileswhile“othersgowithout”areuttered.Acontrolgroupvieweda
totallynon-politicaladvertisement.Afterviewingtheadvertisements,subjects
completedatesttoassesstheaccessibilityofracialattitudes.Theythen
completedaquestionnaireregardingtheirassessmentofpresidential
candidates,theimportanceofvariousissues,andtheirracialandpolitical
attitudes.Belowisatable(ValentinoandHutchings:79)showingtheworkings
ofthevariousversionsoftheadvertisement.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
16
TABLE1.TranscriptsofImplicitRaceCueAdvertisingManipulation
Narrative NeutralVisuals RaceComparison UndeservingBlacks
GeorgeW.Bush,dedicatedtobuildinganAmericawithstrongvalues
GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands
GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands
GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands
Democratswanttospendyourtaxdollarsonwastefulgovernmentprograms,butGeorgeW.Bushwillcuttaxesbecauseyouknowbesthowtospendthemoneyyouearn.
ImageofStatueofLiberty,TreasuryBuildingBushsittingoncouch,residentialstreet(nopeople)
Blackpersoncountingmoney,blackmotherandchildinofficeBushsittingoncouch,whitepersonwritingcheck,whitepersoncountingmoney,whiteteacher
Blackpersoncountingmoney,blackmotherandchildinofficeBushsittingoncouch,residentialstreet(nopeople)
GovernorBushcaresaboutfamilies.
Laboratoryworkers(raceunclear)lookingintomicroscopes
Whiteparentswalkingwithchild
Residentialstreet(shotcontinuedasabove)
He’llreformanunfairsystemthatonlyprovideshealthcareforsome,whileothersgowithoutpropertreatmentbecausetheiremployercan’taffordit.
Medicalfiles Whitenurseassistingblackmother,childWhitemotherholdingchild
Whitenurseassistingblackmother,childMedicalfiles
Whenhe’spresident,everyhard-workingAmericanwillhaveaffordable,high-qualityhealthcare.
X-raysagainstlitbackground
Bushtalkingtowhitefamily,talkingtowhitechild,Bushkissingwhitegirl
X-raysagainstlitbackground
GeorgeW.Bush,afreshstartforAmerica
Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”
Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”
Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
17
Valentinoet.al.foundthatracialresentmenthadlittleeffectonpreference
betweencandidatesunlesssubjectshadviewedoneofthepolitical
advertisements.Butiftheyhadviewedoneofthepoliticaladvertisements,the
impactofracialresentmentoncandidatepreferencewasincreased—eveninthe
neutralconditioninwhichtheadvertisementcontainednoracialisedimagery,
justwordsaboutgovernmentspending.Indeed,theeffectintheNeutral
ConditionwasjustasstrongasintheRaceComparisoncondition(thoughless
strongthanintheUndeservingBlackscondition).Thisshowsveryclearlythat
“governmentspending”hasbecomeancovertdogwhistle,whichfunctionslike
theWillieHortonador“innercity”.Andthisfactshouldbeenormously
disconcerting,asitindicatesjusthowverywidespreadsuchprimingis.The
widespreadnatureofsuchprimingmakesitextremelydifficulttodiscussissues
absolutelycentraltodemocracy—suchaswhatagovernmentshouldspendits
moneyon—withoutopinionsbeinginfluencedbyracialattitudes.10
Importantly,Valentinoet.al.alsotestedtheimpactofcounter-stereotypical
images.Intheseversionsoftheadvertisement,theimagesofblackfamilies
appearastheaddiscusses“hard-workingfamilies”,andsoon.Theseadsare
designedtojarwiththeraciststereotypesthatviewershavelikelyabsorbed
throughculturalexposure.Theeffectsweredramatic.
Whentheblackracialcuesarestereotype-inconsistent,however,the
relationshipbetweenracialattitudesandthevotedisappears...Violating
racialstereotypeswithpositiveimagesofblacksdramaticallyundermines
racialpriming.Thepresenceofblackimagesalone,therefore,doesnot
primenegativeracialattitudes.Theeffectemergesonlywhenthepairing
ofthevisualswiththenarrativesubtlyreinforcesnegativestereotypesin
themindoftheviewer.
Thisisacrucialpoint,asitraisesanotherpossiblewayofcombattingthe
influenceofcovertdogwhistles.Itshowsthatitispossibletodiscuss
governmentspendingwithoutprimingracialattitudes.Butavoidingracial
10ThissortofconcernisveryimportanttoStanley(2015).
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
18
imageryisnotthewaytodothis—instead,onemustmakeaconcertedeffortto
includetherightracialimagery.Therightracialimagerywillbecounter-
stereotypicalimagerythatcanservetounderminethedogwhistles(primaryor
unintentional)thatwouldotherwisebepresent(whateverone’sintentions).
Thisrequiresawarenessandeffortonthepartofthespeaker,whomight
otherwisethinkthattheyhaveavoidedtriggeringracialattitudesbyavoiding
overtlyracialimageryorwords.(Seethetablebelow,fromValentinoand
Hutchings:80)
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
19
Table2.TranscriptsofCounter-StereotypicAdvertisingManipulation
Narrative DeservingBlacks DeservingWhites
UndeservingWhites
GeorgeW.Bush,dedicatedtobuildinganAmericawithstrongvalues.
GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands,blackwomanwithAmericanflaginbackground,blackveteransmiling
GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands
GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands
Democratswanttospendyourtaxdollarsonwastefulgovernmentprograms,butGeorgeW.Bushwillcuttaxesbecauseyouknowbesthowtospendthemoneyyouearn.
TreasurybuildingBushsittingoncouch,blackpersonlayingmoneyonacounter
Bushsittingoncouch,whitepersonwritingacheck,whitepersoncountingmoney
Whitepersoncountingmoney,whitemotherandchildinofficeBushsittingoncouch,residentialstreet(nopeople)
GovernorBushcaresaboutfamilies.
