Download pdf - Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation and Philosophy of ... · This is a draft. Please do not cite without permission. 1 Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation and Philosophy of Language

Thisisadraft.Pleasedonotcitewithoutpermission.

1

Dogwhistles,PoliticalManipulationandPhilosophyofLanguage

JenniferSaul

Youstartoutin1954bysaying,"Nigger,nigger,nigger."By1968,

youcan'tsay"nigger"—thathurtsyou.Backfires.Soyousaystuff

likeforcedbusing,states'rightsandallthatstuff.You'regettingso

abstractnow[that]you'retalkingaboutcuttingtaxes,andall

thesethingsyou'retalkingaboutaretotallyeconomicthingsanda

byproductofthemis[that]blacksgethurtworsethanwhites.And

subconsciouslymaybethatispartofit.I'mnotsayingthat.ButI'm

sayingthatifitisgettingthatabstract,andthatcoded,thatweare

doingawaywiththeracialproblemonewayortheother.You

followme—becauseobviouslysittingaroundsaying,"Wewant

tocutthis,"ismuchmoreabstractthaneventhebusingthing,and

ahellofalotmoreabstractthan"Nigger,nigger."

LeeAtwater,quotedinLamis1990

Inrecentyears,twoverywelcomechangeshavecometophilosophyoflanguage.

ThephilosophyoflanguagethatIwas“raised”inwasthatoftheeightiesand

ninetiesintheUS.Ourfocuswasalmostexclusivelyonsemanticcontent,

referenceandtruthconditions.Isay“almostexclusively”becauseGrice’snotion

ofconversationalimplicaturewasanotableexceptiontothis—thisnotionwas

thetopicofgreatinterest,becauseitallowedsemantictheoriststoexplainaway

intuitionsthatseemedtoconflictwiththeirpreferredtheoryas“merely

pragmatic”.

Recently,philosophyoflanguagehasbroadenedintwosignificantways.The

mostimportantshift,tomymind,isamovetoconsidertheethicalandpolitical

dimensionsoflanguage.Thesewereneverforgottenbyphilosophersmore

broadly,butuntilrecentlytheywereleftalmostexclusivelytoethicistsand

politicalphilosophers.Now,however,philosophersoflanguageareworkingto

understandhatespeech,politicalmanipulation,propagandaandlies.These

issues—vitalintherealworld—havenotyetbecomecentraltophilosophyof


2

language.Buttheyareatleastapartoftheconversation,inawaythatthey

weren’ttwentyyearsago.Withthisshift(thoughnotwhollyasaresultofit),has

comeanincreasingphilosophicalinterestinmattersotherthansemanticcontent

andreference.Implicature,accommodationandspeechactsarethecentral

notionsinthesenewdebates,ratherthansemanticcontent.1

Andyet,Iwillbearguing,thesenewdiscussionshavenotyetmovedfarenough

awayfromthefocusoncontent.Fullymakingsenseofpoliticallymanipulative

speechwillrequireadetailedengagementwithcertainformsofspeechthat

functioninalessconsciousmanner—withsomethingotherthansemantically

expressedorpragmaticallyconveyedcontent;andwitheffectsofutterancesthat

aretheirverypointandthatnonethelessvanishassoonastheyaremade

explicit.Noneofthemachinerydevelopedindetailsofarisequippedforthis

task.

Thistask,however,isanabsolutelyvitalone.Dogwhistles,wewillsee,area

disturbinglyimportanttoolofcovertpoliticalmanipulation.Theyareinfactone

ofthemostpowerfulformsofpoliticalspeech,allowingforpeopletobe

manipulatedinwaysthattheywouldresistifthemanipulationwascarriedout

moreopenly—oftendrawingonracistattitudesthatareconsciouslyrejected.If

philosophersfocusonlyonmoreovertspeech,whichdoesitsworkviacontent

expressedorotherwiseconsciouslyconveyed,theywillmissmuchofwhatis

mostpowerfulandperniciousinthespeechofourpoliticalculture.Thispaperis

acalltostartpayingattentiontothesemorecovertspeechacts,andafirst

attemptatbeginningtotheorisethem.

1. Dogwhistles

Myfocusinthispaperisondogwhistles.‘Dogwhistle’isarelativelynewtermin

politics,arisingoutofUSpoliticaljournalisminthe1980s.Thefirstrecordeduse

1Thisisn’tmeanttosuggestthatspeechacttheoryisnew,justthatithadfallenoutoffashionatleastinthecirclesImovedin.


3

ofthetermseemstohavebeenbyRichardMorinoftheWashingtonPost,

discussingacuriousphenomenonthathadbeennoticedinopinionpolling.

Subtlechangesinquestion-wordingsometimesproduceremarkablydifferent

results…researcherscallthisthe‘DogWhistleEffect’:Respondentshear

somethinginthequestionthatresearchersdonot.(1988)

Theideaofapoliticaldogwhistleshiftedsomewhatoverthenextdecadesto

focusmainlyonakindofdeliberatemanipulation,usuallybypoliticians(ortheir

handlers),designedtobeunnoticedbymostofthepublic.(Wewillrefinethis

definitionoverthecourseofthispaper.)Wewillsee,though,thatthissortof

manipulationcomesinimportantlydifferentvarieties,whichwewillteaseapart

andexamineoverthecourseofthispaper.Dogwhistlesmaybeovertorcovert,

andwithineachofthesecategoriestheymaybeintentionalorunintentional.

2. IntentionalDogwhistles

2.1 OvertIntentionalDogwhistles

KimberlyWitten(forthcoming)isoneofveryfewlinguistswhohasworkedon

dogwhistles.HerfocusisexclusivelyonthesortofdogwhistlethatIcallanovert

intentionaldogwhistle,andherdefinition(of‘dogwhistle’)isanexcellentonefor

anovertintentionaldogwhistle.

A[novertintentional]dogwhistleisaspeechactdesigned,withintent,to

allowtwoplausibleinterpretations,withoneinterpretationbeingaprivate,

codedmessagetargetedforasubsetofthegeneralaudience,andconcealed

insuchawaythatthisgeneralaudienceisunawareoftheexistenceofthe

second,codedinterpretation.(Witten:2)

Althoughthemaininterestofdogwhistlesliesintheirpoliticaluse,Witten

rightlyarguesthattheconceptappliesmorebroadly.Asaparent,Iwasshocked

torevisitsomeofmyfavouritechildhoodentertainmentsandseemuchthatI

hadmissedasachild.WatchingBugsBunnywithmysmallson,Iwassurprised


4

toseereferencestooldmoviesthatchildrencouldn’tbeexpectedtoknow,and

evenmoresurprisedtoseethatoneofthesewasLastTangoinParis.Finding

thesereferencesofcoursemadetheendlessre-viewingslesstedious.And,of

course,thiswastheintentoftheirmakers.Wittensuggeststhatthisshouldbe

consideredadogwhistle—aconcealedmessageforasubsetofthecartoons’

generalaudience.2

Themostimportantsortofintentionalovertdogwhistle,however,isthatused

bypoliticians.Dogwhistleutterancesallowacandidatetosendamessagetoone

portionoftheelectoratethatotherportionsmightfindalienating.Thesewillbe

mymainfocushere.We’llstartwithsomeexamples.

2.1.1 “Wonder-workingPower”

GeorgeW.Bushfacedatrickysituationwithrespecttohisfaiththroughouthis

candidacies.HedesperatelyneededthevotesoffundamentalistChristians,and

yetitwasalsoclearthatmanyothers—whosevoteshealsoneededforthe

generalelections—weremadenervousbyfundamentalistChristianity.The

solutionhisspeech-writersusedwastodogwhistletothefundamentalists.A

niceexampleofthisisBush’sutteranceinhis2003StateoftheUnionspeech:

Yetthere'spower,wonder-workingpower,inthegoodnessandidealismand

faithoftheAmericanpeople.(Noah2004)

Toanon-fundamentalistthisisanordinarypieceoffluffypoliticalboilerplate,

whichpasseswithoutnotice.ButafundamentalistChristianwillhearthe

dogwhistle.Amongstfundamentalists,“wonder-workingpower”isafavoured

phrasethatrefersspecificallytothepowerofChrist.Therearetwomessagesa

fundamentalistmighttakefromthis.Thefirstisakindoftranslationintotheir

idiolect,toyieldanexplicitlyChristianmessagethatwouldalienatemany:

2Wittendiscussesdifferentexamples,buttheideaofdogwhistlesforparentsinchildren’sentertainmentishers.


5

Yetthere'spower,thepowerofChrist,inthegoodnessandidealismandfaith

oftheAmericanpeople.3

ThesecondissimplythefactthatBushdoesspeaktheiridiolect—indicatingthat

heisoneofthem.4

Thefirstmessageisveryclearlyanovertintentionaldogwhistle:itisacoded,

concealedmessage,intendedforjustasubgroupofthegeneralaudience.Infact,

itfunctionsratherliketheexploitationofalittle-knownambiguity.Thesecond

isalittlemessier.Itissomewhatlikespeakinginaregionalaccentthatgivesa

feelingofkinshiptoaparticularaudience.Butit’scruciallydifferentbecause,

unlikeanaccent,itcan’tbeheardbyeveryone.Arguably,then(assumingthatit

isdoneintentionally),thisisstillanovertintentionaldogwhistle—itisacoded

messageforasubgroup,concealedbyanapparentlystraightforwardmessage.

2.1.2 “DredScott”

GeorgeW.Bushalso,likemanyconservatives,makesapointofdeclaringhis

oppositiontotheDredScottdecision,whichin1857affirmedthatslavesremain

theirowners’propertyevenwheninfreeterritories.Thisissomewhatbaffling

tothoseit’snotdirectedto,whotakeitforgrantedthatevenaright-wing

Republicanopposesslavery,andwhothinkthisoppositionshouldgowithout

saying.ButmostviewerswerenotwhoBushwasaddressingwiththis

dogwhistle.Bushwasaddressingtheanti-abortionright,andhewas

dogwhistlingabouthisoppositiontoabortion.

3PresentingthispapertoaudiencesintheUS,I’vefoundthatthisinterpretationiscontroversial.SomeChristiansthinkit’sexactlyright,whileothersthinkitwouldbewrongtoreaditthisway,andthatdoingsowouldyieldahereticalutterance.Forthelattergroup,obviouslythesecondinterpretationinthetextwillmakemoresense.4ThisideaofsignalinggroupmembershipbywordchoicefindsaniceparallelinNunberg’saccountofslurs(thisvolume).


6

Thisdogwhistlefunctionssomewhatdifferently:itworksbecauseitisvery

commonforright-wingcommentatorstodiscusstheDredScottdecisionwhen

discussingabortionrights,butinavarietyofways.Sometimesitisanexample

ofabadSupremeCourtdecisioninneedofoverturning(likeRoeVWade).

Sometimesitisapartofananalogybetweentheunrecognizedpersonhoodof

slavesand(purported)unrecognizedpersonhoodoffetuses.Butitissocommon

todiscussitwhendiscussingabortion—and,crucially,sobafflingtodiscussit

otherwise—thatitcanservetosignalBush’soppositiontoabortion,andhis

desiretoseeRoeoverturned.

Theexactdetailsofhowthisoneworksarealittlebitmurky.Itmayworklike

theoldmoviereferencesinchildren’scartoons:designedtotriggerallusionsfor

thoseintheknow.ThosewhoknowtheprominentroleofDredScottinanti-

abortiondiscussionswillknowthatBushisdeliberatelyremindingthemof

these,andtakefromthisthemessagethathetooisanti-abortion,andthinksRoe

shouldbeoverturned.Alternatively,itmayevenbethat“IopposeDredScott”

andsimilarutteranceshavecometoserveasgeneralizedconversational

implicaturesindicatingoppositiontoabortion.Onecancertainlytellastoryof

howthey’dbecalculated:He’sstatinghisoppositiontoDredScott.Buteveryone

opposesDredScott,andthat’snotrelevanttothequestionhewasbeingasked.He

mustbetryingtoconveysomethingelse—thatheisopposedtoabortion,likethose

otherpeoplewhotalkaboutDredScott.

Eitherway,thisisanovertintentionaldogwhistle:itisaconveyingofacoded,

concealedmessagetoasubsetofthegeneralaudience.

2.2 CovertIntentionalDogwhistles

Covertintentionaldogwhistlesarefarmorecomplicatedtomakesenseof.They

playaspecialroleinAmericanracediscourse,duetopresenceofwhatTali

MendelbergcallstheNormofRacialEquality.(Mendelbergdoesnotusetheterm

‘dogwhistle’forthese,thoughlaterwriterssuchasIanHaneyLopez2014do.She

simplyrefersto‘implicitpoliticalcommunication’.)Priortothe1930s,


7

Mendelbergarguesthatitwasacceptabletoexplicitlyexpressracistattitudesin

Americanpoliticaldiscourse.Morespecifically,shenotesthatitwasacceptable

touseobviouslypejorativeterminology;toassertthatblackpeopleareinnately

inferiortowhitepeople;andtoexpresssupportforlegaldiscrimination,suchas

legallyenforcedsegregationorrefusaltohireblackpeople.Noteveryonedidso,

ofcourse—butdoingsodidnotrenderonebeyondtheboundsofacceptable

politicalengagement.Thosecourtingracistvoterscoulddosobysimply

proclaimingtheirracistviews.Fromthe1930stothe1960s,accordingto

Mendelberg,theprevailingnormofracialinequality“begantoerode”

(Mendelberg67).Afterthe1960s,however,overtracismbecameincreasingly

unacceptable.Mostvotersnownolongerwantedtothinkofthemselvesas

racist.

However,thisaversiontoovertracismconcealsamorecomplicatedpicture.

Whitevotersarehighlyunlikelytoendorseclaimsofinnateblackinferiority,or

legallyenforcedsegregation.However,abeliefsystemthatpsychologistshave

called‘racialresentment’5remainswidespread.Racialresentmentincludesfour

mainclaims:“blacksnolongerfacemuchdiscrimination,(2)theirdisadvantage

mainlyreflectstheirpoorworkethic,(3)theyaredemandingtoomuchtoofast,

(4)theyhavegottenmorethantheydeserve.”(TeslerandSears2010:18,citing

HenryandSears2002,2005.)Psychologistsstandardlytestforracial

resentmentbyaskingfordegreeofagreementordisagreementwiththe

followingstatements(TeslerandSears2010:19):

• Irish,Italian,Jewishandmanyotherminoritiesovercame

prejudiceandworkedtheirwayup.Blacksshoulddothesame

withoutanyspecialfavours.

• Generationsofslaveryanddiscriminationhavecreatedconditions

thatmakeitdifficultforblackstoworktheirwayoutofthelower

class.

5TeslerandSears,whoIquotebelow,usetheterm‘symbolicracism’,buttheynotethattheyuseitinterchangeablywithMendelberg’spreferredterm,‘racialresentment’.


8

• Overthepastfewyears,blackshavegottenlessthantheydeserve.

• It’sreallyamatterofsomepeoplenottryinghardenough;ifblacks

wouldonlytryhardertheycouldbejustaswelloffaswhites.

Thevariouspossibleresponsesareassignedscoresonascorerangingfrom

mostraciallyliberaltomostraciallyconservative.WhiteAmericansare,overall,

ontheraciallyconservativeendofthespectrum,andRepublicanssignificantly

moresothanDemocrats.

Mendelbergdescribesthissituationasoneinwhicha“normofracialequality”is

inplace,despitethepersistenceofracialresentment.Herphrasingmaybe

somewhatmisleading,however.Itseemstomecertainlynotthecasethatthe

majorityofwhiteAmericansassenttoanyverystrongnotionofracialequality,if

theygivetheanswersthatcountasraciallyresentfulontheaboveitems.

Moreover,itisclearlystillquitesociallyacceptabletomakereferencetotheills

ofblackculture,blamingblackpovertyandevenpolicekillingsofunarmedblack

peopleonthiscause.WhatMendelbergcallsthe‘normofracialequality”clearly

doesn’tprecludethesesortsofutterances.Indeed,sheherselfnotesatendency

toconformtothenorm“inthemostminimal,symbolicwaypossible”

(Mendelberg2001:92).Oneplausiblewayofunderstandingthisisthatwhite

Americansfeeltheneedtopaylipservicetosomethingthatcouldbecalled

“racialequality”.Exactlywhatthiscomestomayvarysomewhat,butitseemsto

precludetheuseofobviouspejoratives,assertionsofgenetic(thoughnot

cultural)inferiority,andsupportforobviouslydiscriminatorybehavior(legally

enforcedsegregation,rulesagainsthiringblackpeople,etc).Theonlykindof

racialequalitythiscommitsonetoisanextremelythinsortofformalequality.

ButMendelbergisclearlyrightthattheboundsofpermissibleracialdiscourse

haveshiftedsomewhat,eveniftheydonotyetrequiresupportforany

substantivesortofequality—e.g.onewhichrejectsstructuralracism,

acknowledgestheexistenceofimplicitbias,inquiresintoequalityofoutcomes,

andsoon.6Despitethesereservationsaboutterminologywewillfollow

6Itisalsoworthnoting,andexploringatadifferenttime,thatmanywhiteAmericanshavecometothinkofthemselvesasvictimsofracialdiscrimination,


9

MendelbergandrefertothecurrentsituationasoneinwhichtheNormofRacial

Equalityisinforce.

Politicianswhomightinadifferenterahaveexplicitlyexpressedobviouslyracist

viewsinordertoreachproudlyracistvotersnowneedtofindasubtlerwayto

signalakindofpsychologicalkinshipwiththese“raciallyresentful”voters.7An

explicitracistdogwhistlemightnotwork—whileitwouldimproveonan

unambiguouslyracistutterance,itwouldverylikelystillberecognizedasracist

byitsintendedaudience.8Andmostofthisaudiencewouldrejectsomething

thatwasexplicitlyandunambiguouslyracist—doingotherwisewouldcallinto

questiontheirnow-cherishedcommitmenttoegalitarianism.Certainly,it

wouldbeariskymovetouseadogwhistleofthissort.(Importantly,ofcourse,

noteveryonewouldrejectexplicitracism.Butourfocushereisonthelarge

segmentofthepopulationthatwould.)

ThisiswherewhatMendelbergcalls“implicitpoliticalcommunication”comes

intoitsown.Adogwhistlethatpeoplefailtoconsciouslyrecognizeturnsoutto

beaverypowerfulthing.Iwillcallthisa‘covertdogwhistle’.Suchanutterance

wouldappearonitsfacetobeinnocuousandunrelatedtorace—lending

deniabilityifconfrontedwithracismaccusations.And,ifthedogwhistled

contentcoulddoitsworkoutsidethedogwhistle-audience’sawareness,itwould

notberejectedinthewaythatanexplicitlyracistdogwhistlewouldbe.

andtoopenlyassertthis(Lopez,citingGreenberg:71).ThismaybeanotherwaythatracialresentmentcanbeexpressedwithoutviolatingtheNormofRacialEquality:thosewhoexpressthisviewwouldclaimthattheysupportequality,butthatthey(notblackAmericans)aretheonesbeingtreatedlesswell.7Whichutterancesareobviouslyracistisobviouslyamatteronwhichdisagreementarises.Itseemstomethatassertionsofblackculturalinferiorityareobviouslyracist,butitisclearthatformanywhitepeoplethesearenotobviouslyracist.Butasnoted,thesehavesurvivedthepresenceofthe“normofracialequality”.8I’mgenuinelyuncertainhowwellitwouldwork.Ofcourseitsefficacywouldvaryfromvotertovoter,butthedeniabilityitwouldbringmightwellallowforasubstantialdegreeofsuccess.WhenIinitiallydraftedthispaper,Ithoughtanexplicitracialdogwhistlewouldfail,butI’mnow(post-Trump)notatallconvinced.ManythankstoDanielHarrisforraisingthispoint.


10

Buthowcouldadogwhistleworkinthisway?Howcanaracistmessagebe

communicatedeffectivelyenoughtoinfluenceanaudience’svotingdecisions,

withouttheaudiencebeingawareofit?Workingthroughexampleswillhelpus

toseethis.

2.2.1 WillieHorton

Themostfamousexampleofacovertintentionaldogwhistleistheimmensely

successfulWillieHortonad,usedinGeorgeH.W.Bush’scampaignagainst

MichaelDukakis.(ItakemydiscussionofthisfromMendelberg,Chapters5-8.)

Thisadcriticizedtheprisonfurloughprogrammethatwasinplaceduring

Dukakis’stimeasgovernorbytellingthetaleofafurloughedconvict,Willie

Horton.Hortonassaultedacoupleintheirhome,rapingthewomanand

stabbingtheman.Raceisnotmentionedatanypointinthead.However,the

illustrationfortheadisaphotoofWillieHorton,andHortonisblack.TheBush

campaignmadeHortonakeyissue,andthisledtotheadreceivingenormous

airplayonthenews.

PriortotheWillieHortonad,Dukakiswassubstantiallyaheadintheopinion

polls.Astheadairedandwasdiscussed,heimmediatelybegantoplummet.

Duringmostofthistime,theadwasnotdiscussedinconnectionwithrace.It

wasdiscussedasapartofstoriesontheroleofcrimeinthecampaign,or

negativecampaigning.However,quitelate,JesseJacksoncalledtheWillie

Hortonad“racist”.Thischargewasatthetimeviewedwithgreatskepticism

(thoughit’sextremelywidelyacceptednow),andviewedasanillicitattemptby

Democratsto“playtheracecard”.Butitwaswidelydiscussed.Assoonasthe

possibilityofracismwasraised,theadceasedtofunctionwhollyonanimplicit

level.Viewersbegantoconsiderthepossibilitythatsomethingracialmightbe

goingon.Andatthispoint,Dukakisstartedtoriseinthepollsagain—some

indicationthattheadhadceasedtobeeffectiveonceracewasexplicitlyunder

discussion.


11

Butofcourse,noneofthisreallyshowsthattheadwasresponsibleforthese

effects,orthatracehadanythingtodowithit(thoughtheeffectoftheJackson

interventionissuggestive.)Farmoreinformativeisthedatagatheredduringthe

campaignabouttheeffectsonvoters.Thesedatashowthatwhilelevelsofracial

resentmentwereunaffectedbyviewingthead,therelationshipbetweenracial

resentmentandvotingintentionswasstronglyinfluencedbythead.Specifically,

increasingexposuretotheadincreasedthelikelihoodofraciallyresentfulvoters

favouringBush.And,crucially,assoonasJacksoncriticizedtheadasracist,this

correlationbegantodecline.

Mendelbergarguesthatthedogwhistleactsuponpre-existingracialattitudes,

unconsciouslybringingthemtobearwheretheymightpreviouslynothavebeen

drawnupon—inthiscaseonvotingpreferences.Butshealsonotessomething

elsethatisvital:onceracestartstobeconsciouslyreflectedon,thedogwhistle

ceasestobefullyimplicit.Thisdrasticallydiminishesitseffectiveness,

presumablyduetothewidespreadconsciousacceptanceofthenormofracial

equality.AsMendelbergwrites,“Assoonasapersonisalertedtotheneedtopay

consciousattentiontoherresponse,accessibilityisnolongersufficienttomake

herrelyuponracialpredispositions”(Mendelberg2001:210).Mendelberg’s

experimentaldatabackthisup,showingasizablerelationshipbetweenracial

resentmentandpolicypreferencesafterviewinganimplicitlyracialad,butno

relationshipafterviewinganexplicitlyracialad(Chapter7).

2.2.2 “InnerCity”

IntheUnitedStates,‘innercity’hascometofunctionasadogwhistleforblack.

Thus,politicianswhowouldberebukediftheycalledforharshermeasures

againstblackcriminalscansafelycallforcrackingdownoninnercitycrime.

Psychologistshavestudiedtheeffectsofthephrase“innercity”,anditseemsto

functionverysimilarlytotheWillieHortonad.HorwitzandPeffley(2005)

randomlyassignedsubjectstotwogroups,withonegroupbeingaskedquestion

Abelow,andonegroupbeingaskedquestionB(differenceunderlinedbyme,

from102-3).


12

A. Somepeoplewanttoincreasespendingfornewprisonstolockupviolent

criminals.Otherpeoplewouldratherspendthismoneyforantipoverty

programstopreventcrime.Whataboutyou?Ifyouhadtochoose,would

youratherseethismoneyspentonbuildingnewprisons,oron

antipovertyprograms?

B. Somepeoplewanttoincreasespendingfornewprisonstolockupviolent

innercitycriminals.Otherpeoplewouldratherspendthismoneyfor

antipovertyprogramstopreventcrime.Whataboutyou?Ifyouhadto

choose,wouldyouratherseethismoneyspentonbuildingnewprisons,

oronantipovertyprograms?

Thissmallchange—theadditionof‘innercity’—turnedouttohaveasignificant

effectontheanswerthatsubjectsgave,butthenatureofthiseffectwasstrongly

influencedbysubjects’pre-existingracialattitudes.PriortobeingaskedAorB

above,subjectswerequestionedabouttheiracceptanceofracialstereotypesand

theirbeliefsregardingtheracialfairnessofthejusticesystem.“Racial

conservatives”tendedtoholdnegativestereotypesofblackpeopleandto

believethesystemtoberaciallyfair.“Racialliberals”weretheopposite.

When‘innercity’wasaddedtothequestion(asinB)subjects’attitudestoward

spendingwerestronglyinfluencedbytheirpre-existingracialattitudes—with

racialconservativesmorelikelytofavourprisonspendingandracialliberals

morelikelytoopposeit.Butwhen‘innercity’wasnotpresent(asinA)there

wasnorelationshipbetweenracialattitudesandanswerstothequestion.This

showsthat‘innercity’servestoraisesubjects’pre-existingracialattitudesto

salienceandbringthemtobearonaquestion,wheretheywouldnototherwise

bebroughttobear—justastheWillieHortonaddoes.9

9Itisnotclearwhatthecausewasofracialliberals’response.Itispossiblethatracialliberalsreflectedconsciouslyontheuseof‘innercity’asaeuphemismfor‘black’,ratherthansimplyhavingtheirracialattitudesraisedtonon-conscioussalience.Ingeneral,racialliberalshavenotbeenthefocusofstudiesonracialpriminganddogwhistles.ManythankstoRosieWorsdaleforraisingthispoint.


13

3. UnintentionalDogwhistles

Thusfar,ourfocushasbeenonintentionaldogwhistles.However,acrucialfact

aboutthewaythatdogwhistlesdotheirworkintheworldisthewayinwhich

theycanbeunintentionallypassedon,withidenticaleffectstotheoriginal

dogwhistle.Thisiswhollypredictable,fromthefactthataudienceswillvery

oftenbeunawareofadogwhistle’spresence—theymay,anddo,repeatthe

dogwhistleunwittingly.Iwillcalltheseutterancesunintentionaldogwhistles,

andinthissectionofthepaperwewillworkthroughafewexamples.My

workingdefinitionof‘unintentionaldogwhistle’willbeasfollows:

Unwittinguseofwordsand/orimagesthat,usedintentionally,constitute

anintentionaldogwhistle,wherethisusehasthesameeffectasan

intentionaldogwhistle.

Toseethatthisispossible,justreflectbrieflyontheDredScottdogwhistlethat

we’vealreadydiscussed.Nowimagineadebate,inwhichtheleft-wingcandidate

ispuzzledbytheright-wingcandidateexpressingtheiroppositiontoDredScott:

theyhadnottakenslaverytobealiveissue,andtheyareunawareofthe

dogwhistle.Confused,theybecomeworriedthattheymightbetakentosupport

slaveryiftheydonotalsostartexpressingtheiroppositiontoDredScott—so

they,too,startwaxingeloquentonthewrongnessofthisdecision.Butsince

discussingDredScottdogwhistlesoppositiontoabortiontheyunintentionally

(andfalsely)dogwhistletheiroppositiontoabortion.

Veryimportantly,though,wedon’tneedtorelyonfancifulcaseslikethis.

Unintentionaldogwhistlesarereal,andtheyareinfactoftenapartofthe

primarydogwhistlers’plan.


14

3.1 WillieHortonandtheReporters

ThereisbynowampleevidencethattheBushcampaignwasdeliberately

dogwhistlingaboutracewiththeWillieHortonad.However,thereisnoreason

tobelievethatthereportersandTVproducersofthetimeweredoingthis.

Certainlysomemayhavebeen,butmanywerenot.Yetnonethelessthey

replayedtheadoverandover,anddiscussedHortonandhiscrimesoverand

overinthecontextoftheelection.This,infact,waswhatallowedtheeffects

Mendelbergdiscussestobesowidespreadandsopowerful:theoriginal

advertisementwasonlyshownbrieflyinasmallarea,butitwasre-shownagain

andagainasapartofnewsreportsostensiblyabout“negativecampaigning”or

“crime”.Itakethesere-showingstobeunintentionaldogwhistles.Thisshows

justhowimportantsuchunintentionaldogwhistlescanbeinaccomplishingan

intentionaldogwhistle’sgoals.Indeed,suchistheirimportancethatthey

deserveatermoftheirown.Iwillcallthese‘amplifierdogwhistles’,sincethey

greatlyincreasethereachoftheoriginaldogwhistle.And,justasanamplifieris

notresponsiblefortheoriginalsoundthatitamplifies,thosewhocarryoutacts

ofamplifierdogwhistlingarenotberesponsiblefortheoriginaldogwhistle

whosereachtheyareenhancing.

