Chapter 5
“You want me to be wrong”
Expert ethos, (de-)legitimation, and ethotic straw men as discursive resources for conspiracy theories
This chapter discusses features of conspiratorial discourse related to the representation of social actors through the lens of rhetorical and argumentative analysis. Specifically, it identifies a previously undocumented variant of the straw man fallacy (a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position meant to refute it more easily), namely the ethotic straw man, which unscrupulous arguers can use to legitimate their own credibility and undermine their opponents’, thereby evading scientific discussion of relevant issues. A TV-interview with French virologist Didier Raoult, who championed hydroxychloroquine-based treatments in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, is taken as a case in point to explain why such quasi-populistic discourse, prominently centred on questions of ethos, fits conspiratorial narratives so well.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Conspiracy theories as argumentative objects
- 3.
Ethos
: A multi-layered notion
- 3.1Situational ethos
- 3.2Communicational ethos
- 3.3Discursive ethos
- 4.The straw man fallacy: From propositional to non-propositional misrepresentations
- 5.Case study
- 5.1Delegitimating the media by misrepresenting their true nature
- 5.2Delegitimating the media by misrepresenting their intentions and emotions
- 5.3Legitimating authority by ridiculing the interviewer
- 5.4Legitimating an ethos of victim by misrepresenting media intentions
- 6.Why ethotic straw men are likely to appeal to conspiracy theories
-
Notes
-
References
References (43)
Aikin, Scott, and John Casey
2011 “
Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men.”
Argumentation 25 (1): 87–105.
Aikin, Scott, and John Casey
2016 “
Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue.”
Topoi 35: 431–440.
Amossy, Ruth
(ed.) 1999 Images de Soi Dans Le Discours: La Construction de l’ethos. Sciences Des Discours. Lausanne and Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Barnes, Jonathan
2014 Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1: The Revised Oxford Translation. Vol. 192. Princeton University Press.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann
1990 The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Bonnafous, Simone
2002 “
La Question de l’ethos et Du Genre En Communication Politique’. In
Actes Du Premier Colloque Franco-Mexicain Des Sciences de La Communication, 35–41.
Byford, Jovan
2011 Conspiracy Theories. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cattani, Adelino
2020 “
Persuading and Convincing.” In
OSSA Conference Archive, OSSA 12: Evidence, Persuasion & Diversity. Windsor, ON.
Cornilliat, François, and Richard Lockwood
(eds.) 2000 Ethos et pathos : le statut du sujet rhétorique : actes du Colloque international de Saint-Denis (19–21 juin 1997).
Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 21. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Doury, Marianne, and Pierre Lefébure
2006 “
« Intérêt Général », « Intérêts Particuliers ». La Construction de l’Ethos dans un Débat public.”
Questions de communication, no. 9 (06–30): 47–71.
Duthie, Rory, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Chris Reed
2016 “
Mining Ethos in Political Debate’. In
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), ed. by
Pietro Baroni,
Thomas F. Gordon,
Tatjana Scheffler, and
Manfred Stede, 299–310. Netherlands: IOS Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Robert Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Routledge.
Errecart, Amaia
2019 “
De La Sociabilité Associative : Formes et Enjeux de La Construction d’un Ethos Collectif.”
Mots, no. 121 (
November): 89–105.
Flowerdew, John, and John E. Richardson
(eds.) 2018 The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. First issued in paperback. Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fuhrer, Joffrey, and Florian Cova
2020 ‘“
Quick and Dirty”: Intuitive Cognitive Style Predicts Trust in Didier Raoult and His Hydroxychloroquine-Based Treatment against COVID-19.”
PsyArXiv.
[URL].
Garmendia, Joana
2018 Irony. Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, Erving
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, Erving
1982 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. 1st Pantheon Books ed. New York: Pantheon Books.
Govier, Trudy
2010 A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Herman, Thierry
2005 “
L’analyse de l’ethos Oratoire’. In
Des Discours Aux Textes: Modèles et Analyses, ed. by
Philippe Lane, 157–182. Rouen: Publication des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.
Herman, Thierry
2010 “
L’irrésistible Rhétorique de La Conspiration: Le Cas de l’imposture de La Lune.” In
Les Rhétoriques de La Conspiration, 217–236. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Hofstadter, Richard
1964 The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. 1st edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacquin, Jérôme
2018 “
Ethos and Inference: Insights from a Multimodal Perspective.” In
Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, ed. by
Steve Oswald and
Didier Maillat, 2:413–423. London: College Publications.
Keeley, Brian L.
1999 “
Of Conspiracy Theories.”
The Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109–126.
Krieg-Planque, Alice
2019 “
L’ethos de Rupture En Politique: « Un Ouvrier, c’est Là Pour Fermer Sa Gueule ! », Philippe Poutou.”
Argumentation et Analyse Du Discours, no. 23 (
October).
Lehti, Lotta
2013 “
Genre et Ethos: Des Voies Discursives de La Construction d’une Image de l’auteur Dans Les Blogs de Politiciens’. PhD Thesis, Finland: University of Turku.
Lewiński, Marcin, and Steve Oswald
2013 “
When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men? A Normative and Cognitive Pragmatic Account.”
Journal of Pragmatics, Biases and constraints in communication: Argumentation, persuasion and manipulation, 59, Part B: 164–77.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
2017 Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation: The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser
2017 Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Oswald, Steve
2016 “
Conspiracy and Bias: Argumentative Features and Persuasiveness of Conspiracy Theories.” In
Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016, edited by
Pat Bondy and
Laura Benacquista, 1–16. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
[URL]
Oswald, Steve, and Thierry Herman
2016 “
Argumentation, Conspiracy and the Moon: A Rhetorical-Pragmatic Analysis.” In
Case Studies in Discourse Analysis, edited by
Marcel Danesi and
Sara Greco, 295–330. Münich: Lincom Europa.
Saussure, Louis de
2018 “
The Straw Man Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device.” In
Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, edited by
Steve Oswald,
Jérôme Jacquin, and
Thierry Herman, 171–190. Cham: Springer.
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey, and Steve Oswald
2019 “
What Makes a Straw Man Acceptable? Three Experiments Assessing Linguistic Factors.”
Journal of Pragmatics 141: 1–15.
Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule
2009 “
Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.”
Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (2): 202–227.
Talisse, Robert, and Scott Aikin
2006 “
Two Forms of the Straw Man.”
Argumentation 20 (3): 345–352.
Van Leeuwen, Theo
1996 “
The Representation of Social Actors’. In
Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed by
Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and
Malcolm Coulthard, 1:32–70. London: Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, Theo
2007 “
Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.”
Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112.
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. 1st edition. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
2019 “
Pragmatics and the Challenge of “Non-Propositional” Effects.”
Journal of Pragmatics, Quo Vadis, Pragmatics?, 145 (
May): 31–38.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2012 “
Explaining Irony.” In
Meaning and Relevance, edited by
Deirdre Wilson and
Dan Sperber, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
2015 Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage.
Zarefsky, David
2014 Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation: Selected Essays by David Zarefsky. New York: Springer International Publishing AG.
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald
Schumann, Jennifer & Steve Oswald
Aikin, Scott & John Casey
2023.
On Halting Meta-argument with Para-Argument.
Argumentation 37:3
► pp. 323 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.