Blackfamilyusingacomputer,blackfamilyeatingatarestaurant
Whiteteacher,whiteparentswalkingwithchild
Residentialstreet(shotcontinuedasabove)
He’llreformanunfairsystemthatonlyprovideshealthcareforsome,whileothersgowithoutpropertreatmentbecausetheiremployercan’taffordit.
Laboratoryworkers(raceunclear)lookingintomicroscopesBlackwomenholdingbaby
Laboratoryworkers(raceunclear)lookingintomicroscopesWhitemotherholdingchild
WhitemotherholdingnewbornreceivingmedicalcareinhospitalMedicalfiles
Whenhe’spresident,everyhard-workingAmericanwillhaveaffordable,high-qualityhealthcare.
Bushshakinghandswithblackchildren,blackkidssittinginschoolyard,Bushsittinginclassroomreadingwithblackkids
Bushtalkingtowhitefamily,Bushtalkingtowhitechild,Bushkissingwhitegirl
X-raysagainstlitbackground
GeorgeW.Bush,afreshstartforAmerica
Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”
Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”
Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
20
4. WhatExistingAccountsCannotFullyCapture
4.1 WhatExistingAccountsCanCapture
Existingaccountsdofairlywellwithanovertintentionaldogwhistle.Asnotedin
thediscussionabove,itisquiteplausibletosupposethat‘DredScott’utterances
carryconversationalimplicaturesaboutoppositiontoabortion.
ElisabethCamp(thisvolume)goesastepfurtherandintroducesthenotionof
insinuation.AspeakerinsinuatessomepropositionPjustincaseshe
communicatesPwithoutenteringPintotheconversationalrecord.Thespeaker
intendsherintentiontoberecognised,butwithoutawillingnessor
responsibilitytoownuptoit.11Thisisanimportantnotion.
“Intuitively,thewholepointofinsinuation–whatdefinesitandmakesit
rhetoricallyuseful–isthatitinvolvesoff-recordcommunication:the
speakermeans(andwhensuccessful,communicates)somethingwithout
puttingitontheconversationalrecord.Ifthisisright,thenthevery
existenceofinsinuationdemonstratesthatwecan’tsimplyequatewhata
speakermeanswithherutterance’scontributiontotheconversational
scoreorrecord.”(REF)
CamptreatsBush’sDredScottdogwhistleasaparadigmcaseofinsinuation,and
thisseemsplausible.Bushintendstohavehisanti-abortionmessagerecognized,
andrecognizedasintended.Atthesametime,though,useofacodephrasegives
allowshimtoavoidplacinghiscontributionontherecord—thusachieving
deniability.
11Campdescribesthisas‘implicit’communication.ThisisclearlyadifferentusagefromMendelberg’s,asCampisinterestedincasesinwhichatleastpartoftheaudiencerecognizesthespeaker’sintention,andisexpectedtodoso.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
21
4.2 MoreDifficultCases
Covertintentionaldogwhistlesaresubstantiallymorechallengingtocapture.
Therearetwokeyreasonsforthis.First,whatisdogwhistledisnotaparticular
proposition.Instead,certainpre-existingattitudesarebroughttosalience,
withouttheaudiencebeingawareofit.Thismeansthatanytheoryrelyingon
thecommunication(viasemanticsorpragmatics)ofaparticularproposition(or
evenimprecisecouldofpropositions)willfail.Second,thisoccursoutsideof
consciousness.Crucially,whenanaudiencebecomesconsciousofthe
dogwhistle,itfailstoachieveitsintendedeffect.Successofacovertintentional
dogwhistle,then—unlikemostcommunicativeacts—dependsontheaudience
notrecognizingthespeaker’sintention.12Anytheorywhichincludestheidea
thatuptake(recognitionofthespeaker’sintention)isrequiredforsuccesswill
failentirelyasawayofaccommodatingcovertdogwhistles.Covertintentional
dogwhistlesonlysucceedwhereuptakeisabsent;uptakepreventssuch
dogwhistlesfrombeingeffective.13
Twosortsoftheories,however,holdoutsomepromiseforcapturingthem:
LangtonandMcGowan’sworkonconversationalaccommodation,especially
McGowan’snotionofconversationalexercitives;andJasonStanley’srecentwork
onpropagandaandnot-at-issuecontent.Wewillsee,however,thatneitherof
theseisfullyabletocapturethecomplexityofthesecases.
4.2.1. Stanley
JasonStanleyistheonlyphilosophertohavediscussedwhatIcall‘covert
dogwhistles’(bothintentionalandunintentional),whichhetakestobea
particularlyinsidiousformofpropaganda.OnStanley’sview,thesefunctionby12Onemightsuggestthattheaudienceisunconsciouslyrecognisingthespeaker’sintention.ButIseenoreasontoattributesuchunconsciousrecognitionofintention.Itisfarmorestraightforwardtoacceptthecasesatfacevalue—asonesinwhichintentionisnotrecognized.13Dogwhistlesarenotaloneinhavingthislatterfeature.Mostactsofdeceptionarealsolikethis:iftheaudiencerecognizesthespeaker’sintentiontodeceivethedeceptionfails.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
22
introducingintoconversationsomepernicious“not-at-issue”effects.Not-at-
issuecontentismaterialthatbecomespartoftheconversation’scommon
groundwithoutbeingexplicitlyputupforconsiderationinthewaythatasserted
contentis.Thismakesitmoredifficulttonoticethatthiscontentisbeingadded
tothecommonground,andalsomoredifficulttoobjectto.Italsocannotbe
canceled:theassociatedmeaningwillalwaysbeconveyed,asnot-at-issue
content,andaspeakercannotblockthisfromhappening(Stanley:139).Stanley
arguesthatcertainwordscometocarrynot-at-issuecontentofahighly
problematicsort:
WhenthenewsmediaconnectsimagesofurbanBlacksrepeatedlywith
mentionsoftheterm“welfare,”theterm“welfare”comestohavenot-at-
issuecontentthatBlacksarelazy.Atsomepoint,therepeated
associationsarepartofthemeaning,thenot-at-issuecontent(Stanley:
138)
Stanleyalsosuggeststhatthenot-at-issueeffectofatermcantaketheformofa
preferenceordering,takingtheformofarankingofgroupsintermsof
worthinessofrespect.So,atermmaycausethosewhoencounterittorank
groupsdifferently,inawaythaterodesrespectforsomegroups.Onemighteven
cometorankgroupsasworthyofmoreorlessempathy,whichforStanleyisan
especiallyimportantsortofnot-at-issueeffect.
