Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp. 262–283

A rhetorical perspective on conspiracies

The Stamina case

| National Research Council, Institute of Biomedical Technologies
| National Research Council, Institute of Biomedical Technologies
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.
Keywords: conspiracy theories, health communication, inference, Stamina case, rhetoric
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
Published online: 25 September 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18006.zag
References
Abbott, Alison
2016 “Stem-cell scandal gets fresh scrutiny.” Nature 5391 17 November 2016:340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amossy, Ruth and Roselyne Koren
2009 “Rhétorique et argumentation: approches croisées.” Argumentation et Analyse du Discours 2|2009 doi:  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Angenot, Marc
2008 Le dialogue de sourd. Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une Nuits.Google Scholar
Aristotle
, Rh.: Ars Rhetorica ed. by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1959.Google Scholar
Brotherton, Rob
2015 Suspicious Mind. Why We Believe Conspiracy Theory. New York: Bloomsbury Sigma.Google Scholar
Brotherton, Rob and Christopher C. French
2014 “Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 281:238–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, Thea
2015 “Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?” Scientific American Mind 1 July 2015 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byford, Jovan
2011 Conspiracy Theories. A critical introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Capocci, Mauro and Gilberto Corbellini
(eds.) 2014 Le cellule della speranza. Il caso Stamina tra inganno e scienza. Torino: Codice Edizioni.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, Elena and Gilberto Corbellini
2014 “Taking a stand against pseudoscience.” Nature 5101 19 June 2014:333–335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danblon, Emmanuelle
2005 La fonction persuasive. Anthropologie du discours rhétorique: origines et actualité. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Danblon, Emmanuelle and Loïc Nicolas
(eds.) 2010 Les Rhétoriques de la conspiration. Paris: CNRS Éditions. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duesberg, Peter H.
1995 Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? USA: North Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
French, Christopher C. and Anna Stone
2014 Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Hamilton, Lawrence C.
2011 “Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects.” Climatic Change 104(2):231–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard
1964 “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”. Harper’s Magazine November 1964:77–86.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klonoff, Elizabeth A. and Hope Landrine
1999 “Do blacks believe that HIV/AIDS is a government conspiracy against them?” Preventive Medicine 281:451–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Leman, Patrick J. and Marco Cinnirella
2013 “Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure.” Frontiers in Psychology 41:378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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:  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Steve
2016 “Conspiracy and bias: argumentative features and persuasiveness of conspiracy theories.” OSSA Conference Archive 1681. http://​scholar​.uwindsor​.ca​/ossaarchive​/OSSA11​/papersandcommentaries​/168
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
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
Popper, Karl R.
[1945] 2002 The Open Society and Its Enemies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quattrociocchi, Walter and Antonella Vicini
2016 Misinformation. Guida alla società dell’informazione e della credulità. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Serra, Mauro
2017 Retorica, argomentazione, democrazia. Per una filosofia politica del linguaggio. Roma: Aracne editrice.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass
2014 Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taguieff, Pierre-André
2013 Court Traité de complotologie. Paris: Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar
Taïeb, Emmanuel
2010 “Logiques politiques du conspirationnisme.” Sociologie et sociétés 42(2):265–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yazdannik, Ahmadreza, Alireza Yousefy and Sepideh Mohammadi
2017 Discourse analysis: A useful methodology for health-care system researches. J Edu Health Promot 61:111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Zarefsky, David
1984 “Conspiracy Arguments in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 211:63–75.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Mohammed, Dima & Maria Grazia Rossi
2022.  In The Pandemic of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 43], ► pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.