Understanding dogwhistles politics

  1. Torices, José Ramón 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info

    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

Revista:
Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

ISSN: 0495-4548

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 36

Número: 3

Páginas: 321-339

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1387/THEORIA.22510 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es profundizar en la comprensión de los llamados silbatos para perros encubiertos. A lo largo del mismo examino si un silbato para perros encubierto es un tipo de mecanismo específico de manipulación o si, por el contrario, recurre a otros mecanismos lingüísticos ya conocidos, como son las implicaturas o las presuposiciones, para conseguir su objetivo. Para ello presento un conjunto de argumentos concebidos para ilustrar que las implicaturas y las presuposiciones, por un lado, y los silbatos para perros encubiertos, por otro, difieren en su comportamiento lingüístico en lo que respecta a la negación plausible, la cancelabilidad, la calculabilidad y la aceptación mutua. Concluyo este artículo esbozando una teoría simple para los silbatos para perros encubiertos según la cual estos son subrayadores de actitudes

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

I am deeply grateful to Jennifer Saul and Neftalí Villanueva for their comments and suggestions while supervising earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank all the people who have contributed to improve the ideas defended here: Manuel Almagro, Alex Davies, María José Frápolli, Dan López de Sa, Teresa Marques, Eduardo Pérez-Navarro, Manuel de Pinedo, Andrés Soria, and two anonymous reviewers for Theoria. This paper has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities under the grant FPI/BeS-2014-067584 and the research project PID2019-109764RB-I00, by the Regional Government of Andalusia under the research projects B-HUM-459-UGR18 and P18 FR-2907, and by the University of Granada under a “Contrato Puente” fellowship and the excellence unit FiloLab-UGR UCE.PPP2017.04.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Albertson, B. (2015). Dog-Whistle Politics: Multivocal Communication and Religious Appeals. Political Behavior, 37(1), 3-26.
  • Beaver, D. & Geurts, B. (2014). “Presupposition.” In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/presupposition/
  • Beaver, D. & Stanley, J. (2018). Toward a Non-Ideal Philosophy of Language. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 39(2), 503-547.
  • Cappelen, H. & Dever, J. (2019). Bad Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, W. (2019). “Implicature.” In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/implicature/
  • Elliott, D. (2012, January 17). ‘Food stamp president’: Race code, or just politics. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2012/01/17/145312069/newts-food-stamp-president-racial-or-just-politics
  • Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s attitudes. New York: Random House. Gilens, M. (1996). ‘Race coding’ and white opposition to welfare. The American Political Science Review, 90(3), 593-604.
  • Greenwald, A. G., Brendl, M., Cai, H., Charlesworth, T., Cvencek, D., Dovidio. J. F., Friese, M., Hahn, A., Hehman, E., Hofmann, W., Hughes, S., Hussey, I., Jordan, C., Jost, J., Kirby, T., Lai, C. K., Lang, J., Lindgren, K. P., Maison, D., Ostafin, B. D., Rae, J. R., Ratliff, K., Smith, C. T., Spruyt, A., & Wiers, R. W. (2019). The Implicit Association Test at age 20: What is known and what is not known about implicit bias. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bf97c Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/bf97c
  • Grice, P. (1989/1995). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Haney-López, I. (2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Wrecked the Middle Class. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Henderson, R., & McCready, E. (2019). Dogwhistles and the At-Issue/Non-At-Issue Distinction. In D. Gutzmann & K. Turgay (Eds.). Secondary Content (pp. 222-245). Leiden: Brill.
  • Henderson, R. & McCready, E. (2020). Dogwhistles, trust and ideology. Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, 152-160.
  • Hurwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (2005). Playing the Race Card in the Post-Willie Horton Era: The Impact of Racialized Code Words on Support for Punitive Crime Policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 99-112.
  • Karttunen, L. (1974). Presuppositions and Linguistic Context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181-194.
  • Khoo, J. (2017). Code Words in Political Discourse. Philosophical Topics, 45(2), 33-64.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339-359.
  • Marques, T. (2020). How can philosophy of language help us navigate the political news cycle? In E. Vintiadis (Ed.). Philosophy by Women: 22 Philosophers Reflect on Philosophy and Its Value (pp. 122-130). New York: Routledge.
  • Mazzarella, D., Reinecke, R., Noveck, I., & Mercier, H. (2018). Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics, 133, 15-27.
  • Medina, J. (2012). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Medina, J. (2018). Resisting Racist Propaganda: Distorted Visual Communication and Epistemic Activism. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 56(S1), 50-75.
  • Mendelberg, T. (2001). The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Murray, S. (2014). Varieties of Update. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7, (2), 1-53.
  • Nisbet, M. (2012, January 18). Food Stamp President? The Science of Why Gingrich’s Race-Tinged Label Sticks. Big Think. Retrieved from https://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/food-stamp-president-thescience-of-why-gingrichs-race-tinged-label-sticks.
  • Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and Implicature. In S. Lappin & C. Fox (Eds.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 168-202). Oxford: Willey-Blackwell.
  • Quadagno, A. & Stanley, J. (2021). Propaganda. In J. Khoo & R. K. Sterken (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Social and Political Philosophy of Language (pp. 125-146). New York: Routledge.
  • Saul, J. (2017). Racial Figleaves, the Shifting Boundaries of the Permissible, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Philosophical Topics, 45(2), 97-116.
  • Saul, J. (2018). Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation and Philosophy of Language. In D. Fogal, D. Harris & M. Moss (Eds.). New Works on Speech Acts (pp. 360-383). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Schwarz, D. (1977). On pragmatic presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(2), 247-257.
  • Sonmez, F. (2012, January 22). Newt Gingrich has created a ‘food stamp kind,’ Clyburn says. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/newt-gingrich-has-created-a-food-stampking-clyburn-says/2012/01/22/gIQAQT2sIQ_blog.html
  • Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. K. Munitz, & P. K. Unger (Eds.). Semantics and Philosophy (pp. 197-2014). New York: New York University Press.
  • Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stanley, J. (2015). How Propaganda Works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Toribio, J. (2018). Implicit Bias: From Social Structure to Representational Format. Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 33(1), 41-60.
  • Torices, J. R. (2019). Ranking the world through words: disagreement, dogwhistles, and expressivism. (Doctoral Dissertation). Universidad de Granada. [http://hdl.handle.net/10481/56428]
  • Valentino, N., Hutchings, V. & White, I. (2002). Cues that Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75-90.
  • Witten, K. (2014). Dogwhistle Politics: The New Pitch of an Old Narrative. Unpublished Manuscript.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet