Dog Whistle Policy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In political statements, dog whistle politics refers to the use of a language that is understood differently depending on the audience. It is a form of coded language that allows a hidden meaning to be embedded in statements that only one's own followers understand or recognize. In this way, one statement can have a generally harmless meaning for uninitiated listeners, but a completely different one for one's own followers.

Origin of the term

The term dog whistle politics comes from the English dog whistle politics . The idea is, similar to a dog whistle , whose tones can only be heard by dogs due to their high frequency, to hide additional possibilities of interpretation in political statements, the meaning of which is only clear to those "who have the appropriate hearing".

The term was first used in 1988 by Richard Morin, a reporter for the Washington Post .

The term came to Europe much later, in the course of the presidency of Donald Trump , who is repeatedly accused of using dog-whistling politics.

function

The advantage of using a dog whistle policy is that political candidates no longer have to openly articulate unpopular or frowned upon positions (such as conspiracy theories or racist views) in society at large . It is sufficient to use certain codes or signal words, the meaning of which remains hidden to the general public and does not scare potential voters, but is recognized by the initiated own supporters. Following the concept of credible deniability , both politicians and voters can always plead that they actually meant something else or that they knew nothing about the actual content.

Jennifer Saul , professor at the University of Sheffield in an interview with the BBC :

"It's a major way that politicians are manipulating people into doing something that, if they're fully conscious of it, they wouldn't be morally comfortable with."

"It is an important manipulation technique that politicians use to get people to do something that they would not be morally comfortable with if they were fully aware of the content."

In one of her essays, she compares dog-whistling politics with allusions in cartoons for children that are only understandable for adults . It is clear to the authors from the outset that the actual target audience (here: children) cannot understand the allusions. Rather, these allusions were intended and placed from the outset only for a certain, initiated subset of the audience (here: adult viewers). Children as an uninitiated audience completely overlook the allusions.

Examples

Germany

Bjorn Höcke

In January 2017 Björn Höcke said of the Berlin Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe : "... we Germans, our people, are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital." In the Hamburger Abendblatt Alexander Josefowicz described this as an example of dog-whistle politics:

“This party has perfected the perfidious game with language for which the American term 'dog-whistle politics' is used. [...] Anyone who engages in this kind of rhetoric says something in such a way that it can mean something for the general public - but a different one for the actual target group. The Holocaust memorial can be called a 'monument of shame' and be proud of the 'achievements of German soldiers in two world wars' - without having to worry about the consequences. After all, there is always an explanation for what you actually meant. "

Alexander Gauland

In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung the thesis was put forward that Alexander Gauland's statements to the then national soccer player Jérôme Boateng would work “according to the dog whistle principle”. Similarly, the Süddeutsche Zeitung used the term dog whistle in this context.

United States of America

The Süddeutsche Zeitung criticized the use of the term “race unrest” for the sometimes violent protests after the death of George Floyd as an example of dog whistling politics: “If the term is used consciously - the speaker actually wants to emphasize the local meaning of the word“ race ” - it is a very banal case of dog-whistle politics. "

Australia

Scott Morrison

In the context of the terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch in March 2019, former MP Tony Windsor accused Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Twitter that his "dog-whistling policy of race, religion and division" had "borne fruit".

See also

  • Sociolect , language variant of a socially defined group

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Kerstin Kohlenberg : Postdiplomacy. In: Die Zeit , No. 24/2018. June 6, 2018, accessed August 28, 2019 .
  2. ↑ Trump's game with the dog whistle. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . July 5, 2016, accessed August 28, 2019 .
  3. ^ A b Jennifer Saul : Dogwhistles, Political Manipulation and the Philosophy of Language , in: Daniel Fogal, Daniel W. Harris and Matt Moss: New Work on Speech Acts . Oxford University Press , 2018. ISBN 0-19-873883-8 .
  4. ↑ Donald Trump: Catching votes with the dog whistle. In: The press . May 12, 2016. Retrieved August 28, 2019 .
  5. ^ Dog whistles: The secret language politicians are using. BBC , January 8, 2019, accessed November 17, 2019 .
  6. ↑ Alexander Josefowicz: The perfidious game of the AfD. In: Hamburger Abendblatt . August 30, 2018, accessed August 28, 2019 .
  7. ↑ Mark Siemons: Gauland quote on Boateng - The dog whistle of right thinking. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . June 6, 2016, accessed August 30, 2019 .
  8. ↑ Statements by the AfD - In the highest tones. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . May 30, 2016, accessed August 30, 2019 .
  9. ↑ Jakob Biazza: Translation errors with corrosive effects. Süddeutsche Zeitung , June 10, 2020, accessed on June 22, 2020 .
  10. ↑ Tony Windsor: Tweet on Twitter. Twitter , March 15, 2019, accessed October 22, 2019 .
  11. ↑ Urs Wälterlin: The terror attack in Christchurch also shows racism in Australia. In: Lucerne newspaper . March 18, 2019, accessed October 22, 2019 .