What is the difference between innuendo and a downplayer

146

W hen the military uses the phrase “self-injurious behavior incidents” regarding detainees at Guantá-namo Bay, it means what most of us call “attempted suicides.” In fact, when the word “detainees” is used, it means what most of us call “prisoners.” “Waterboarding” sounds at fi rst like something you’d expect to see young people doing on a California beach, not a torture technique that involves forced simulated drowning. Less remarkable, perhaps, but possibly more relevant for most of us, we’ve heard the term “downsized” used when someone is fi red or laid off. “Ethnic cleansing” covers everything from deporta- tion to genocide.

What we have to say may be important, but the words we choose to say it with can be equally important. The examples just given are cases of a certain type of linguis- tic coercion—an attempt to get us to adopt a particular atti- tude toward a subject that, if described differently, would seem less attractive to us. Words have tremendous persua- sive power, or what we have called their rhetorical force or emotive meaning —their power to express and elicit images, feelings, and emotional associations. In the next few chap- ters, we examine some of the most common rhetorical techniques used to affect people’s attitudes, opinions, and behavior.

Students will learn to . . . 1. Define the difference between

rhetoric and argument

2. Detect rhetorical devices and their persuasive impact

3. Recognize prejudicial and nonprej- udicial uses of rhetorical devices

4. Identify and critique the use of euphemisms, dysphemisms, weaslers, and downplayers

5. Identify and critique the use of stereotypes, innuendo, and loaded questions

6. Identify and critique the use of ridicule, sarcasm, and hyperbole

7. Identify and critique the use of rhetorical definitions, explana- tions, analogies, and misleading comparisons

8. Identify and critique the use of proof surrogates and repetition

9. Identify and critique the persuasive aspects of visual images

Persuasion Through Rhetoric Common Devices and Techniques 5

moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 146 12/9/10 2:54 PM

RHETORICAL DEVICES I 147

Rhetoric refers to the study of persuasive writing. As we use the term, it denotes a broad category of linguistic techniques people use when their pri- mary objective is to infl uence beliefs and attitudes and behavior. Is Hezbollah, the Shia paramilitary organization based in Lebanon, a resistance movement of freedom fi ghters or a dangerous terrorist organization? The different impres- sions these two descriptions create is largely due to their differing rhetori- cal meaning. Does Juanita “still owe over $1,000 on her credit card”? Or does Juanita “owe only a little over $1,000 on her credit card”? There’s no factual difference between the two questions—only a difference in their rhetorical force. The thing to remember through these next few chapters is that rhetorical force may be psycho- logically effective, but by itself it establishes nothing. If we allow our attitudes and beliefs to be affected by sheer rhetoric, we fall short as critical thinkers.

Now, before we get in trouble with your English teacher, let’s make it clear that there is nothing wrong with trying to make your case as persuasive as possible by using well-chosen, rhetorically effective words and phrases. Good writers always do this. But we, as critical thinkers, must be able to distinguish the argument (if any) contained in what someone says or writes from the rheto- ric; we must be able to distinguish the logical force of a set of remarks from their psychological force.

One of the things you will become aware of—as you read these pages, do the exercises, apply what you have learned to what you read and write—is that rheto- ric is often mixed right in with argument. The message isn’t that you should deduct points from an argument if it is presented in rhetorically charged language, and it isn’t that you should try to take all the rhetoric out of your own writing. The message is simply that you shouldn’t add points for rhetoric. You don’t make an argument stronger by screaming it at the top of your lungs. Likewise, you don’t make it stronger by adding rhetorical devices.

Many of these rhetorical bells and whistles have names because they are so common and so well understood. Because they are used primarily to give a statement a positive or negative slant regarding a subject, they are sometimes called slanters. We’ll describe some of the more widely used specimens.

RHETORICAL DEVICES I Our fi rst group of slanters consists of what are usually single words or short phrases designed to accomplish one of four specifi c rhetorical tasks.

Euphemisms and Dysphemisms Language usually offers us a choice of words when we want to say something. Until recently, the term “used car” referred to an automobile that wasn’t new, but the trend nowadays is to refer to such a car as “pre-owned.” The people who sell such cars, of course, hope that the different terminology will keep

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful . . . and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.

—G EORGE O RWELL

Euphemisms are unpleasant truths wearing diplomatic cologne.