Stanley’sapproachisabletoaccommodatethewaythataudiencesmaybe
unawareofwhatisreallygoingoninacovertdogwhistleutterance.Not-at-issue
contentis(sometimes)enteredintothecommongroundwithoutanaudience’s
explicitawarenessthatthisistakingplace:thisisakeypartofwhatmakesitso
insidious.
Nonetheless,Stanley’sapproachdoesnotaccommodateallthatpsychologists
havetaughtusabouthowtheseutteranceswork.Stanleysuggeststhatwords
like‘welfare’eroderespectforblackpeopleeitherbycarryinganot-at-issue
contentthatblackpeoplearelazyorcausingpeopletoimplementapreference
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
23
rankingaccordingtowhichblackpeoplearelessdeservingofempathythan
whitepeopleare.Moreover,hesuggeststhatthiscannotbecancelled,andthatit
willbepresentineveryuseofatermlike‘welfare’.14Butthisfailstofitwiththe
dataincertainkeyways.
Thefirstproblemisthattheuseofcovertdogwhistletermslike‘welfare’oreven
theviewingofadvertisementsliketheWillieHortonadsdonot(ingeneral)
causechangesinracialattitudes.15Instead,theymakeaccessiblepre-existing
attitudes,andbringthemtobearonissueswheretheymightnototherwisehave
playedaroleindecision-making.ThisisquitedifferentfromStanley’spicture,on
whichthetermseithercausenewclaimstobeaddedtothecommonground,or
causechangesinpeople’spreferencerankings16.
Thesecondproblemisrelatedtothisone.Itisthattheeffectsofcovert
dogwhistletermsarenotquitesomonolithicallynegativeasStanleytakesthem
tobe.Wecanseethiseitherintuitivelyorbylookingattheempiricalevidence.
Intuitively,wecanimagineablackspeakeraddressingaleft-wingblackaudience
andsaying“Mymotherwasonwelfarewhileshedidtheengineeringdegreethat
liftedourfamilyoutofpoverty”.Thisuseof‘welfare’seemsextremelyunlikely
tocarryanysuggestionthatblackpeoplearelazy,norwilliteroderespectfor
blackpeople.Ifweprefertolookbackontheempiricaldata,wecanreturnto
thefindingsdiscussedearlier.Adding‘innercity’tothequestionaboutprison14Hedoesallowforthepossibilityofchangeovertime,butonlywhenthereis“sufficientcontrolofthemediaandotherinstrumentsofpower”(162)bythoseadvocatingachange.Hedoesnotallowforconversation-by-conversationvariation.15ItisworthemphasizingthattheworryIamraisinghereisspecifictotheclaimthatracialdogwhistlescausechangesinracialattitudes,basedonspecificstudyoftheseutterances.Iamnotatallskepticalaboutthegeneralideaoflinguisticutterancescausingchangesinattitudes—indeedIthinkthisiswidespread.NoramIevenscepticalabouttheideathatracialdogwhistlescausesomechangesinattitudes:Afterall,viewingtheWillieHortonadcausedmanyvoterstochangetheirvotingintentionsandtheirbeliefsaboutwhowasthebestcandidate.16SomeofStanley’sclaimsarealsoatoddswiththeideathatdogwhistlesalterattitudes.Forexample,hewrites,“AsTaliMendelbergshows,stereotypesofblackAmericanshaveremainedconstantthroughoutthehistoryoftheRepublic.”(135)
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
24
fundingcausedthoselowinracialresentmenttobelesslikelytoagreethatmore
prisonsshouldbebuilt.Pre-existingracialattitudes—whatevertheyare—are
activatedbycovertracialdogwhistleterms.Iftheattitudesareraciallyresentful,
thenthereislikelytobeanoutcomethatindeedfitswithalackofrespectfor
blackpeople.Butiftheattitudesarenotraciallyresentful,theoutcomeislikely
tobeentirelydifferent.
Finally,challengingadogwhistlesuccessfullymaynotbeasdifficultasStanley
suggests.Theprimingofracialresentmentonlyworksifitremainscovert.Ifa
dogwhistletermlike‘welfare’isusedbutraceismadeexplicit,theeffect
vanishes.RecallalsothatassoonasJesseJacksonraisedtheissueofrace,the
WillieHortonadceasedtobeeffective.Butthefactthatitsometimesdoesshows
thatsomechallengescansucceedrathereasily.
4.2.2LangtonandMcGowan
Langton(2012)discussesmanywaysthathatespeechmightfunction.Forour
purposesherethemostpromisingisonebasedonLewisandStalnaker’swork
onconversationalscore.
[Utterancesofhatespeech]mayimplicitlypresupposecertainfactsand
norms,ratherthanexplicitlyenactingthem;buttheseimplicit
presuppositionsmaynonethelessworkinwaysthatarecomparableto
classicAustinianillocutions.Consumersthenchangetheirfactualand
normativebeliefsbytakingonboardthe‘commonground’(inRobert
Stalnaker’sphrase)orthe‘conversationalscore’(inDavidLewis’sphrase)
thatispresupposedinthe…’conversation’.(83)
Langtonfurthersuggeststhatemotionslikedesireandhatemaybeintroduced
intothecommongroundthroughroughlythesameprocedure—or,inLewis’s
terms,theirappropriatenessmaybecomepartoftheconversationalscore.