3.2 Racialisationof“GovernmentSpending”

Throughoutthe1980s,aconvertedeffortwasmadebytheRepublicanPartyin

theUStoassociategovernmentspendingwithracialminorities.(RonaldReagan

wasespeciallyimportanttothiscampaign.)Thiseffortwasenormously

successful:Mediacoverageofgovernmentassistance,forexample,cametofocus

disproportionatelyonblackrecipientsofassistance,despitethefactthattheyare

theminorityofthoseonsuchassistance(Valentinoet.al.75).And,wewillsee,

theseeffortshavebroughtitaboutthateventermslike‘governmentspending’

nowserveasracialdogwhistles.Utterancescontainingsuchtermsare,asa

result,sometimesintentionaldogwhistles—whentheutterancesaremadewith

theintentionofmakingracialattitudessalient.Butthesetermsarewidelyused,

aswhatthecountryshouldspendmoneyonisanissuethatsimplyhastobe


15

discussed.Andsotheywillextremelyoftenfunctionasunintentionalcovert

dogwhistles.Indeed,theywilloftenserveasamplifierdogwhistles.

We’llbeginbyexaminingtheevidencethatutterancesofthesewordscan

functionascovertracialdogwhistles.Wecanseeveryclearlythatthisisthecase

fromValentinoet.al.’sstudyofracialprimingandpoliticaladvertising.Their

studyinvolvesshowingparticipantsoneofseveralversionsofacarefully

constructedadvertisement.Ineveryversion,thewordsoftheadvertisement,

ostensiblyforGeorgeW.Bush,criticizesDemocratsfor“wastefulspending”and

says(totakeoneexamplefromacomplexad)thatBushwill“reformanunfair

systemthatonlyprovideshealthcareforsome,whileothersgowithout”(79).

Whatvariesacrossversionsisthevisuals.Oneversion,Neutral,useswholly

neutralvisuals,likemedicalfilesandtheStatueofLiberty.Thesecond,Race

Comparison,usesimagesofe.g.ablackfamilybeinghelpedwhilethewords

“healthcareforsome”areuttered;andimagesofawhitemotherandchildwhile

thewords“othersgowithout”areuttered.Thethird,UndeservingBlacks,does

notcontainimagescomparingtreatmentofwhitesandblacks,butdoesshow

imagesdesignedtriggerassociationsofraceandgovernmentspending.So,it

showstheblackfamilybeinghelpedjustasinRaceComparison;butitshows

medicalfileswhile“othersgowithout”areuttered.Acontrolgroupvieweda

totallynon-politicaladvertisement.Afterviewingtheadvertisements,subjects

completedatesttoassesstheaccessibilityofracialattitudes.Theythen

completedaquestionnaireregardingtheirassessmentofpresidential

candidates,theimportanceofvariousissues,andtheirracialandpolitical

attitudes.Belowisatable(ValentinoandHutchings:79)showingtheworkings

ofthevariousversionsoftheadvertisement.


16

TABLE1.TranscriptsofImplicitRaceCueAdvertisingManipulation

Narrative NeutralVisuals RaceComparison UndeservingBlacks

GeorgeW.Bush,dedicatedtobuildinganAmericawithstrongvalues

GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands



Democratswanttospendyourtaxdollarsonwastefulgovernmentprograms,butGeorgeW.Bushwillcuttaxesbecauseyouknowbesthowtospendthemoneyyouearn.

ImageofStatueofLiberty,TreasuryBuildingBushsittingoncouch,residentialstreet(nopeople)

Blackpersoncountingmoney,blackmotherandchildinofficeBushsittingoncouch,whitepersonwritingcheck,whitepersoncountingmoney,whiteteacher

Blackpersoncountingmoney,blackmotherandchildinofficeBushsittingoncouch,residentialstreet(nopeople)

GovernorBushcaresaboutfamilies.

Laboratoryworkers(raceunclear)lookingintomicroscopes

Whiteparentswalkingwithchild

Residentialstreet(shotcontinuedasabove)

He’llreformanunfairsystemthatonlyprovideshealthcareforsome,whileothersgowithoutpropertreatmentbecausetheiremployercan’taffordit.

Medicalfiles Whitenurseassistingblackmother,childWhitemotherholdingchild

Whitenurseassistingblackmother,childMedicalfiles

Whenhe’spresident,everyhard-workingAmericanwillhaveaffordable,high-qualityhealthcare.

X-raysagainstlitbackground

Bushtalkingtowhitefamily,talkingtowhitechild,Bushkissingwhitegirl


GeorgeW.Bush,afreshstartforAmerica

Bush,armaroundwife.Screenreads“GeorgeW.Bush”and“AFreshStart”




17

Valentinoet.al.foundthatracialresentmenthadlittleeffectonpreference

betweencandidatesunlesssubjectshadviewedoneofthepolitical

advertisements.Butiftheyhadviewedoneofthepoliticaladvertisements,the

impactofracialresentmentoncandidatepreferencewasincreased—eveninthe

neutralconditioninwhichtheadvertisementcontainednoracialisedimagery,

justwordsaboutgovernmentspending.Indeed,theeffectintheNeutral

ConditionwasjustasstrongasintheRaceComparisoncondition(thoughless

strongthanintheUndeservingBlackscondition).Thisshowsveryclearlythat

“governmentspending”hasbecomeancovertdogwhistle,whichfunctionslike

theWillieHortonador“innercity”.Andthisfactshouldbeenormously

disconcerting,asitindicatesjusthowverywidespreadsuchprimingis.The

widespreadnatureofsuchprimingmakesitextremelydifficulttodiscussissues

absolutelycentraltodemocracy—suchaswhatagovernmentshouldspendits

moneyon—withoutopinionsbeinginfluencedbyracialattitudes.10

Importantly,Valentinoet.al.alsotestedtheimpactofcounter-stereotypical

images.Intheseversionsoftheadvertisement,theimagesofblackfamilies

appearastheaddiscusses“hard-workingfamilies”,andsoon.Theseadsare

designedtojarwiththeraciststereotypesthatviewershavelikelyabsorbed

throughculturalexposure.Theeffectsweredramatic.

Whentheblackracialcuesarestereotype-inconsistent,however,the

relationshipbetweenracialattitudesandthevotedisappears...Violating

racialstereotypeswithpositiveimagesofblacksdramaticallyundermines

racialpriming.Thepresenceofblackimagesalone,therefore,doesnot

primenegativeracialattitudes.Theeffectemergesonlywhenthepairing

ofthevisualswiththenarrativesubtlyreinforcesnegativestereotypesin

themindoftheviewer.

Thisisacrucialpoint,asitraisesanotherpossiblewayofcombattingthe

influenceofcovertdogwhistles.Itshowsthatitispossibletodiscuss

governmentspendingwithoutprimingracialattitudes.Butavoidingracial

10ThissortofconcernisveryimportanttoStanley(2015).


18

imageryisnotthewaytodothis—instead,onemustmakeaconcertedeffortto

includetherightracialimagery.Therightracialimagerywillbecounter-

stereotypicalimagerythatcanservetounderminethedogwhistles(primaryor

unintentional)thatwouldotherwisebepresent(whateverone’sintentions).

Thisrequiresawarenessandeffortonthepartofthespeaker,whomight

otherwisethinkthattheyhaveavoidedtriggeringracialattitudesbyavoiding

overtlyracialimageryorwords.(Seethetablebelow,fromValentinoand

Hutchings:80)


19

Table2.TranscriptsofCounter-StereotypicAdvertisingManipulation

Narrative DeservingBlacks DeservingWhites

UndeservingWhites

GeorgeW.Bush,dedicatedtobuildinganAmericawithstrongvalues.

GeorgeBushincrowdshakinghands,blackwomanwithAmericanflaginbackground,blackveteransmiling



Democratswanttospendyourtaxdollarsonwastefulgovernmentprograms,butGeorgeW.Bushwillcuttaxesbecauseyouknowbesthowtospendthemoneyyouearn.

TreasurybuildingBushsittingoncouch,blackpersonlayingmoneyonacounter

Bushsittingoncouch,whitepersonwritingacheck,whitepersoncountingmoney

Whitepersoncountingmoney,whitemotherandchildinofficeBushsittingoncouch,residentialstreet(nopeople)

GovernorBushcaresaboutfamilies.

Blackfamilyusingacomputer,blackfamilyeatingatarestaurant

Whiteteacher,whiteparentswalkingwithchild

Residentialstreet(shotcontinuedasabove)

He’llreformanunfairsystemthatonlyprovideshealthcareforsome,whileothersgowithoutpropertreatmentbecausetheiremployercan’taffordit.

Laboratoryworkers(raceunclear)lookingintomicroscopesBlackwomenholdingbaby

Laboratoryworkers(raceunclear)lookingintomicroscopesWhitemotherholdingchild

WhitemotherholdingnewbornreceivingmedicalcareinhospitalMedicalfiles

Whenhe’spresident,everyhard-workingAmericanwillhaveaffordable,high-qualityhealthcare.

Bushshakinghandswithblackchildren,blackkidssittinginschoolyard,Bushsittinginclassroomreadingwithblackkids

Bushtalkingtowhitefamily,Bushtalkingtowhitechild,Bushkissingwhitegirl


GeorgeW.Bush,afreshstartforAmerica





20

4. WhatExistingAccountsCannotFullyCapture

4.1 WhatExistingAccountsCanCapture

Existingaccountsdofairlywellwithanovertintentionaldogwhistle.Asnotedin

thediscussionabove,itisquiteplausibletosupposethat‘DredScott’utterances

carryconversationalimplicaturesaboutoppositiontoabortion.

ElisabethCamp(thisvolume)goesastepfurtherandintroducesthenotionof

insinuation.AspeakerinsinuatessomepropositionPjustincaseshe

communicatesPwithoutenteringPintotheconversationalrecord.Thespeaker

intendsherintentiontoberecognised,butwithoutawillingnessor

responsibilitytoownuptoit.11Thisisanimportantnotion.

“Intuitively,thewholepointofinsinuation–whatdefinesitandmakesit

rhetoricallyuseful–isthatitinvolvesoff-recordcommunication:the

speakermeans(andwhensuccessful,communicates)somethingwithout

puttingitontheconversationalrecord.Ifthisisright,thenthevery

existenceofinsinuationdemonstratesthatwecan’tsimplyequatewhata

speakermeanswithherutterance’scontributiontotheconversational

scoreorrecord.”(REF)

CamptreatsBush’sDredScottdogwhistleasaparadigmcaseofinsinuation,and

thisseemsplausible.Bushintendstohavehisanti-abortionmessagerecognized,

andrecognizedasintended.Atthesametime,though,useofacodephrasegives

allowshimtoavoidplacinghiscontributionontherecord—thusachieving

deniability.

11Campdescribesthisas‘implicit’communication.ThisisclearlyadifferentusagefromMendelberg’s,asCampisinterestedincasesinwhichatleastpartoftheaudiencerecognizesthespeaker’sintention,andisexpectedtodoso.


21

4.2 MoreDifficultCases

Covertintentionaldogwhistlesaresubstantiallymorechallengingtocapture.

Therearetwokeyreasonsforthis.First,whatisdogwhistledisnotaparticular

proposition.Instead,certainpre-existingattitudesarebroughttosalience,

withouttheaudiencebeingawareofit.Thismeansthatanytheoryrelyingon

thecommunication(viasemanticsorpragmatics)ofaparticularproposition(or

evenimprecisecouldofpropositions)willfail.Second,thisoccursoutsideof

consciousness.Crucially,whenanaudiencebecomesconsciousofthe

dogwhistle,itfailstoachieveitsintendedeffect.Successofacovertintentional

dogwhistle,then—unlikemostcommunicativeacts—dependsontheaudience

notrecognizingthespeaker’sintention.12Anytheorywhichincludestheidea

thatuptake(recognitionofthespeaker’sintention)isrequiredforsuccesswill

failentirelyasawayofaccommodatingcovertdogwhistles.Covertintentional

dogwhistlesonlysucceedwhereuptakeisabsent;uptakepreventssuch

dogwhistlesfrombeingeffective.13

Twosortsoftheories,however,holdoutsomepromiseforcapturingthem:

LangtonandMcGowan’sworkonconversationalaccommodation,especially

McGowan’snotionofconversationalexercitives;andJasonStanley’srecentwork

onpropagandaandnot-at-issuecontent.Wewillsee,however,thatneitherof

theseisfullyabletocapturethecomplexityofthesecases.

4.2.1. Stanley

JasonStanleyistheonlyphilosophertohavediscussedwhatIcall‘covert

dogwhistles’(bothintentionalandunintentional),whichhetakestobea

particularlyinsidiousformofpropaganda.OnStanley’sview,thesefunctionby12Onemightsuggestthattheaudienceisunconsciouslyrecognisingthespeaker’sintention.ButIseenoreasontoattributesuchunconsciousrecognitionofintention.Itisfarmorestraightforwardtoacceptthecasesatfacevalue—asonesinwhichintentionisnotrecognized.13Dogwhistlesarenotaloneinhavingthislatterfeature.Mostactsofdeceptionarealsolikethis:iftheaudiencerecognizesthespeaker’sintentiontodeceivethedeceptionfails.


22

introducingintoconversationsomepernicious“not-at-issue”effects.Not-at-

issuecontentismaterialthatbecomespartoftheconversation’scommon

groundwithoutbeingexplicitlyputupforconsiderationinthewaythatasserted

contentis.Thismakesitmoredifficulttonoticethatthiscontentisbeingadded

tothecommonground,andalsomoredifficulttoobjectto.Italsocannotbe

canceled:theassociatedmeaningwillalwaysbeconveyed,asnot-at-issue

content,andaspeakercannotblockthisfromhappening(Stanley:139).Stanley

arguesthatcertainwordscometocarrynot-at-issuecontentofahighly

problematicsort:

WhenthenewsmediaconnectsimagesofurbanBlacksrepeatedlywith

mentionsoftheterm“welfare,”theterm“welfare”comestohavenot-at-

issuecontentthatBlacksarelazy.Atsomepoint,therepeated

associationsarepartofthemeaning,thenot-at-issuecontent(Stanley:

138)

Stanleyalsosuggeststhatthenot-at-issueeffectofatermcantaketheformofa

preferenceordering,takingtheformofarankingofgroupsintermsof

worthinessofrespect.So,atermmaycausethosewhoencounterittorank

groupsdifferently,inawaythaterodesrespectforsomegroups.Onemighteven

cometorankgroupsasworthyofmoreorlessempathy,whichforStanleyisan

especiallyimportantsortofnot-at-issueeffect.

Stanley’sapproachisabletoaccommodatethewaythataudiencesmaybe

unawareofwhatisreallygoingoninacovertdogwhistleutterance.Not-at-issue

contentis(sometimes)enteredintothecommongroundwithoutanaudience’s

explicitawarenessthatthisistakingplace:thisisakeypartofwhatmakesitso

insidious.

Nonetheless,Stanley’sapproachdoesnotaccommodateallthatpsychologists

havetaughtusabouthowtheseutteranceswork.Stanleysuggeststhatwords

like‘welfare’eroderespectforblackpeopleeitherbycarryinganot-at-issue

contentthatblackpeoplearelazyorcausingpeopletoimplementapreference


23

rankingaccordingtowhichblackpeoplearelessdeservingofempathythan

whitepeopleare.Moreover,hesuggeststhatthiscannotbecancelled,andthatit

willbepresentineveryuseofatermlike‘welfare’.14Butthisfailstofitwiththe

dataincertainkeyways.

Thefirstproblemisthattheuseofcovertdogwhistletermslike‘welfare’oreven

theviewingofadvertisementsliketheWillieHortonadsdonot(ingeneral)

causechangesinracialattitudes.15Instead,theymakeaccessiblepre-existing

attitudes,andbringthemtobearonissueswheretheymightnototherwisehave

playedaroleindecision-making.ThisisquitedifferentfromStanley’spicture,on

whichthetermseithercausenewclaimstobeaddedtothecommonground,or

causechangesinpeople’spreferencerankings16.

Thesecondproblemisrelatedtothisone.Itisthattheeffectsofcovert

dogwhistletermsarenotquitesomonolithicallynegativeasStanleytakesthem

tobe.Wecanseethiseitherintuitivelyorbylookingattheempiricalevidence.

Intuitively,wecanimagineablackspeakeraddressingaleft-wingblackaudience

andsaying“Mymotherwasonwelfarewhileshedidtheengineeringdegreethat

liftedourfamilyoutofpoverty”.Thisuseof‘welfare’seemsextremelyunlikely

tocarryanysuggestionthatblackpeoplearelazy,norwilliteroderespectfor

blackpeople.Ifweprefertolookbackontheempiricaldata,wecanreturnto

thefindingsdiscussedearlier.Adding‘innercity’tothequestionaboutprison14Hedoesallowforthepossibilityofchangeovertime,butonlywhenthereis“sufficientcontrolofthemediaandotherinstrumentsofpower”(162)bythoseadvocatingachange.Hedoesnotallowforconversation-by-conversationvariation.15ItisworthemphasizingthattheworryIamraisinghereisspecifictotheclaimthatracialdogwhistlescausechangesinracialattitudes,basedonspecificstudyoftheseutterances.Iamnotatallskepticalaboutthegeneralideaoflinguisticutterancescausingchangesinattitudes—indeedIthinkthisiswidespread.NoramIevenscepticalabouttheideathatracialdogwhistlescausesomechangesinattitudes:Afterall,viewingtheWillieHortonadcausedmanyvoterstochangetheirvotingintentionsandtheirbeliefsaboutwhowasthebestcandidate.16SomeofStanley’sclaimsarealsoatoddswiththeideathatdogwhistlesalterattitudes.Forexample,hewrites,“AsTaliMendelbergshows,stereotypesofblackAmericanshaveremainedconstantthroughoutthehistoryoftheRepublic.”(135)


24

fundingcausedthoselowinracialresentmenttobelesslikelytoagreethatmore

prisonsshouldbebuilt.Pre-existingracialattitudes—whatevertheyare—are

activatedbycovertracialdogwhistleterms.Iftheattitudesareraciallyresentful,

thenthereislikelytobeanoutcomethatindeedfitswithalackofrespectfor

blackpeople.Butiftheattitudesarenotraciallyresentful,theoutcomeislikely

tobeentirelydifferent.

Finally,challengingadogwhistlesuccessfullymaynotbeasdifficultasStanley

suggests.Theprimingofracialresentmentonlyworksifitremainscovert.Ifa

dogwhistletermlike‘welfare’isusedbutraceismadeexplicit,theeffect

vanishes.RecallalsothatassoonasJesseJacksonraisedtheissueofrace,the

WillieHortonadceasedtobeeffective.Butthefactthatitsometimesdoesshows

thatsomechallengescansucceedrathereasily.

4.2.2LangtonandMcGowan

Langton(2012)discussesmanywaysthathatespeechmightfunction.Forour

purposesherethemostpromisingisonebasedonLewisandStalnaker’swork

onconversationalscore.

