Adjectives such as "illegal" as a rhetorical tool

[Mise]

For a number of years now I've noticed an interesting rhetorical device in politics and the media: to use adjectives before a noun when talking about certain things. Less cryptically, I've noticed that the word "illegal" is placed before activities or things that are otherwise legal, such as "illegal" immigrants or "illegal" filesharing. The claimed intent of this is to separate the "illegal" kind of immigrant, for example, from the "legal" kind. However, there is an intent that the speaker doesn't make clear (or is perhaps unaware of himself): to associate the word "illegal" with the word "immigrant" in the minds of the audience. The effect is to make the audience, in future dealings with immigrants, recall the word "illegal", even though it is not explicitly used, and even if the immigrant in question is entirely legal.

Essentially, the outward purpose of the word "illegal" in the phrase "illegal immigrants are a drain on society" is exactly to not describe legal immigrants as a drain on society. But the real, rhetorical purpose of the word "illegal" is to associate the word "illegal" with the word "immigrant", and in so doing, describe all immigrants as illegal and therefore a drain on society.

Similarly, when discussing financial markets, banks and so on, people tend to talk about "unscrupulous traders", ostensibly distinguishing between the scrupulous kind, but with the effect of labelling all traders as being unscrupulous.

Clearly it is also used positively: imagine if the left led the immigration debate, and talked about "honest immigrants" or "hard-working immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants" all the time. Wouldn't that change the nature of the debate, in a land that grew rich and powerful on the back of honest, hard-working immigrants?

I think we all do this sort of thing subconsciously from time to time, and I know I certainly do this deliberately, on here, in every day life, at work, etc. Can you think of any examples that you use yourself? Examples from political rhetoric in your country? Do you think those examples are as a result of a conscious decision by the political party as a long-term campaign to get people to use those phrases in everyday speech? Or do you think that they are accidents of the speakers' own bias' making?


P.S. I really don't want this thread to be about immigration, or for people to defend the use of the term "illegal filesharing", "illegal immigrants", etc. If you disagree with the analysis then please go ahead and tear it apart, but if you do that then please be all like "analyse and counter", not "attack and defend".

Spoiler :

C.f.:
[wiki]Dog-whistle politics[/wiki]
Orwellian euphemisms
[wiki]If by whiskey[/wiki]
[wiki]Loaded language[/wiki]

 

[Patroklos]

Less cryptically, I've noticed that the word "illegal" is placed before activities or things that are otherwise legal, such as "illegal" immigrants or "illegal" filesharing. The claimed intent of this is to separate the "illegal" kind of immigrant, for example, from the "legal" kind. However, there is an intent that the speaker doesn't make clear (or is perhaps unaware of himself): to associate the word "illegal" with the word "immigrant" in the minds of the audience.

I think this is more of a case of you trying to project something unto the user of this such lables. I challenge you to find anyone who doesn't know there is legal and illegal immigration, and because of the factual recognition and discussion of the illegal version has banished all considation of the legal sort from the mind.

Less cryptically, you are basically setting up a strawman. Not you post, but the behavior you are trying to attribute to others.

 

[Oruc]

Like describing yourself as progressive? I mean who doesn't like progress? Then you find out it's just alot of left wing crap.

 

[Mise]

I think this is more of a case of you trying to project something unto the user of this such lables. I challenge you to find anyone who doesn't know there is legal and illegal immigration, and because of the factual recognition and discussion of the illegal version has banished all considation of the legal sort from the mind.

Less cryptically, you are basically setting up a strawman. Not you post, but the behavior you are trying to attribute to others.

Congrats on missing the point.

Like describing yourself as progressive? I mean who doesn't like progress? Then you find out it's just alot of left wing crap.

No, not like describing yourself as progressive or pro-life or liberal or whatever. That's a different type of rhetorical device.

If you want an example that the left uses, consider this:

"I love it when rich people engage in philanthropic acts. We need more philanthropic millionaires, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who have pledged to give 50% of their wealth away before they die. It's the greedy, selfish kind if millionaire that I don't like. We need to get tax those greedy, selfish millionaires. Greedy, selfish millionaires don't deserve our sympathy. Greedy, selfish millionaires deserve to pay more taxes than honest, hard-working Americans. Greedy, selfish millionaires will try to tell you that they already pay too much tax, and that they need a tax break instead -- but they would say that, because they are greedy and selfish. Don't listen to greedy, selfish millionaires. Vote to raise taxes on greedy, selfish millionaires."

Ostensibly, they're distinguishing between the generous, charitable millionares and the greedy, selfish millionaires. But the effect is to label all millionaires as greedy and selfish. And, indeed, to tax all millionaires as if they were the greedy and selfish kind.