Langtontentativelysuggeststhatthetwoaccountsmayberelatedasfollows:
Lewis’saccountcapturestheimmediatewaythatwhatcountsasacceptablemay
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
25
change,andthisthenleadstochangesintheattitudesandemotionsthatarepart
ofthetaken-for-grantedcommongroundoftheconversation.
ItisusefultounderstandthisintermsofMaryKateMcGowan’smodel(2004,
2012).McGowansuggeststhatthesealterationsintheconversationalscore
shouldbeunderstoodasduetocovertexercitives.Thesearespeechactswhich
donotrequireanyspecialauthorityonthepartofthespeaker(unlikemore
standardexercitivessuchasrulingaplayinfootballasafoul.)Crucially,they
mayormaynotbeintendedbythespeakerorrecognizedbytheaudience.
McGowansuggeststhattheseactswillbeverywidespreadinanynorm-
governedactivity(andthatahugevarietyofactivitiesarenorm-governed).
Whatispermissibleinsuchactivitiesdependsbothontherules(implicitor
explicit)ofthoseactivities,andonwhathashappenedbefore.Inaconversation,
whatispermissibleadaptsquicklyandseamlesslyinresponsetowhatpeople
say.SupposeJeffmakesanutterancethatcarriesapresupposition,suchas(1):
(1) Yes,mywifeandIliketodothat.
Ifnobodyprotests,thenitbecomespermissible(inthiscontext)tomakeother
utterancesinthisconversationthatassumethatJeffhasawife.Similarly,
McGowansuggeststhatifJeffmakesaracistutteranceandnobodyprotests,it
becomespermissible(inthiscontext)tomakefurtherracistutterances.17
Dependingonthecontextandthenatureoftheutterance,itmayalsoenact
furtherracistpermissibilityfacts(McGowan2012:137-9).
Themostappealingelementsofthispicturefordealingwithcovertdogwhistles
arethat(a)significantchangestocommongroundortoscoremayoccurwithout
17Infact,Ithinkthatachangingofnormsinthismannerwillbeaveryrareoccurrence.InacontextwheretheNormofRacialEqualityisinforceanopenlyracistutterancewillgenerallynotbeseamlesslyaccommodated.Evenifpeopledon’toutwardlyobject,theywillbeveryuncomfortableandwillpsychologicallydistancethemselvesfromtheutterance,ratherthanaddingwhat’sneededtothecommonground.InacontextwheretheNormisnotinforce,therewillnotbeachange.Idiscussthisfurther,andexploreamechanismthatenablesthechangesofnorms,inmy“RacialFigleavesandtheShiftingBoundariesofthePermissible”.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
26
explicitacknowledgementoftheiroccurrence;and(b)itisnotjustfocusedon
propositionsbelievedortakenforgranted,butalsoonnormsandemotions.The
suggestionwouldbe,then,thate.g.theWillieHortonadimplicitlyaltersthefacts
aboutwhatitisappropriatetotakeintoaccountinmakingvotingdecisions.The
normativescore—regardingwhatone’svotingdecisionsshouldbebasedon—is
subtlyalteredbytheWillieHortonad,outsideoftheawarenessofthosewho
viewit.Thisleadsviewerstotakeraceintoaccountintheirvotingdecisions.
AndsinceMcGowanallowsthatthismayoccurunintentionally,wecan
accommodatebothintentionalandunintentionalcovertdogwhistles.
Atfirst,thisseemslikeaverygoodfit.However,thereisacrucialproblem:if
dogwhistleswereactuallychangingpermissibilityfacts,discussingwhathas
beenimplicitlyaddedwouldnotdestroytheireffectsinthewaythatitdoes.
WhenJesseJacksonraisedthepossibilitythattheWillieHortonadswererelated
torace,viewersstoppedallowingtheirvotetobeinfluencedbytheirracial
attitudes.Iftheadactuallyhadmadeitpermissibletobasetheirvotingdecision
onracialattitudes,thiswouldnothavehappened.Whenwereflecton
somethingthatwegenuinelytaketobepermissible,wedon’trejectit—evenif
it’ssomethingwehaven’treflectedon.Imagine,forexample,thatIamimmersed
inacountrywithdifferentconventionsaboutpersonalspace,andItakeonthose
conventionswithoutrealizingit.Ifsomeoneinthiscountryremarksonthefact,
Idon’trejectit:instead,Irealizethatthepermissibilityfactshavechangedfor
me,atleastforthedurationofmytimeinthiscountry.Whenonecallsattention
toaracialdogwhistle,whathappensisverydifferent:whathappenslooks,forall
theworld,likeadiscoverythatonewasdoingsomethingimpermissible.18This
showsthattheLangton/McGowanstorycannotcapturethesecases.19
18AnothermoveLangtonandMcGowanmightmakeistodistinguishbetweenthelinguisticallyandmorallypermissible.Butitseemstomecrucialtotheirargumentthatlinguisticmovesareaffectingnotjustwhat’slinguisticallypermissiblebutalsowhat’sseenasmorallypermissible.That,afterall,iswhyhatespeechandpornographyaremeanttobesodangerous.19Itmight,however,bepossibleforthemtoarguethatthesortofpermissibilityfactstheyareconcernedwithareonesthatcanchangeinthisway:somethingpreviouslypermissiblecanbecomeimpermissibleonceitisreflecteduponconsciously.However,thiswoulddiminishtheforceoftheirargument
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
27
4.2.3 CovertIntentionalDogwhistlesasCovertPerlocutionarySpeechActs
Myviewisthatcovertintentionaldogwhistlesmustbeunderstoodasaspecies
ofperlocutionaryspeechacts.(Iamtakingperlocutionaryspeechactstobethe
actsofmakingutteranceswithcertaineffects.20)Perlocutionaryspeechactsare
notmuchdiscussedbyphilosophersoflanguage,andwithgoodreason.They
arequiteamotleyandunsystematiccollectionofacts,difficulttotheorise.