[Utterancesofhatespeech]mayimplicitlypresupposecertainfactsand

norms,ratherthanexplicitlyenactingthem;buttheseimplicit

presuppositionsmaynonethelessworkinwaysthatarecomparableto

classicAustinianillocutions.Consumersthenchangetheirfactualand

normativebeliefsbytakingonboardthe‘commonground’(inRobert

Stalnaker’sphrase)orthe‘conversationalscore’(inDavidLewis’sphrase)

thatispresupposedinthe…’conversation’.(83)

Langtonfurthersuggeststhatemotionslikedesireandhatemaybeintroduced

intothecommongroundthroughroughlythesameprocedure—or,inLewis’s

terms,theirappropriatenessmaybecomepartoftheconversationalscore.

Langtontentativelysuggeststhatthetwoaccountsmayberelatedasfollows:

Lewis’saccountcapturestheimmediatewaythatwhatcountsasacceptablemay


25

change,andthisthenleadstochangesintheattitudesandemotionsthatarepart

ofthetaken-for-grantedcommongroundoftheconversation.

ItisusefultounderstandthisintermsofMaryKateMcGowan’smodel(2004,

2012).McGowansuggeststhatthesealterationsintheconversationalscore

shouldbeunderstoodasduetocovertexercitives.Thesearespeechactswhich

donotrequireanyspecialauthorityonthepartofthespeaker(unlikemore

standardexercitivessuchasrulingaplayinfootballasafoul.)Crucially,they

mayormaynotbeintendedbythespeakerorrecognizedbytheaudience.

McGowansuggeststhattheseactswillbeverywidespreadinanynorm-

governedactivity(andthatahugevarietyofactivitiesarenorm-governed).

Whatispermissibleinsuchactivitiesdependsbothontherules(implicitor

explicit)ofthoseactivities,andonwhathashappenedbefore.Inaconversation,

whatispermissibleadaptsquicklyandseamlesslyinresponsetowhatpeople

say.SupposeJeffmakesanutterancethatcarriesapresupposition,suchas(1):

(1) Yes,mywifeandIliketodothat.

Ifnobodyprotests,thenitbecomespermissible(inthiscontext)tomakeother

utterancesinthisconversationthatassumethatJeffhasawife.Similarly,

McGowansuggeststhatifJeffmakesaracistutteranceandnobodyprotests,it

becomespermissible(inthiscontext)tomakefurtherracistutterances.17

Dependingonthecontextandthenatureoftheutterance,itmayalsoenact

furtherracistpermissibilityfacts(McGowan2012:137-9).

Themostappealingelementsofthispicturefordealingwithcovertdogwhistles

arethat(a)significantchangestocommongroundortoscoremayoccurwithout

17Infact,Ithinkthatachangingofnormsinthismannerwillbeaveryrareoccurrence.InacontextwheretheNormofRacialEqualityisinforceanopenlyracistutterancewillgenerallynotbeseamlesslyaccommodated.Evenifpeopledon’toutwardlyobject,theywillbeveryuncomfortableandwillpsychologicallydistancethemselvesfromtheutterance,ratherthanaddingwhat’sneededtothecommonground.InacontextwheretheNormisnotinforce,therewillnotbeachange.Idiscussthisfurther,andexploreamechanismthatenablesthechangesofnorms,inmy“RacialFigleavesandtheShiftingBoundariesofthePermissible”.


26

explicitacknowledgementoftheiroccurrence;and(b)itisnotjustfocusedon

propositionsbelievedortakenforgranted,butalsoonnormsandemotions.The

suggestionwouldbe,then,thate.g.theWillieHortonadimplicitlyaltersthefacts

aboutwhatitisappropriatetotakeintoaccountinmakingvotingdecisions.The

normativescore—regardingwhatone’svotingdecisionsshouldbebasedon—is

subtlyalteredbytheWillieHortonad,outsideoftheawarenessofthosewho

viewit.Thisleadsviewerstotakeraceintoaccountintheirvotingdecisions.

AndsinceMcGowanallowsthatthismayoccurunintentionally,wecan

accommodatebothintentionalandunintentionalcovertdogwhistles.

Atfirst,thisseemslikeaverygoodfit.However,thereisacrucialproblem:if

dogwhistleswereactuallychangingpermissibilityfacts,discussingwhathas

beenimplicitlyaddedwouldnotdestroytheireffectsinthewaythatitdoes.

WhenJesseJacksonraisedthepossibilitythattheWillieHortonadswererelated

torace,viewersstoppedallowingtheirvotetobeinfluencedbytheirracial

attitudes.Iftheadactuallyhadmadeitpermissibletobasetheirvotingdecision

onracialattitudes,thiswouldnothavehappened.Whenwereflecton

somethingthatwegenuinelytaketobepermissible,wedon’trejectit—evenif

it’ssomethingwehaven’treflectedon.Imagine,forexample,thatIamimmersed

inacountrywithdifferentconventionsaboutpersonalspace,andItakeonthose

conventionswithoutrealizingit.Ifsomeoneinthiscountryremarksonthefact,

Idon’trejectit:instead,Irealizethatthepermissibilityfactshavechangedfor

me,atleastforthedurationofmytimeinthiscountry.Whenonecallsattention

toaracialdogwhistle,whathappensisverydifferent:whathappenslooks,forall

theworld,likeadiscoverythatonewasdoingsomethingimpermissible.18This

showsthattheLangton/McGowanstorycannotcapturethesecases.19

18AnothermoveLangtonandMcGowanmightmakeistodistinguishbetweenthelinguisticallyandmorallypermissible.Butitseemstomecrucialtotheirargumentthatlinguisticmovesareaffectingnotjustwhat’slinguisticallypermissiblebutalsowhat’sseenasmorallypermissible.That,afterall,iswhyhatespeechandpornographyaremeanttobesodangerous.19Itmight,however,bepossibleforthemtoarguethatthesortofpermissibilityfactstheyareconcernedwithareonesthatcanchangeinthisway:somethingpreviouslypermissiblecanbecomeimpermissibleonceitisreflecteduponconsciously.However,thiswoulddiminishtheforceoftheirargument


27

4.2.3 CovertIntentionalDogwhistlesasCovertPerlocutionarySpeechActs

Myviewisthatcovertintentionaldogwhistlesmustbeunderstoodasaspecies

ofperlocutionaryspeechacts.(Iamtakingperlocutionaryspeechactstobethe

actsofmakingutteranceswithcertaineffects.20)Perlocutionaryspeechactsare

notmuchdiscussedbyphilosophersoflanguage,andwithgoodreason.They

arequiteamotleyandunsystematiccollectionofacts,difficulttotheorise.

(Contrastthesimpleillocutionaryactofgettingmarriedwiththeintended

perlocutionaryactsofbeinghappy,makingone’sexjealous,gettingtowearthat

lovelydress,acquiringcitizenship,becomingfinanciallysecure;andthe

unintendedperlocutionaryactsofmakingone’sparentscry,devastatingasecret

admirer,inspiringsomefriendstogetmarried,andsoon.)Austindoesnot

providemuchatallinthewayofperlocutionarytheory.However,individual

kindsofperlocutionaryactscanbeextremelyimportant.Andtheperlocutionary

seemsverymuchtherightcategoryforcovertintentionaldogwhistlesuponbrief

reflection:covertintentionaldogwhistles,afterall,areverymuchamatterof

intendedeffectsontheiraudiences.

Mysuggestionisthatcovertintentionaldogwhistlesshouldbeunderstoodas

whatIwillcallcovertperlocutionaryacts.Acovertperlocutionaryactisonethat

doesnotsucceediftheintendedperlocutionaryeffectisrecognizedas

intended.21Althoughthiscategoryhasnotbeenmuchdiscussedasacategory,

covertdogwhistlesarenottheonlycovertperlocutionaryacts.Another

importantkindofcovertperlocutionaryactisdeception.Onewhodeceivescan

usuallyonlysucceediftheirintentiontodeceiveisnotrecognized.Thisisthe

definingfeatureofacovertperlocutionaryact.Acovertintentionaldogwhistle

cannotsucceediftheintendedeffectisrecognizedasintended,soitisacovert

perlocutionaryact.

concerningthedangersofhatespeech.Ifthepermissibilityfactstheyareconcernedwithcanbesofleetingthenhatespeechdoesnotlookquitesoclearlydangerous.Still,thisresponsemeritsfurtherconsideration.20Austindescribestheseasthe“consequentialeffectsuponthefeelings,thoughts,oractionsofthespeaker,orofotherpersons”(1962:101).21This,then,isaperlocutionaryactforwhichintentionisanecessarycondition.Idonottakethistobetrueofallperlocutionaryacts.


28

Therearesomeclearadvantagestothisaccount.SinceIunderstandcovert

intentionaldogwhistlesasperlocutionaryacts,Ineednotunderstandthemas

aboutpropositions.NorneedIclaimthattheyareaddedtothecommonground,

orinanywayconsciouslyavailabletotheiraudience.Icanalsoveryeasilymake

senseofthesortsofvariationwehaveseen:Noteveryutteranceusinga

particulardogwhistletermwillbeintendedtohavethesameeffect,sowecan

givetherightunderstandingoftheblackspeakerdescribinghismother’suseof

welfaretoearnanengineeringdegree.Andnoteveryperlocutionaryeffectwill

beintended—sowecanaccommodatethefactthatanti-racistattitudeswillbe

raisedtosalienceforsomevoters,evenwhenthiseffectisnotintended.Finally,

perlocutionaryeffectscanbeprevented,asJesseJackson’sutteranceeventually

begantopreventtheintendedeffectsoftheWillieHortonad.

4.2.4.CovertUnintentionalDogwhistles

Thereismorethanonewaytofitunintentionalcovertdogwhistlesintothis

picture.