 

[Quackers]

A) People are smart enough to know that when you use "illegal" there is a "legal" and therefore don't associate all immigration with illegality.
B) Political parties are too stupid to use word play to subconciously effect public opinion in this respect. Although it's plain that MPs are told to selectively choose there words I think your example goes beyond that.
C) As "illegal immigration" is used by all parties in QT it shows that it isn't a sinister plot drawn up by a new politically correct right-wing to subvert the public's subconcious and affect people's opinions.

 

[Mise]

A) People are smart enough to know that when you use "illegal" there is a "legal" and therefore don't associate all immigration with illegality.

Again, the first doesn't necessarily follow from the second. I mean, that's kind of the point of political rhetoric - to stop people from thinking logically and to get them thinking with the more partisan parts of their brains. It's not like this is a new concept: the idea that appeals to emotion and appeals to authority, as distinct from appeals to logic, are persuasive was famously described Aristotle. Pathos, logos and ethos -- surely you've heard of that? I kind of assumed that everyone was on the same page here but I guess not.

B) Political parties are too stupid to use word play to subconciously effect public opinion in this respect. Although it's plain that MPs are told to selectively choose there words I think your example goes beyond that.

Mate, if you think that, then you really need to read some books about Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, and so on ("about", not "by", obviously ). Seriously, there is a reason why they're called spin doctors... I borrowed this book from the library a few years ago about it in the US, written by a Republican "guru": http://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/1401302599 . It was incredibly eye-opening. Highly recommended. Also see the links in the spoiler in my OP.

C) As "illegal immigration" is used by all parties in QT it shows that it isn't a sinister plot drawn up by a new politically correct right-wing to subvert the public's subconcious and affect people's opinions.

Well in the UK it's mostly about immigration per se, and not people coming into this country at all, and not just kick out the illegal kind (which is more of a problem in the US).

 

[warpus]

For a number of years now I've noticed an interesting rhetorical device in politics and the media: to use adjectives before a noun when talking about certain things. Less cryptically, I've noticed that the word "illegal" is placed before activities or things that are otherwise legal, such as "illegal" immigrants or "illegal" filesharing. The claimed intent of this is to separate the "illegal" kind of immigrant, for example, from the "legal" kind. However, there is an intent that the speaker doesn't make clear (or is perhaps unaware of himself): to associate the word "illegal" with the word "immigrant" in the minds of the audience. The effect is to make the audience, in future dealings with immigrants, recall the word "illegal", even though it is not explicitly used, and even if the immigrant in question is entirely legal.

What's the alternative though? What else can you call illegal immigrants?

You might have a stronger point if there was another phrase that could be used instead.

I think what's happening here is people are using the whole phrase as a rhetorical talking point. I don't think it's just about the adjective. The adjective helps, sure, but..

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's rather difficult to think of examples of subconscious use of adjectives as a rhetorical device I use. I'm sure I do so as well, but I'd have to go through my posts for examples. If you think about the effort that goes into political statements, it would be naive to believe that the writers of these statements are not going to use all tools at their disposal.

I'm going to try to catch me doing this as well.

 

[Mise]

What's the alternative though? What else can you call illegal immigrants?

You might have a stronger point if there was another phrase that could be used instead.

I think what's happening here is people are using the whole phrase as a rhetorical talking point. I don't think it's just about the adjective. The adjective helps, sure, but..

Well as I said, in the UK, we just talk about "immigration". Because really, most people just want fewer foreigners coming into the country (which is not a particularly outrageous demand). That's the alternative -- if you want fewer immigrants, then talk about immigration, not about illegal immigration. There's no need to stick the word "illegal" in front of it, because those people really aren't interested in distinguishing the legal from the illegal - they just want to reduce immigration full stop. The reason they do it is so that they can say "illegal immigrants are a drain on society", which is relatively uncontroversial, and then have that statement apply to all immigrants by association. If, OTOH, the debate was centred on immigration per se, then the statement "immigrants are a drain on society" would cause uproar -- especially in immigrant-heavy electorates in US border states.

 

[Hygro]

I can't help but think of Plato's The Cave when I read Patroklos' and Quackers' responses.

What's been rhetorically understood for a few thousand years has more recently been put to the test. By front-loading terms with emotionally charged words, you do in fact create a psychological connection that goes deeper than your ability to reason and discern differences. Undocumented immigrants is a far better term than illegal immigrant because who cares if you don't have a bureaucracy's document? It's just as technically accurate, without having the (deliberate) political effect of associating immigrants with bad things.

Mise, you're good for bringing this up. I needed a reminder.

