Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics: Online-First Articles

The utility of (political) dogwhistles  – a life cycle perspective

ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg
ORCID logo | University of Gothenburg

The term dogwhistle refers to an expression conveying a message to a subset of an audience which is not perceived by the rest of the group, in addition to a primary meaning directed at the group at large. We follow up on previous work in linguistics and political communication on defining dogwhistles, taking into account how they likely function in real-life political contexts. We consider the utility of dogwhistles in terms of their sensitivity and their specificity, which allows us to consider dogwhistles in terms of an idealized “life cycle”, whose phases we describe in terms of a multi-dimensional utility tradeoff, described in terms of dogwhistle users, the benefit they expect to receive from dogwhistling, and the deniability of controversial dogwhistle meanings. We propose an approach for the longitudinal study of dogwhistles, and describe the first stages of an experiment to characterize dogwhistles in terms of their lexical properties.

Keywords: dogwhistles, utility, political communication, media manipulation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Previous treatments of dogwhistles
  • 2.The concept of utility in the dogwhistle context
    • 2.1Dogwhistle users and participants
    • 2.2Dogwhistle sensitivity and specificity
      • 2.2.1Deniability
    • 2.3In-groups, out-groups, and “hostile” out-groups
    • 2.4Realizing dogwhistle benefits
  • 3.Parts of the life cycle
    • 3.1Rise
    • 3.2Decline
  • 4.Empirical grounding and future work
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.23047.say
References (34)
Albertson, Bethany L.
2015 “Dog-whistle politics: Multivocal communication and religious appeals.” Political Behavior, 37 (1): 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M.
1986 “Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test.” American Journal of Political Science, 30 (4): 709–728. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhat, Prashanth, and Ofra Klein
2020 “Covert hate speech: White nationalists and dog whistle communication on twitter.” In Twitter, the public sphere, and the chaos of online deliberation, Edited by Gwen Bouvier and Judith E. Rosenbaum, 151–172. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boholm, Max, and Asad Sayeed
2023 Political dogwhistles and community divergence in semantic change. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Historical Language Change: 53–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breitholtz, Ellen
2020 Enthymemes and Topoi in Dialogue: the use of common sense reasoning in conversation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Breitholtz, Ellen, and Robin Cooper
2021 ”Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction.” Proceedings of the Reasoning and Interaction Conference (ReInAct2021): 40–46.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin
2019 “Representing Types as Neural Events”. Journal of Language, Logic and Information. 28 (2), 131–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drakulich, Kevin, Kevin H. Wozniak, John Hagan, and Devon Johnson
2020 “Race and policing in the 2016 presidential election: Black lives matter, the police, and dog whistle politics.” Criminology, 58 (2): 370–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1988 “Topoi and formes topiques.” Bulletin d’études de la linguistique français, 221: 11–14.Google Scholar
Garrett, R. Kelly, Dustin Carnahan, and Emily K. Lynch
2013 “A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information.” Political Behavior, 35 (1): 113–134.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E., and Michael Saward
2005 “Dog whistles and democratic mandates.” The Political Quarterly, 76 (4): 471–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Noah and Michael C. Frank
2016 “Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference”. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20 (11): 818–829. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haney-López, Ian
2014 Dog whistle politics: How coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and wrecked the middle class: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Robert, and Elin McCready
2019 “Dog-whistles and the at-issue/not-at-issue distinction”. In Secondary Content, Edited by Daniel Gutzmann and Katherine Turgay, 222–245. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, George A.
2007 Aristotle On Rhetoric, a theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Khoo, Justin
2017 “Code words in political discourse”. Philosophical Topics, 45 (2): 33–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Olivier, Russell Spears, and Stephen Reicher
2007 “Social identity performance: Extending the strategic side of SIDE.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (1): 28–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamis, Alexander P.
1984 The Two-Party South. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, Stephan., Ullrich, U. K., Colleen M. Seifert, Norbert Schwarz, and John Cook
2012 “Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing.” Psychological science in the public interest, 13 (3): 106–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, Elina, Björn Rönnerstrand, Ellen Breitholtz, Robin Cooper, Gregor Rettenegger, and Asad Sayeed
2023 “Can Politicians Broaden Their Support by Using Dog Whistle Communication?” 119th APSA Annual Meeting & Exhibition, August 31 – September 3, 2023. Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali
2001 The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myrendal, Jenny
2019 Negotiating meanings online: Disagreements about word meaning in discussion forum communication. Discourse Studies, 21 (3): 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, Samuel L.
2023 “Mating Call, Dog Whistle, Trigger: Asymmetric Alignments, Race, and the Use of Reactionary Religious Rhetoric in American Politics.” Sociological Theory, 41 (1): 56–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2007 “The expressive dimension.” Theoretical Linguistics, 33 (2): 165–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rovny, Jan
2012 “Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition.” European Union Politics, 13 (2): 269–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A.
1972 “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review, 66 (2): 555–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep
2015 “Everything to everyone: The electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 841–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Jason
2015 How propaganda works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Svensson, A.
2019 “Veckans nyord: Hundvissla.” Språktidningen, May 20, 2019. [URL]
Tomz, Michael, and Robert P. van Houweling
2009 “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Political Science Review, 103 (1): 83–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas A., and Vincent L. Hutchings, and Ismail K. White
2002 “Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 75–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wetts, Rachel, and Robb Willer
2019 “Who is called by the dog whistle? Experimental evidence that racial resentment and political ideology condition responses to racially encoded messages.” Socius, 51: 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Ismail K.
2007 “When race matters and when it doesn’t: Racial group differences in response to racial cues.” American Political Science Review, 101 (2): 339–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Åkerlund, Mathilda
2021 “Dog whistling far-right code words: the case of ‘culture enricher’ on the Swedish web.” Information, Communication & Society, 25 (12): 1–18.Google Scholar