Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics: Online-First ArticlesThe utility of (political) dogwhistles – a life cycle perspective
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.23047.say
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.
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. “Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test.” American Journal of Political Science,
30
(4): 709–728.
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.
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.
Breitholtz, Ellen. 2020. Enthymemes and Topoi in Dialogue: the use of common sense reasoning in conversation. Leiden: Brill.
Breitholtz, Ellen, and Robin Cooper. 2021. ”Dogwhistles as Inferences in Interaction.” Proceedings of the Reasoning and Interaction Conference (ReInAct2021): 40–46.
Cooper, Robin. 2019. “Representing Types as Neural Events”. Journal of Language, Logic and Information. 28 (2), 131–155.
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.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1988. “Topoi and formes topiques.” Bulletin d’études de la linguistique français, 221: 11–14.
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.
Goodin, Robert E., and Michael Saward. 2005. “Dog whistles and democratic mandates.” The Political Quarterly, 76 (4): 471–476.
Goodman, Noah and Michael C. Frank. 2016. “Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference”. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20 (11): 818–829.
Haney-López, Ian. 2014. Dog whistle politics: How coded racial appeals have reinvented racism and wrecked the middle class: Oxford University Press.
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.
Kennedy, George A. 2007. Aristotle On Rhetoric, a theory of civic discourse. Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Myrendal, Jenny. 2019. Negotiating meanings online: Disagreements about word meaning in discussion forum communication. Discourse Studies, 21 (3): 317–339.
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.
Rovny, Jan. 2012. “Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition.” European Union Politics, 13 (2): 269–292.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review, 66 (2): 555–568.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 october 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.