(Contrastthesimpleillocutionaryactofgettingmarriedwiththeintended
perlocutionaryactsofbeinghappy,makingone’sexjealous,gettingtowearthat
lovelydress,acquiringcitizenship,becomingfinanciallysecure;andthe
unintendedperlocutionaryactsofmakingone’sparentscry,devastatingasecret
admirer,inspiringsomefriendstogetmarried,andsoon.)Austindoesnot
providemuchatallinthewayofperlocutionarytheory.However,individual
kindsofperlocutionaryactscanbeextremelyimportant.Andtheperlocutionary
seemsverymuchtherightcategoryforcovertintentionaldogwhistlesuponbrief
reflection:covertintentionaldogwhistles,afterall,areverymuchamatterof
intendedeffectsontheiraudiences.
Mysuggestionisthatcovertintentionaldogwhistlesshouldbeunderstoodas
whatIwillcallcovertperlocutionaryacts.Acovertperlocutionaryactisonethat
doesnotsucceediftheintendedperlocutionaryeffectisrecognizedas
intended.21Althoughthiscategoryhasnotbeenmuchdiscussedasacategory,
covertdogwhistlesarenottheonlycovertperlocutionaryacts.Another
importantkindofcovertperlocutionaryactisdeception.Onewhodeceivescan
usuallyonlysucceediftheirintentiontodeceiveisnotrecognized.Thisisthe
definingfeatureofacovertperlocutionaryact.Acovertintentionaldogwhistle
cannotsucceediftheintendedeffectisrecognizedasintended,soitisacovert
perlocutionaryact.
concerningthedangersofhatespeech.Ifthepermissibilityfactstheyareconcernedwithcanbesofleetingthenhatespeechdoesnotlookquitesoclearlydangerous.Still,thisresponsemeritsfurtherconsideration.20Austindescribestheseasthe“consequentialeffectsuponthefeelings,thoughts,oractionsofthespeaker,orofotherpersons”(1962:101).21This,then,isaperlocutionaryactforwhichintentionisanecessarycondition.Idonottakethistobetrueofallperlocutionaryacts.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
28
Therearesomeclearadvantagestothisaccount.SinceIunderstandcovert
intentionaldogwhistlesasperlocutionaryacts,Ineednotunderstandthemas
aboutpropositions.NorneedIclaimthattheyareaddedtothecommonground,
orinanywayconsciouslyavailabletotheiraudience.Icanalsoveryeasilymake
senseofthesortsofvariationwehaveseen:Noteveryutteranceusinga
particulardogwhistletermwillbeintendedtohavethesameeffect,sowecan
givetherightunderstandingoftheblackspeakerdescribinghismother’suseof
welfaretoearnanengineeringdegree.Andnoteveryperlocutionaryeffectwill
beintended—sowecanaccommodatethefactthatanti-racistattitudeswillbe
raisedtosalienceforsomevoters,evenwhenthiseffectisnotintended.Finally,
perlocutionaryeffectscanbeprevented,asJesseJackson’sutteranceeventually
begantopreventtheintendedeffectsoftheWillieHortonad.
4.2.4.CovertUnintentionalDogwhistles
Thereismorethanonewaytofitunintentionalcovertdogwhistlesintothis
picture.
Option1:Unintentionalcovertdogwhistlesarenotthemselvescovert
perlocutionaryacts,sincetheintentionofthespeakerisnotrelatedtothe
dogwhistle,whichthespeakerisunawareof.Sotherecanbenoquestion
oftheactfailingifthespeaker’sintentionisrecognized.Unintentional
covertdogwhistles,onthisstory,aresimplyspeechactswhichhave
particularlyperniciousunintendedperlocutionaryeffects.Unintended
perlocutionaryeffectsareextremelycommon,sothere’snothing
particularspecialgoingon,exceptthattheseunintendedeffectsareapart
ofsomeoneelse’s(notthespeaker’s)plan.Thisoptionperhaps
underplaystheroleofmanipulation.
Option2:Thesecondoptionputsmoreofanemphasisonthewaythat
unintentionalcovertdogwhistlesfitintothemanipulationthatistaking
place.Thosewhocreatetheinitialcovertdogwhistlesareverygoodat
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
29
attachingperniciousassociationstowordsandimages(andpossibly
otherthingsaswell)andsendingthemoutintotheworldinthehopethat
theywillbetakenupandusedbyothers,bringingwiththemthese
associations.Onemight,then,takethecreatorsofthedogwhistlestobe
insomeimportantsensetheutterersoftheunintentionalcovert
dogwhistles.Thiswouldallowonetotreattheunintentionaldogwhistles
ascovertperlocutionaryacts,fullyrecognizingthewaythattheyfitinto
thissortofmanipulation.Theproblemwiththisstory,though,isthatit
underplaystheagencyofthosewhorepeatthedogwhistles.Thesepeople
reallyarethespeakers,andtheyneedtobethoughtofassuch,andheld
accountablefortheeffectsoftheirspeech.
Onbalance,thebestapproachseemstometobeOption1.Butitisimportantin
adoptingthisapproachthatonenotlosesightofthewaythattheutterersofthe
unintentionalcovertdogwhistleshavebeenmanipulated—andimportantto
rememberthatsomebodydidintendtheperniciouseffectsoftheseutterances,
eventhoughtheirutterersdidnot.And,infact,thishelpsustoseemoreabout
whatissoinsidious:astheyunknowinglyutterunintentionalcovertdogwhistles,
peoplearemadeintomouthpiecesforanideologythattheyreject.Theactual
utterersarethespeakers,andthisiswhytheyneedtopayattentiontothe
effectsofwhattheysay,andtothecarefulmanipulationthathascausedthemto
saythesethings.
