How rhetoric can be violent and why it matters
What is rhetorical violence?
Violent rhetoric is the use of language to incite or legitimize physical harm, often by dehumanizing opponents, creating fear, and framing political discourse as a battle against an existential threat. This explicit or implicit language can involve explicit threats of violence or the use of metaphors like calling opponents "animals" or a "cancer" to justify their removal or elimination from society. The phenomenon is distinct from physical force, but it can escalate into actual political violence by fostering hostile attitudes, radicalizing audiences, and normalizing aggression within political discussions.
How it works:
Dehumanization:
Labeling people or groups as "vermin," "insects," or "cancer" strips them of their humanity, making it easier to justify aggressive actions against them.
Framing as an existential threat:
Presenting opponents as a fundamental danger to the political body or society creates a sense of urgency and a justification for extreme measures, including elimination.
Increasing fear and hostility:
Violent rhetoric can amplify fear among supporters and create a climate where political rivals are seen as enemies, not just adversaries to be debated.
Legitimizing violence:
By normalizing hostile attitudes and creating a perception that certain groups can be harmed without consequences, this rhetoric can pave the way for actual physical violence.
Radicalization:
On social media platforms and in other forums, partisan elites can strategically disseminate violent messages that can radicalize audiences and contribute to offline acts of violence.
Examples:
Calling political rivals or the media "enemies of the people" frames them as a threat to be eliminated.
Using phrases like "murderers, rapists, and thugs" to describe groups of people can heighten anxiety and portray a nation under siege.
Metaphors that frame groups as a "disease" or "infestation" suggest they should be "cut out" or "eradicated" to maintain the health of the body politic.
(Source: google)
Violent rhetoric is the use of language to incite or legitimize physical harm, often by dehumanizing opponents, creating fear, and framing political discourse as a battle against an existential threat. This explicit or implicit language can involve explicit threats of violence or the use of metaphors like calling opponents "animals" or a "cancer" to justify their removal or elimination from society. The phenomenon is distinct from physical force, but it can escalate into actual political violence by fostering hostile attitudes, radicalizing audiences, and normalizing aggression within political discussions.
How it works:
Dehumanization:
Labeling people or groups as "vermin," "insects," or "cancer" strips them of their humanity, making it easier to justify aggressive actions against them.
Framing as an existential threat:
Presenting opponents as a fundamental danger to the political body or society creates a sense of urgency and a justification for extreme measures, including elimination.
Increasing fear and hostility:
Violent rhetoric can amplify fear among supporters and create a climate where political rivals are seen as enemies, not just adversaries to be debated.
Legitimizing violence:
By normalizing hostile attitudes and creating a perception that certain groups can be harmed without consequences, this rhetoric can pave the way for actual physical violence.
Radicalization:
On social media platforms and in other forums, partisan elites can strategically disseminate violent messages that can radicalize audiences and contribute to offline acts of violence.
Examples:
Calling political rivals or the media "enemies of the people" frames them as a threat to be eliminated.
Using phrases like "murderers, rapists, and thugs" to describe groups of people can heighten anxiety and portray a nation under siege.
Metaphors that frame groups as a "disease" or "infestation" suggest they should be "cut out" or "eradicated" to maintain the health of the body politic.
(Source: google)