Option1:Unintentionalcovertdogwhistlesarenotthemselvescovert

perlocutionaryacts,sincetheintentionofthespeakerisnotrelatedtothe

dogwhistle,whichthespeakerisunawareof.Sotherecanbenoquestion

oftheactfailingifthespeaker’sintentionisrecognized.Unintentional

covertdogwhistles,onthisstory,aresimplyspeechactswhichhave

particularlyperniciousunintendedperlocutionaryeffects.Unintended

perlocutionaryeffectsareextremelycommon,sothere’snothing

particularspecialgoingon,exceptthattheseunintendedeffectsareapart

ofsomeoneelse’s(notthespeaker’s)plan.Thisoptionperhaps

underplaystheroleofmanipulation.

Option2:Thesecondoptionputsmoreofanemphasisonthewaythat

unintentionalcovertdogwhistlesfitintothemanipulationthatistaking

place.Thosewhocreatetheinitialcovertdogwhistlesareverygoodat


29

attachingperniciousassociationstowordsandimages(andpossibly

otherthingsaswell)andsendingthemoutintotheworldinthehopethat

theywillbetakenupandusedbyothers,bringingwiththemthese

associations.Onemight,then,takethecreatorsofthedogwhistlestobe

insomeimportantsensetheutterersoftheunintentionalcovert

dogwhistles.Thiswouldallowonetotreattheunintentionaldogwhistles

ascovertperlocutionaryacts,fullyrecognizingthewaythattheyfitinto

thissortofmanipulation.Theproblemwiththisstory,though,isthatit

underplaystheagencyofthosewhorepeatthedogwhistles.Thesepeople

reallyarethespeakers,andtheyneedtobethoughtofassuch,andheld

accountablefortheeffectsoftheirspeech.

Onbalance,thebestapproachseemstometobeOption1.Butitisimportantin

adoptingthisapproachthatonenotlosesightofthewaythattheutterersofthe

unintentionalcovertdogwhistleshavebeenmanipulated—andimportantto

rememberthatsomebodydidintendtheperniciouseffectsoftheseutterances,

eventhoughtheirutterersdidnot.And,infact,thishelpsustoseemoreabout

whatissoinsidious:astheyunknowinglyutterunintentionalcovertdogwhistles,

peoplearemadeintomouthpiecesforanideologythattheyreject.Theactual

utterersarethespeakers,andthisiswhytheyneedtopayattentiontothe

effectsofwhattheysay,andtothecarefulmanipulationthathascausedthemto

saythesethings.

Afurtheradvantageofthisapproachisthatwecanaccommodatetwodistinct

varietiesofunintentionalcovertdogwhistle.ThefirstiswhatIhavecalled

‘amplifierdogwhistles’,whichhelptospreadtheeffectsofintentionalcovert

dogwhistles.Thesecond,whichisnotmyfocushere,isunintentionalcovert

dogwhistleswhichdon’toriginateindeliberateattemptstomanipulate.Ithas

beensuggestedtomethat‘crafty’functionsthiswayinsportscommentary,

dogwhistlingwhitenessbutwithoutanydeliberateattempttomanipulatethe

salienceofaudiencemembers’racialattitudes.22

22IamgratefultoTylerDoggettandRandallHarpforthissuggestion.


30

5. PoliticalUpshot

Ofcourse,whatmakesthisunderexploredtopicsoimportantisthatdogwhistles

representavitalpartofstrategiesbywhichweareinfluenced—infact,

manipulated—inourthinking,andinourdecisions.Inparticular,thesehave

enormousandimportantpoliticaleffects.Thepoliticalimplicationsof

dogwhistleshavenotbeenmuchdiscussedbyphilosophers.RobertGoodinand

MichaelSaward(2005),however,havediscussedthepoliticalimplicationsof

overtdogwhistles;andJasonStanleyhasdiscussedthepoliticalimplicationsof

covertdogwhistles.Allthreeofthesetheoristsarguethatdogwhistlespose

seriousproblemsfordemocracy,althoughtheproblemstheyidentifydiffer.I

certainlyagreethatdogwhistlescanposeproblemsfordemocracy,butIdon’t

fullyagreewithanyofthesephilosophersonthenatureandseriousnessofthe

problems.

5.1 DogwhistlesandDemocraticMandates

GoodinandSawardarguethatovertintentionaldogwhistles(theydon’tdiscuss

covertorunintentionaldogwhistles,soinfacttheyjustusetheterm

‘dogwhistle’)mayunderminedemocraticmandatesforparticularpolicies,but

thattheydonotposedifficultieswithregardtoamandatetorule.Theirfocusis

oncasesinwhichapoliticalparty(orapolitician)advocatesaparticularpolicy

usingaphrasethatdogwhistlesamessagetooneaudiencewhichanother

audienceisunawareof.Totakeanartificial(thoughnottotallyartificial)

example,imagineapartythattrumpetsitsoppositiontoDredScottinmanyof

itscampaigncommercials.Thepartygetsthesupportofbothanti-racismand

anti-abortionvoters.Thisparty,whenvictorious,couldnotdeclareamandate

forbanningabortion,becauseonlysomeofthevoterstookthistobewhatthey

werevotingfor.Hence,GoodinandSawardargue,policymandatesare

underminedwhenpolicypreferencesaremerelydogwhistled.However,Goodin

andSawardholdthatamandatetoruleisnotunderminedinthisway,because

everybodywhovotesforpoliticianPknowsexactlywhattheyarevotingfor:that

politicianPshouldrule.


31

Aconservativepartydog-whistlesanencouragingmessagetoraciststhat

itsowntraditionalsupporterswouldinstantlyrepudiate.Itwinsthe

ensuingelection.Halfitsvotersvotedforitpurelybecauseofits(coded)

supportforracistpolicies;halfvotedforitpurelybecauseofits

traditionallydecentpoliciesonrace.Clearly,thepartywonamajority;

clearly,ithasamandatetorule.Butunderthosecircumstances,itequally

clearlycouldnotclaimapolicymandatetopursueeitherofthetwo

contradictorypoliciesthatwonititsvotes.(2005:475)

GoodinandSawardargue,thenthatapartycannotclaimamandateforits

policiesunlessitrefrainsfromengagingindogwhistlepolitics(andmorethan

thismaybeneededaswell):

Itisworthfirmlyremindingpoliticalpartiesthatwhentheyengageindog

whistlepoliticsinordinarygeneralelections,thesamephenomenonthat

theyarecountingontoincreasetheirshareofvotesalsoundercutsthe

authoritythattheymightsecurebywinningthevote.(2005:476)

Itseemstome,however,thatGoodinandSaward’sargumentsdonotgoquitefar

enough.Iftheyarerightaboutthepolicymandate,thenthemandatetorulemay

alsooftenbeundermined.Thiswillhappen,forexample,inthecaseofsingle-

issuevoters,ofwhichtherearelikelytobemany.Ifavotingdecisionisbasedon

abortionpolicy,anddifferentmessagesaresentaboutthistodifferentgroupsof

voters,thensurelythemandatetoruleisalso—inanymeaningfulsense—

undermined.

Nowlet’sturntothecaseofcovertdogwhistles,whichGoodinandSawarddon’t

discuss.Covertdogwhistlesdon’tinvolvethesamesortofdeception.It’snotthe

casethatsomeviewersoftheWillieHortonadwillthinkthatDukakis’sprison

policyisQ,whileotherswilltakeittobeR.Whatwillhappen,however,isthat

thead’stargetaudiencewillvoteforBushonthebasisoftheirracialattitudes,

withoutrealizingit.Humanpsychologybeingwhatitis,beingunawareofone’s


32

reasonformakingavotingdecisionissurelywidespread.Peopleareunawareof

theextenttowhich,forexample,theirdecisionofwhichsockstobuysisbased

onthelocationofthesocksonthetable.Itstandstoreasonthatpeoplewouldbe

unawareofthedegreetowhichtheyareinfluencedbymusicinacommercial,

subtletiesoftoneorbodylanguage,beingremindedofaloved(orhated!)one,

andsoon.Ifsuchlackofawarenessofinfluenceswereenoughtoundermine

democraticauthority,wewouldneedtogiveupallhopeofdemocracy.

However,morethanthisgoesonwithcovertdogwhistles.Incovertdogwhistle

cases,peoplemakedecisionsonthebasisofreasonsthattheywouldrejectif

theybecameawareofthem—asweknowfromwhathappenswhentheyare

raisedtoconsciousness.Moreover,theydothisasaresultofbeingdeliberately

manipulated.Thislooks,onthefaceofit,muchmorelikeathreattodemocratic

mandates.

Butifthisissufficienttoundermineamandate,thenoncemoretheremayinfact

benomandates.Whatvoter,afterall,thinksthattheyshouldbasetheirvoteon

musicplayedduringacampaigncommercial,oronacandidate’sphysical

appearance?Andyet,allthatweknowaboutpsychologysuggeststhatfactors

likethesearesuretoimpactvoterchoices.Andallthatweknowaboutthe

runningofcampaigns(andaboutadvertisingmoregenerally)tellsusthatthings

likethisareboundtobeusedbycampaignoperativestodeliberatelymanipulate

thevoters.Beinginfluencedbyfactorsthatwedon’tthinkshouldinfluenceusis,

itseemstome,aninevitablepartofthehumancondition.And,sincethisis

relativelywidelyknown,usingsuchfactorstoinfluenceotherswillalsobea

standardfeatureofhumanlife.Ifthisissufficienttounderminedemocratic

mandates,thentherearenodemocraticmandates.

5.2 Stanley

StanleyisparticularlyconcernedaboutwhatIamcalling‘dogwhistles’,because

ofthefunctionthattheyserveinunderminingdemocracy.Thetermsthat

particularlyconcernhim—like‘welfare’—havedevastatingproperties:


33

1. Useoftherelevantexpressionhastheeffectontheconversationof

representingacertaingroupinthecommunityashavingaperspective

notworthyofinclusion,thatis,theyarenotworthyofrespect.

2. Theexpressionhasacontentthatcanservesimplytocontribute

legitimatelytoresolvingthedebateatissueinareasonableway,

whichisseparatefromitsfunctionasamechanismofexclusion.