 

[Old Hippy]

illegal asylum seekers/refugee vs the legal kind has made any debate about them practically impossible here in Australia... to the extent that illegal refugees arriving by plane are a whole different type of illegal refugee than those arriving by boat... and its all done in the name of helping legall refugees to Australia that as yet have not applied to become refugees in Australia, and i honestly don't know if even then they would be future legal refugees, or illegal asylum seekers if they chose to come here by plane as oposed to boat...

apparently Australians love queues and dispise people who jump

 

[Oruc]

Undocumented immigrants is a far better term than illegal immigrant because who cares if you don't have a bureaucracy's document? It's just as technically accurate, without having the (deliberate) political effect of associating immigrants with bad things.

Mise, you're good for bringing this up. I needed a reminder.

That's just another subversion, just one you happen to appreciate.

 

[warpus]

Well as I said, in the UK, we just talk about "immigration". Because really, most people just want fewer foreigners coming into the country (which is not a particularly outrageous demand). That's the alternative -- if you want fewer immigrants, then talk about immigration, not about illegal immigration. There's no need to stick the word "illegal" in front of it, because those people really aren't interested in distinguishing the legal from the illegal - they just want to reduce immigration full stop. The reason they do it is so that they can say "illegal immigrants are a drain on society", which is relatively uncontroversial, and then have that statement apply to all immigrants by association. If, OTOH, the debate was centred on immigration per se, then the statement "immigrants are a drain on society" would cause uproar -- especially in immigrant-heavy electorates in US border states.

Here in Canada it's the same thing, as we don't really have a problem with illegal immigrants.. but are an immigrant nation, so the word "immigrants" comes up quite frequently in national discourse.

But in the U.S.? Illegal immigrants are a problem, so they have to use that phrase.. don't they?

 

[Mise]

x-post with warpus...

@Hygro, I like "undocumented" but I feel like this is too euphemistic and clinical. Personally I'd just prefer it if we talked about immigration honestly -- people clearly don't want more foreigners coming into the country, so talk about that explicitly, rather than hiding behind faux distinctions like not wanting "illegal" immigrants but wanting the legal kind.

EDIT: scratch that, Warpus has convinced me that the distinction is necessary in the US.

@warpus: Okay, I guess you're right -- perhaps the left should start saying "undocumented" a lot more than they currently are.

 

[Patroklos]

Well as I said, in the UK, we just talk about "immigration". Because really, most people just want fewer foreigners coming into the country (which is not a particularly outrageous demand). That's the alternative -- if you want fewer immigrants, then talk about immigration, not about illegal immigration.

You are making an unwarranted assumption. In the US most people do not want less immigration period, in fact most want more legal options for entry, they just don't want illegal immigration.

As was mentioned, there isn't really any other way to express that. You could use another word like "unauthorized," but illegal really is the appropriate term and I think you need to demonstrate the effect you are assuming to validate your challenge.

There's no need to stick the word "illegal" in front of it, because those people really aren't interested in distinguishing the legal from the illegal - they just want to reduce immigration full stop.

No. Again, this is an assumption. I think you have fallen pray to the same effect you are attempting to describe, namely the left's habit of putting the adjective "xenophone" or "bigot" in front of anyone who advocates reducing illegal immigration, legal immigration, or both.

The reason they do it is so that they can say "illegal immigrants are a drain on society", which is relatively uncontroversial, and then have that statement apply to all immigrants by association. If, OTOH, the debate was centred on immigration per se, then the statement "immigrants are a drain on society" would cause uproar -- especially in immigrant-heavy electorates in US border states.

Except you are again shoe horning your own assumed motivations onto people without evidence. What you are describing simply doesn't exist outside extreme outliers.

 

[Oruc]

@warpus: Okay, I guess you're right -- perhaps the left should start saying "undocumented" a lot more than they currently are.

So this thread isn't about how you dislike the rhetorical device, but how only the left should be able to use it (I suppose using term Illegal immigrant will become hate speech eventually).

 

[Patroklos]

How do you think we ended up with "homophobe" in common parlance?

 

[Old Hippy]

How do you think we ended up with "homophobe" in common parlance?

i think it is because a lot of people ... just don't like gay people

 

[Mise]

So this thread isn't about how you dislike the rhetorical device, but how only the left should be able to use it (I suppose using term Illegal immigrant will become hate speech eventually).

What? I already said that everyone does it, I gave you an example of how the left uses it, and I said quite explicitly that I use it myself all the time. I didn't even say it was bad, that I disliked it, or that it shouldn't be used; I described how it was used, said that it was interesting, and asked for more examples.

This is a discussion about rhetoric, not about left or right. Jesus Christ

 

[Zelig]

For a number of years now I've noticed an interesting rhetorical device in politics and the media: to use adjectives before a noun when talking about certain things.

Easy answer: People aren't smart enough to realize what they're doing.

Like describing yourself as progressive? I mean who doesn't like progress? Then you find out it's just alot of left wing crap.

Right wingers are non-progressive by definition.

This is a discussion about rhetoric, not about left or right. Jesus Christ

Sorry, it's just so easy.