A rhetorical perspective on conspiracies
The Stamina case
In this paper, we analyze the persuasive effects of conspiracy
theories from a rhetorical and argumentative perspective. In particular, we
scrutinize a case-study – the story of the “Stamina cure” in Italy –,
interpreting it as a particular instance of conspiracy theory. First, we explain
what conspiracy theories are, and why they are relevant within the contemporary
health debate. Second, we situate our analysis in relation to other theoretical
accounts, explaining why a discursive approach may be required to study
conspiracies. Third, we investigate our case-study through the lenses of the
three “entechnic” proofs of rhetoric: logos, ethos, and
pathos. We conclude that a rhetorical approach can shed
significant light on how conspiracies achieve their persuasive effect and it
provides a first step toward the elaboration of a more comprehensive model to
better address the practical and political implications of conspiracy
argumentations.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: The Stamina case and its persuasive effects
- 2.Conspiracy theories and their contemporary relevance
- 3.Comparing different approaches to the study of CTs
- 4.A rhetorical analysis of the Stamina case: Logos
- 5.A rhetorical analysis of the Stamina case: Ethos
- 6.A rhetorical analysis of the Stamina case: Pathos
- 7.Conclusions
-
Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (43)
References
Abbott, Alison. 2016. “Stem-cell scandal gets fresh scrutiny.” Nature 5391, 17 November 2016:340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Amossy, Ruth and Roselyne Koren. 2009. “Rhétorique et argumentation: approches croisées.” Argumentation et Analyse du Discours 2|2009. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Angenot, Marc. 2008. Le dialogue de sourd. Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une Nuits.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aristotle, Rh.: Ars Rhetorica, ed. by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1959.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brotherton, Rob. 2015. Suspicious Mind. Why We Believe Conspiracy Theory. New York: Bloomsbury Sigma.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brotherton, Rob and Christopher C. French. 2014. “Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the
Conjunction Fallacy.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 281:238–248. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brotherton, Rob, Christopher C. French and Alan D. Pickering. 2013. “Measuring Belief in Conspiracy Theories: The Generic Conspiracist
Beliefs Scale.” Frontiers in Psychology 41:279. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Buckley, Thea. 2015. “Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy
Theories?” Scientific American Mind, 1 July 2015. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Byford, Jovan. 2011. Conspiracy Theories. A critical introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Capocci, Mauro and Gilberto Corbellini (eds.). 2014. Le cellule della speranza. Il caso Stamina tra inganno e
scienza. Torino: Codice Edizioni.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cattaneo, Elena and Gilberto Corbellini. 2014. “Taking a stand against pseudoscience.” Nature 5101, 19 June 2014:333–335. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danblon, Emmanuelle. 2005. La fonction persuasive. Anthropologie du discours rhétorique: origines
et actualité. Paris: Armand Colin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Danblon, Emmanuelle and Loïc Nicolas (eds.). 2010. Les Rhétoriques de la conspiration. Paris: CNRS Éditions. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Duesberg, Peter H. 1995. Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? USA: North Atlantic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
French, Christopher C. and Anna Stone. 2014. Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and
Experience. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenwald, Glenn and Ewen MacAskill. 2013. “Boundless Informant: the NSA’s secret tool to track global
surveillance data.” The Guardian, 8 June 2013.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hamilton, Lawrence C. 2011. “Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence
for interaction effects.” Climatic Change 104(2):231–242. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hofstadter, Richard. 1964. “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”. Harper’s Magazine November 1964:77–86.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kahan, Dan M., Ellen Peters, Maggie Wittlin, Paul Slovic, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Donald Braman and Gregory Mandel. 2012. “The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on
perceived climate change risks”. Nature Climate Change 21:732–735. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klonoff, Elizabeth A. and Hope Landrine. 1999. “Do blacks believe that HIV/AIDS is a government conspiracy
against them?” Preventive Medicine 281:451–457. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labinaz, Paolo and Marina Sbisà. 2014. “Certainty and uncertainty in assertive speech
acts.” In Communicating Certainty and Uncertainty in Medical, Supportive and
Scientific Contexts, ed. by Andrzej Zuczkowski et al., 31–58. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leman, Patrick J. and Marco Cinnirella. 2013. “Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive
closure.” Frontiers in Psychology 41:378. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewandowsky, Stephan, Gilles E. Gignac and Klaus Oberauer. 2013. “The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting
Rejection of Science”. PLoS ONE 10(8):e0134773. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewandowsky, Stephan, Klaus Oberauer and Gilles E. Gignac. 2013. “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a
Hoax. An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”. Psychological Science 24(5):622–633. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Miller, Joanne M., Kyle L. Saunders and Christina E. Farhart. 2016. “Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning: The Moderating
Roles of Political Knowledge and Trust.” American Journal of Political Science 601:824–844. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicolas, Loïc. 2014. “L’évidence du complot: un défi à l’argumentation. Douter de tout
pour ne plus douter du tout”. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours 13|2014. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oliver, J. Eric and Thomas J. Wood. 2014. “Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass
Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 58(4):952–966. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oswald, Steve. 2016. “Conspiracy and bias: argumentative features and persuasiveness of
conspiracy theories.” OSSA Conference Archive 1681. [URL]
Oswald, Steve and Thierry Herman. 2016. “Argumentation, Conspiracy and the Moon: a Rhetorical-Pragmatic
Analysis.” Case Studies in Discourse Analysis ed. by M. Danesi and S. Greco, 295–330. Munich: Lincom Europa.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–1958. Collected Papers ed. by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss (voll. 1–61) and A. Burks (voll. 7–81). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Popper, Karl R. [1945] 2002. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London and New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quattrociocchi, Walter and Antonella Vicini. 2016. Misinformation. Guida alla società dell’informazione e della
credulità. Milano: Franco Angeli.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ross, Michael W., E. James Essien and Isabel Torres. 2006. “Conspiracy Beliefs about the Origin of HIV/AIDS in Four
Racial/Ethnic Groups.” J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41(3): 342–344. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Serra, Mauro. 2017. Retorica, argomentazione, democrazia. Per una filosofia politica del
linguaggio. Roma: Aracne editrice.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sunstein, Cass. 2014. Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sunstein, Cass R. and Adrian Vermeule. 2009. “Symposium on Conspiracy Theories. Conspiracy Theories: Causes and
Cures.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 17(2):202–227. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swami, Viren, Rebecca Coles, Stefan Stieger, Jakob Pietschnig, Adrian Furnham, Sherry Rehim and Martin Voracek. 2011. “Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a
monological belief system and associations between individual psychological
differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy
theories.” British Journal of Psychology 102(3):443–463. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taguieff, Pierre-André. 2013. Court Traité de complotologie. Paris: Mille et une nuits.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taïeb, Emmanuel. 2010. “Logiques politiques du conspirationnisme.” Sociologie et sociétés 42(2):265–289. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wood, Michael J. and Karen M. Douglas. 2013. “What about building 7? A social psychological study of online
discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.” Frontiers in Psychology 41:409. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yazdannik, Ahmadreza, Alireza Yousefy and Sepideh Mohammadi. 2017. Discourse analysis: A useful methodology for health-care system
researches. J Edu Health Promot 61:111. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zagarella, Roberta Martina and Annoni, Marco. 2018. “Conspiracy Ideations in Healthcare: A Rhetorical and
Argumentative Analysis”, in S. Oswald and D. Maillat (eds.). Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference
on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017. London: College Publications, Vol. II1: 973–988.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zarefsky, David. 1984. “Conspiracy Arguments in the Lincoln-Douglas
Debates.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 211:63–75.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald
Meuer, Marcel, Aileen Oeberst & Roland Imhoff
2023.
How do conspiratorial explanations differ from non‐conspiratorial explanations? A content analysis of real‐world online articles.
European Journal of Social Psychology 53:2
► pp. 288 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Mohammed, Dima & Maria Grazia Rossi
2022.
The Argumentative Potential of Doubt: From Legitimate Concerns to Conspiracy Theories About COVID-19 Vaccines. In
The Pandemic of Argumentation [
Argumentation Library, 43],
► pp. 125 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.