—Q UENTIN C RISP, Manners from Heaven

■ Such images as this add to the negative impact of the “death tax,” described in the box on the next page.

moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 147 12/9/10 2:54 PM

148 CHAPTER 5: PERSUASION THROUGH RHETORIC

potential buyers from thinking about how “used” the car might be—maybe it’s used up! The car dealer’s replacement term, “pre-owned,” is a euphemism —a neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associations. Euphemisms play an important role in affecting our attitudes. People may be less likely to disapprove of an assassination attempt on a foreign leader, for example, if it is referred to as “neutralization.” People fi ghting against the government of a country can be referred to neutrally as “rebels” or “guerril- las,” but a person who wants to build support for them may refer to them by the euphemism “freedom fi ghters.” A government is likely to pay a price for initiating a “revenue enhancement,” but voters will be even quicker to respond negatively to a “tax hike.” The U.S. Department of Defense performs the same function it did when it was called the Department of War, but the current name makes for much better public relations.

The opposite of a euphemism is a dysphemism. Dysphemisms are used to produce a negative effect on a listener’s or reader’s attitude toward some- thing or to tone down the positive associations it may have. Whereas “freedom fi ghter” is a euphemism for “guerrilla” or “rebel,” “terrorist” is a dysphemism.

Euphemisms and dysphemisms are often used in deceptive ways or ways that at least hint at deception. All the examples in the preceding paragraphs are examples of such uses. But euphemisms can at times be helpful and construc- tive. By allowing us to approach a sensitive subject indirectly—or by skirting it entirely—euphemisms can sometimes prevent hostility from bringing ratio- nal discussion to a halt. They can also be a matter of good manners: “Passed on” may be much more appropriate than “dead” if the person to whom you’re speaking is recently widowed. Hence, our purpose for using euphemisms and dysphemisms determines whether or not those uses are legitimate.

It bears mentioning that some facts just are repellent, and for that reason even neutral reports of them sound horrible. “Lizzie killed her father with an ax” reports a horrible fact about Lizzie, but it does so using neutral language. Neutral reports of unpleasant, evil, or repellent facts do not automatically count as dysphemistic rhetoric.

“Wardrobe malfunction”

Justin Timberlake’s phrase for his tearing of Janet Jackson’s costume during the half-time performance at Super Bowl XXXVIII.

Real Life

The Death Tax Here is Grover Norquist, who is the head of Americans for Tax Reform in Washington, D.C., in a press release from that organization:

Over seventy percent of Americans oppose the Death Tax, and with good reason. It is the worst form of double-taxation, where, after taxing you all your life, the government decides to take even more when you die.

“Death Tax” is a dysphemism, of course. The estate tax is a tax not on death but on inherited wealth, imposed on the occasion of a person’s death. And the person paying the tax is not the deceased, but the inheritors, who have never paid tax on the money.

moo38286_ch05_146-183.indd 148 12/9/10 2:54 PM

RHETORICAL DEVICES I 149

Weaselers Weaselers are linguistic methods of hedging a bet. When inserted into a claim, they help protect it from criticism by watering it down somewhat, weakening it, and giving the claim’s author a way out in case the claim is challenged. So, what a claim asserts, a weaseler either minimizes or takes away entirely.

Without doubt you’ve heard the words “up to” used as a weaseler a thou- sand times, especially in advertising. “Up to fi ve more miles per gallon.” “Up to twenty more yards off the tee.” “Lose up to ten pounds a week.” None of these guarantee anything. Sure, you might lose ten pounds, but you might lose nothing. The statement still stands, thanks to “up to.”

Let’s make up a statistic. Let’s say that 98 percent of American doctors believe that aspirin is a contributing cause of Reye’s syndrome in children, and that the other 2 percent are unconvinced. If we then claim that “some doc- tors are unconvinced that aspirin is related to Reye’s syndrome,” we cannot be held accountable for having said something false, even though our claim might be misleading to someone who did not know the complete story. The word “some” has allowed us to weasel the point.

Words that sometimes weasel—such as “perhaps,” “possibly,” “maybe,” and “may be,” among others—can be used to produce innuendo, to plant a suggestion without actually making a claim that a person can be held to. We can suggest that Berriault is a liar without actually saying so (and thus without making a claim that might be hard to defend) by saying that Berriault may be a liar. Or we can say it is possible that Berriault is a liar (which is true of all of us, after all). “ Perhaps Berriault is a liar” works nicely, too. All of these are examples of weaselers used to create innuendo (to be explained below).