Afurtheradvantageofthisapproachisthatwecanaccommodatetwodistinct
varietiesofunintentionalcovertdogwhistle.ThefirstiswhatIhavecalled
‘amplifierdogwhistles’,whichhelptospreadtheeffectsofintentionalcovert
dogwhistles.Thesecond,whichisnotmyfocushere,isunintentionalcovert
dogwhistleswhichdon’toriginateindeliberateattemptstomanipulate.Ithas
beensuggestedtomethat‘crafty’functionsthiswayinsportscommentary,
dogwhistlingwhitenessbutwithoutanydeliberateattempttomanipulatethe
salienceofaudiencemembers’racialattitudes.22
22IamgratefultoTylerDoggettandRandallHarpforthissuggestion.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
30
5. PoliticalUpshot
Ofcourse,whatmakesthisunderexploredtopicsoimportantisthatdogwhistles
representavitalpartofstrategiesbywhichweareinfluenced—infact,
manipulated—inourthinking,andinourdecisions.Inparticular,thesehave
enormousandimportantpoliticaleffects.Thepoliticalimplicationsof
dogwhistleshavenotbeenmuchdiscussedbyphilosophers.RobertGoodinand
MichaelSaward(2005),however,havediscussedthepoliticalimplicationsof
overtdogwhistles;andJasonStanleyhasdiscussedthepoliticalimplicationsof
covertdogwhistles.Allthreeofthesetheoristsarguethatdogwhistlespose
seriousproblemsfordemocracy,althoughtheproblemstheyidentifydiffer.I
certainlyagreethatdogwhistlescanposeproblemsfordemocracy,butIdon’t
fullyagreewithanyofthesephilosophersonthenatureandseriousnessofthe
problems.
5.1 DogwhistlesandDemocraticMandates
GoodinandSawardarguethatovertintentionaldogwhistles(theydon’tdiscuss
covertorunintentionaldogwhistles,soinfacttheyjustusetheterm
‘dogwhistle’)mayunderminedemocraticmandatesforparticularpolicies,but
thattheydonotposedifficultieswithregardtoamandatetorule.Theirfocusis
oncasesinwhichapoliticalparty(orapolitician)advocatesaparticularpolicy
usingaphrasethatdogwhistlesamessagetooneaudiencewhichanother
audienceisunawareof.Totakeanartificial(thoughnottotallyartificial)
example,imagineapartythattrumpetsitsoppositiontoDredScottinmanyof
itscampaigncommercials.Thepartygetsthesupportofbothanti-racismand
anti-abortionvoters.Thisparty,whenvictorious,couldnotdeclareamandate
forbanningabortion,becauseonlysomeofthevoterstookthistobewhatthey
werevotingfor.Hence,GoodinandSawardargue,policymandatesare
underminedwhenpolicypreferencesaremerelydogwhistled.However,Goodin
andSawardholdthatamandatetoruleisnotunderminedinthisway,because
everybodywhovotesforpoliticianPknowsexactlywhattheyarevotingfor:that
politicianPshouldrule.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
31
Aconservativepartydog-whistlesanencouragingmessagetoraciststhat
itsowntraditionalsupporterswouldinstantlyrepudiate.Itwinsthe
ensuingelection.Halfitsvotersvotedforitpurelybecauseofits(coded)
supportforracistpolicies;halfvotedforitpurelybecauseofits
traditionallydecentpoliciesonrace.Clearly,thepartywonamajority;
clearly,ithasamandatetorule.Butunderthosecircumstances,itequally
clearlycouldnotclaimapolicymandatetopursueeitherofthetwo
contradictorypoliciesthatwonititsvotes.(2005:475)
GoodinandSawardargue,thenthatapartycannotclaimamandateforits
policiesunlessitrefrainsfromengagingindogwhistlepolitics(andmorethan
thismaybeneededaswell):
Itisworthfirmlyremindingpoliticalpartiesthatwhentheyengageindog
whistlepoliticsinordinarygeneralelections,thesamephenomenonthat
theyarecountingontoincreasetheirshareofvotesalsoundercutsthe
authoritythattheymightsecurebywinningthevote.(2005:476)
Itseemstome,however,thatGoodinandSaward’sargumentsdonotgoquitefar
enough.Iftheyarerightaboutthepolicymandate,thenthemandatetorulemay
alsooftenbeundermined.Thiswillhappen,forexample,inthecaseofsingle-
issuevoters,ofwhichtherearelikelytobemany.Ifavotingdecisionisbasedon
abortionpolicy,anddifferentmessagesaresentaboutthistodifferentgroupsof
voters,thensurelythemandatetoruleisalso—inanymeaningfulsense—
undermined.
Nowlet’sturntothecaseofcovertdogwhistles,whichGoodinandSawarddon’t
discuss.Covertdogwhistlesdon’tinvolvethesamesortofdeception.It’snotthe
casethatsomeviewersoftheWillieHortonadwillthinkthatDukakis’sprison
policyisQ,whileotherswilltakeittobeR.Whatwillhappen,however,isthat
thead’stargetaudiencewillvoteforBushonthebasisoftheirracialattitudes,
withoutrealizingit.Humanpsychologybeingwhatitis,beingunawareofone’s
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
32
reasonformakingavotingdecisionissurelywidespread.Peopleareunawareof
theextenttowhich,forexample,theirdecisionofwhichsockstobuysisbased
onthelocationofthesocksonthetable.Itstandstoreasonthatpeoplewouldbe
unawareofthedegreetowhichtheyareinfluencedbymusicinacommercial,
subtletiesoftoneorbodylanguage,beingremindedofaloved(orhated!)one,
andsoon.Ifsuchlackofawarenessofinfluenceswereenoughtoundermine
democraticauthority,wewouldneedtogiveupallhopeofdemocracy.