3. Mereuseoftheexpressionisenoughtohavetheeffectoferoding

reasonableness.Sotheeffectonreasonablenessoccursjustbyvirtue

ofusingtheexpression,inwhateverlinguisticcontext”(Stanley2015:

130).

Ifeveryuseofoneofthesetermshastheseeffects,theneveryuseerodesrespect

forblackpeople,andeveryuseerodesreasonablediscussionbyexcludingtheir

perspective.Thisisobviouslyenormouslydamagingfordemocracy,eventhough

theofficialcontentofthetermmightbeaperfectlyreasonablecontributionto

discussion.

IfStanleyisright,thendogwhistletermswouldindeedbeutterlydevastating—

wesimplycouldnothaveadebateusingtermslike‘welfare’becauseall

participantswouldunwittinglybeintroducingracistnot-at-issuecontentwith

everyutterance,nomatterwhatthecontext,andnomatterwhattherestoftheir

utterancecontained.Ifthiswereright,thenthestandardliberalremedyfor

problematicspeech—morespeech—facesenormousbarriers.

Thereismuchthatisrightinthis:Itisindeedtrickiertochallengedogwhistles

thanitistochallenge,forexample,overtlyracistclaims.Ifacampaign

commercialexplicitlyassertsthat“blackmenaredangerouscriminalsand

Dukakisisinsufficientlyracist”,itisexceptionallyeasytopointoutwhatis

wrongwiththead.Theracismisundeniable,andeventhemosttimidof

journalistswillfeelcomfortableassertingthatracismispresent.Thosewho

madetheadwillhavenorecoursebuttoeitherapologiseorconfinetheir

electoralprospectstotheexplicitlyracistvoter.ButtheWillieHorton

commercialisverydifferent.Manyviewerswillbeunawarethattheyhave


34

watchedanadthatmakestheirracialattitudessalient.Theadcontainsno

overtlyracistassertionsthatareeasilypointedto.Andpoliticianscan,anddid,

easilydenythattherewasracismintheadorintheirintentions.Moreover,

JesseJacksonwasvilifiedas“playingtheracecard”whenhepointedtothe

racismofthead,andthesuggestionwassaidtobeludicrousbymainstream

commentators.

Butaswehavealreadyseen,thetruthisnotquitethisbleak.Theeffectsof

termslike‘welfare’varydepending(atleast)ontheracialpredispositionsof

one’saudience,onwhetherraceisexplicitlyunderdiscussion,andupontherest

ofwhatonesays.Also,recallthatassoonasJacksonraisedtheissueofracethe

adstoppedworking.Thisshowsthatinanextremelyimportantsenseitcouldbe

challenged.Andindeedchallengedquiteeasily.EventhosewhothoughtJackson

waswrongtoraisetheissueofracismwerenolongeraffectedbyitintheway

thatitsmakersintended.Althoughracismwasnowapartoftheconversation,

andsohighlysalient,itwasexplicitlysalientratherthancovertly.Theadcould

onlycausethemtousetheirracialattitudesintheirvotingdecisionsaslongas

racewascovertlysalient.Acovertperlocutionaryspeechactis(inatleastsome

cases)veryeasilychallenged:alloneneedstodoistomakewhathasbeencovert

intoanexplicitpartoftheconversation.

Buttofullyunderstandhowtocombatthesespeechacts,wemustcombinethis

factwithinsightsfromStanley:itwillindeedbeconversationallychallengingto

makewhathasbeencovertexplicit.Peoplewillrejectwhatchallengerssay,and

denythatitistrue.Sanitymaybe,andoftenis,calledintoquestion.Challengers

willbeaccusedofhavingapoliticalagenda.Theconversationwillbederailed,

anditwillnotflowsmoothly.Itisdifficult,justasStanleysaid,andasaresultit

ishardtomakeoneselfdoit,ortopersistinthefaceofthisresistance.There

are,then,importantlessonshereforthoseseekingtofightperniciouscovert

perlocutionaryacts.Butifchallengersareawareofhowthesespeechactswork,

thenitbecomesclearthatdespitethisresistanceitiswellworthdoing.Assoon

astheissueofraceisraised—evenifraisingitisthoughttobeamistake,and

metwithanger—thespeechactwearetryingtofightstopsworking.Itisboth


35

veryhardtofightandveryeasytowin.Thoseseekingtochallengethese

perniciousspeechactsneedtoremindthemselvesoftheeaseofwinningin

ordertogearthemselvesupforthedifficultyofthefight.Andimportantly,they

needtorealizethatwinningwillnotfeellikewinning:thoseresponsibleforthe

speechactswillnotbackdown,concedethetruthaboutwhattheyweredoing,

orapologise;theintendedaudienceofthespeechactswillprobablyinsistthat

theanalysisiswronganddenytheexistenceofthecovertmaterial.Yet

nonethelessthebattlewillbewon:thespeechactswillbeneutralized.

Importantly,ofcourse,wewillonlywinthesebattlesifthenormofracial

equalityisactuallyinplace.Andwhetheritisornotmayvaryagreatdealover

timeandplace.Weknowfromthesadandterriblehistoryofgenocidethata

communitywherethisnormisinplacecanchangeremarkablyquicklyintoone

inwhichithasdisappeared(Tirrell2012;Smith2011).Andwealsoknowthat

whatisunacceptabletosayinonelocationmaybeconsideredperfectlynormal

just30milesaway.Forthisreason,itisundoubtedlyanoversimplificationto

claimthatthenormofracialequalityisinforce.Itis,broadlyspeaking,inforce.

Buttherewillbetimesandplaceswhereitisn’t.Andatthosetimesandplaces,

raisingtheissueofracewillnotneutralizearacialdogwhistle.(Formore

complexitiesonthispoint,considerthedifficultiesraisedearlierconcerningthe

contentofthenorm.)23

Anotherlimitationisalsoimportanttoemphasise.WhatIhavearguedisthat

explicitlyraisingtheissueofracecandefusearacialdogwhistle.Thisa

defensivemaneuveragainstaveryparticularsortofpoliticalmanipulation.It

seemstobehighlyeffective.Butitdoesnotalterattitudes:theracialresentment

maynotbebroughttobearonthevotingchoice,butitremains.Nordoesitalter

concreterealitiesintheworld.Centuriesofviolence,discriminationand

segregationarenotchangedviaarhetoricalmaneuver.Theworldwelivein

23Norwillitneutralizeitforthoseindividualswhosimplydisagreewiththenorm,forevenwhenandwherethenormisinplacethereareopenlyracistpeoplewhoexplicitlydenythenorm.But,ofcourse,thosepeopledon’tneedtobedogwhistledtoinordertoactivatetheirracism:theyarehappytodeliberatelyvotefortheracistcandidate.


36

remainsjustasmuchstructuredbyracismafteradogwhistlehasbeenopenly

discussedasitwasbefore.Itisvitaltoopenlydiscussthedogwhistles,butthis

shouldnotbemistakenforsomethingmorepowerfulthanitis.


37

Austin,J.L.1962.HowtoDoThingsWithWords,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Camp,E.2013.“Indirection,InexplicitnessandtheConversationalRecord”,

presentedatSemanticsWorkshop.

Goodin,R.andSaward,M.2005.“DogwhistlesandDemocraticMandates”,

PoliticalQuarterly:471-476.

Horwitz,J.andM.Peffley.2005.“PlayingtheRaceCardinthePost-WillieHorton

Era:TheImpactofRacializedCodeWordsonSupportforPunitivePrison

Policy”.ThePublicOpinionQuarterly69:1,99-112.

Lamis,AlexanderP.etal.(1990)TheTwoPartySouth.OxfordUniversityPress.

Langton,R.2012.“BeyondBelief:PragmaticsinHateSpeechandPornography”,

inMaitraandMcGowan,eds.SpeechandHarm:ControversiesOverFree

Speech,72-93.(OxfordUniversityPress)

Lopez,I.2014.DogWhistlePolitics:HowCodedRacialAppealsHaveReinvented

RacismandWreckedtheMiddleClass.OxfordUniversityPress.

Mendelberg,T.2001.TheRaceCard:CampaignStrategy,ImplicitMessages,and

theNormofEquality.(PrincetonUniversityPress)

McGowan,M.K.2004.“ConversationalExercitives:SomethingElseWeDoWith

OurWords”,LinguisticsandPhilosophy27(1):93-111.

McGowan,M.K.2012.“On‘WhitesOnly’SignsandRacistHateSpeech:Verbal

ActsofRacistDiscrimination”,inMaitraandMcGowan,eds.Speechand

Harm:ControversiesOverFreeSpeech,121-147.(OxfordUniversityPress)

Noah,T.2004.“WhyBushOpposesDredScott”,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2004/10/w

hy_bush_opposes_dred_scott.2.html.

Nunberg,Geoff.“TheSocialLifeofSlurs”,thisvolume.

Saul,Jennifer.“RacialFigleavesandtheShiftingBoundariesofthePermissible”,

inpreparationforPhilosophicalTopics.

Smith,DL.2011.LessThanHuman:WhyWeDemean,Enslave,andExterminate

Others.StMartin’sPress.

Stanley,J.2015.TheProblemofPropaganda.PrincetonUniversityPress.

Tesler,M.andSears,D.O.2010.Obama’sRace:The2008ElectionandtheDream

ofaPost-RacialAmerica.(UniversityofChicagoPress.)


38

Tirrell,L.2012.“GenocidalLanguageGames.”inMaitraandMcGowan,eds.

SpeechandHarm:ControversiesOverFreeSpeech,174-221.(Oxford

UniversityPress)

Valentino,N.,Hutchings,V.andWhite,I.2002.“CuesThatMatter:HowPolitical

AdsPrimeRacialAttitudesDuringCampaings”.AmericanPoliticalScience

Review96:1.