However,morethanthisgoesonwithcovertdogwhistles.Incovertdogwhistle
cases,peoplemakedecisionsonthebasisofreasonsthattheywouldrejectif
theybecameawareofthem—asweknowfromwhathappenswhentheyare
raisedtoconsciousness.Moreover,theydothisasaresultofbeingdeliberately
manipulated.Thislooks,onthefaceofit,muchmorelikeathreattodemocratic
mandates.
Butifthisissufficienttoundermineamandate,thenoncemoretheremayinfact
benomandates.Whatvoter,afterall,thinksthattheyshouldbasetheirvoteon
musicplayedduringacampaigncommercial,oronacandidate’sphysical
appearance?Andyet,allthatweknowaboutpsychologysuggeststhatfactors
likethesearesuretoimpactvoterchoices.Andallthatweknowaboutthe
runningofcampaigns(andaboutadvertisingmoregenerally)tellsusthatthings
likethisareboundtobeusedbycampaignoperativestodeliberatelymanipulate
thevoters.Beinginfluencedbyfactorsthatwedon’tthinkshouldinfluenceusis,
itseemstome,aninevitablepartofthehumancondition.And,sincethisis
relativelywidelyknown,usingsuchfactorstoinfluenceotherswillalsobea
standardfeatureofhumanlife.Ifthisissufficienttounderminedemocratic
mandates,thentherearenodemocraticmandates.
5.2 Stanley
StanleyisparticularlyconcernedaboutwhatIamcalling‘dogwhistles’,because
ofthefunctionthattheyserveinunderminingdemocracy.Thetermsthat
particularlyconcernhim—like‘welfare’—havedevastatingproperties:
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
33
1. Useoftherelevantexpressionhastheeffectontheconversationof
representingacertaingroupinthecommunityashavingaperspective
notworthyofinclusion,thatis,theyarenotworthyofrespect.
2. Theexpressionhasacontentthatcanservesimplytocontribute
legitimatelytoresolvingthedebateatissueinareasonableway,
whichisseparatefromitsfunctionasamechanismofexclusion.
3. Mereuseoftheexpressionisenoughtohavetheeffectoferoding
reasonableness.Sotheeffectonreasonablenessoccursjustbyvirtue
ofusingtheexpression,inwhateverlinguisticcontext”(Stanley2015:
130).
Ifeveryuseofoneofthesetermshastheseeffects,theneveryuseerodesrespect
forblackpeople,andeveryuseerodesreasonablediscussionbyexcludingtheir
perspective.Thisisobviouslyenormouslydamagingfordemocracy,eventhough
theofficialcontentofthetermmightbeaperfectlyreasonablecontributionto
discussion.
IfStanleyisright,thendogwhistletermswouldindeedbeutterlydevastating—
wesimplycouldnothaveadebateusingtermslike‘welfare’becauseall
participantswouldunwittinglybeintroducingracistnot-at-issuecontentwith
everyutterance,nomatterwhatthecontext,andnomatterwhattherestoftheir
utterancecontained.Ifthiswereright,thenthestandardliberalremedyfor
problematicspeech—morespeech—facesenormousbarriers.
Thereismuchthatisrightinthis:Itisindeedtrickiertochallengedogwhistles
thanitistochallenge,forexample,overtlyracistclaims.Ifacampaign
commercialexplicitlyassertsthat“blackmenaredangerouscriminalsand
Dukakisisinsufficientlyracist”,itisexceptionallyeasytopointoutwhatis
wrongwiththead.Theracismisundeniable,andeventhemosttimidof
journalistswillfeelcomfortableassertingthatracismispresent.Thosewho
madetheadwillhavenorecoursebuttoeitherapologiseorconfinetheir
electoralprospectstotheexplicitlyracistvoter.ButtheWillieHorton
commercialisverydifferent.Manyviewerswillbeunawarethattheyhave
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
34
watchedanadthatmakestheirracialattitudessalient.Theadcontainsno
overtlyracistassertionsthatareeasilypointedto.Andpoliticianscan,anddid,
easilydenythattherewasracismintheadorintheirintentions.Moreover,
JesseJacksonwasvilifiedas“playingtheracecard”whenhepointedtothe
racismofthead,andthesuggestionwassaidtobeludicrousbymainstream
commentators.
Butaswehavealreadyseen,thetruthisnotquitethisbleak.Theeffectsof
termslike‘welfare’varydepending(atleast)ontheracialpredispositionsof
one’saudience,onwhetherraceisexplicitlyunderdiscussion,andupontherest
ofwhatonesays.Also,recallthatassoonasJacksonraisedtheissueofracethe
adstoppedworking.Thisshowsthatinanextremelyimportantsenseitcouldbe
challenged.Andindeedchallengedquiteeasily.EventhosewhothoughtJackson
waswrongtoraisetheissueofracismwerenolongeraffectedbyitintheway
thatitsmakersintended.Althoughracismwasnowapartoftheconversation,
andsohighlysalient,itwasexplicitlysalientratherthancovertly.Theadcould
onlycausethemtousetheirracialattitudesintheirvotingdecisionsaslongas
racewascovertlysalient.Acovertperlocutionaryspeechactis(inatleastsome
cases)veryeasilychallenged:alloneneedstodoistomakewhathasbeencovert
intoanexplicitpartoftheconversation.
Buttofullyunderstandhowtocombatthesespeechacts,wemustcombinethis
factwithinsightsfromStanley:itwillindeedbeconversationallychallengingto
makewhathasbeencovertexplicit.Peoplewillrejectwhatchallengerssay,and
denythatitistrue.Sanitymaybe,andoftenis,calledintoquestion.Challengers
willbeaccusedofhavingapoliticalagenda.Theconversationwillbederailed,
anditwillnotflowsmoothly.Itisdifficult,justasStanleysaid,andasaresultit
ishardtomakeoneselfdoit,ortopersistinthefaceofthisresistance.There
are,then,importantlessonshereforthoseseekingtofightperniciouscovert
perlocutionaryacts.Butifchallengersareawareofhowthesespeechactswork,
thenitbecomesclearthatdespitethisresistanceitiswellworthdoing.Assoon
astheissueofraceisraised—evenifraisingitisthoughttobeamistake,and
metwithanger—thespeechactwearetryingtofightstopsworking.Itisboth
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
35
veryhardtofightandveryeasytowin.Thoseseekingtochallengethese
perniciousspeechactsneedtoremindthemselvesoftheeaseofwinningin
ordertogearthemselvesupforthedifficultyofthefight.Andimportantly,they
needtorealizethatwinningwillnotfeellikewinning:thoseresponsibleforthe
speechactswillnotbackdown,concedethetruthaboutwhattheyweredoing,
orapologise;theintendedaudienceofthespeechactswillprobablyinsistthat
theanalysisiswronganddenytheexistenceofthecovertmaterial.Yet
nonethelessthebattlewillbewon:thespeechactswillbeneutralized.
Importantly,ofcourse,wewillonlywinthesebattlesifthenormofracial
equalityisactuallyinplace.Andwhetheritisornotmayvaryagreatdealover
timeandplace.Weknowfromthesadandterriblehistoryofgenocidethata
communitywherethisnormisinplacecanchangeremarkablyquicklyintoone
inwhichithasdisappeared(Tirrell2012;Smith2011).Andwealsoknowthat
whatisunacceptabletosayinonelocationmaybeconsideredperfectlynormal
just30milesaway.Forthisreason,itisundoubtedlyanoversimplificationto
claimthatthenormofracialequalityisinforce.Itis,broadlyspeaking,inforce.
Buttherewillbetimesandplaceswhereitisn’t.Andatthosetimesandplaces,
raisingtheissueofracewillnotneutralizearacialdogwhistle.(Formore
complexitiesonthispoint,considerthedifficultiesraisedearlierconcerningthe
contentofthenorm.)23
Anotherlimitationisalsoimportanttoemphasise.WhatIhavearguedisthat
explicitlyraisingtheissueofracecandefusearacialdogwhistle.Thisa
defensivemaneuveragainstaveryparticularsortofpoliticalmanipulation.It
seemstobehighlyeffective.Butitdoesnotalterattitudes:theracialresentment
maynotbebroughttobearonthevotingchoice,butitremains.Nordoesitalter
concreterealitiesintheworld.Centuriesofviolence,discriminationand
segregationarenotchangedviaarhetoricalmaneuver.Theworldwelivein
23Norwillitneutralizeitforthoseindividualswhosimplydisagreewiththenorm,forevenwhenandwherethenormisinplacethereareopenlyracistpeoplewhoexplicitlydenythenorm.But,ofcourse,thosepeopledon’tneedtobedogwhistledtoinordertoactivatetheirracism:theyarehappytodeliberatelyvotefortheracistcandidate.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
36
remainsjustasmuchstructuredbyracismafteradogwhistlehasbeenopenly
discussedasitwasbefore.Itisvitaltoopenlydiscussthedogwhistles,butthis
shouldnotbemistakenforsomethingmorepowerfulthanitis.
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
37
Austin,J.L.1962.HowtoDoThingsWithWords,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Camp,E.2013.“Indirection,InexplicitnessandtheConversationalRecord”,
presentedatSemanticsWorkshop.
Goodin,R.andSaward,M.2005.“DogwhistlesandDemocraticMandates”,
PoliticalQuarterly:471-476.
Horwitz,J.andM.Peffley.2005.“PlayingtheRaceCardinthePost-WillieHorton
Era:TheImpactofRacializedCodeWordsonSupportforPunitivePrison
Policy”.ThePublicOpinionQuarterly69:1,99-112.
Lamis,AlexanderP.etal.(1990)TheTwoPartySouth.OxfordUniversityPress.
Langton,R.2012.“BeyondBelief:PragmaticsinHateSpeechandPornography”,
inMaitraandMcGowan,eds.SpeechandHarm:ControversiesOverFree
Speech,72-93.(OxfordUniversityPress)
Lopez,I.2014.DogWhistlePolitics:HowCodedRacialAppealsHaveReinvented
RacismandWreckedtheMiddleClass.OxfordUniversityPress.
Mendelberg,T.2001.TheRaceCard:CampaignStrategy,ImplicitMessages,and
theNormofEquality.(PrincetonUniversityPress)
McGowan,M.K.2004.“ConversationalExercitives:SomethingElseWeDoWith
OurWords”,LinguisticsandPhilosophy27(1):93-111.
McGowan,M.K.2012.“On‘WhitesOnly’SignsandRacistHateSpeech:Verbal
ActsofRacistDiscrimination”,inMaitraandMcGowan,eds.Speechand
Harm:ControversiesOverFreeSpeech,121-147.(OxfordUniversityPress)
Noah,T.2004.“WhyBushOpposesDredScott”,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2004/10/w
hy_bush_opposes_dred_scott.2.html.
Nunberg,Geoff.“TheSocialLifeofSlurs”,thisvolume.
Saul,Jennifer.“RacialFigleavesandtheShiftingBoundariesofthePermissible”,
inpreparationforPhilosophicalTopics.
Smith,DL.2011.LessThanHuman:WhyWeDemean,Enslave,andExterminate
Others.StMartin’sPress.
Stanley,J.2015.TheProblemofPropaganda.PrincetonUniversityPress.
Tesler,M.andSears,D.O.2010.Obama’sRace:The2008ElectionandtheDream
ofaPost-RacialAmerica.(UniversityofChicagoPress.)
Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.
38
Tirrell,L.2012.“GenocidalLanguageGames.”inMaitraandMcGowan,eds.
SpeechandHarm:ControversiesOverFreeSpeech,174-221.(Oxford
UniversityPress)
Valentino,N.,Hutchings,V.andWhite,I.2002.“CuesThatMatter:HowPolitical
AdsPrimeRacialAttitudesDuringCampaings”.AmericanPoliticalScience
Review96:1.
top related