<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In this paper we discuss two issues addressed by Jason Stanley in <italic>How Propaganda Works</italic>: the status of slurs (Section 1) and the notion of positive propaganda (Section 2). In particular, in Section 1 we argue <italic>contra</italic> Stanley that code words like ‘welfare’ are crucially different from slurs in that the association between the lexical item and an additional social meaning is not as systematic as it is for slurs. In this sense, slurs bring about a special kind of propagandistic effect, even if it typically concerns informal contexts rather than public debates. In Section 2, we consider positive propaganda and its relation to emotional effects. For Stanley, positive propaganda relies on the production of emotional effects, feature which risks to erode rational debates even if there is a good purpose behind. Instead, we argue that positive propaganda can work with no appeal to emotions. To this end, we focus on the use of ‘she’ as the default personal pronoun in academic writing and suggest that this measure can count as positive propaganda which rather than eroding rational debates by relying on emotional effects, closely resembles affirmative action aimed at counterbalancing a pre-existing form of injustice and inequality.</p></abstract>

In this paper we discuss two issues addressed by Jason Stanley in How Propaganda Works: the status of slurs (Section 1) and the notion of positive propaganda (Section 2). In particular, in Section 1 we argue contra Stanley that code words like ‘welfare’ are crucially different from slurs in that the association between the lexical item and an additional social meaning is not as systematic as it is for slurs. In this sense, slurs bring about a special kind of propagandistic effect, even if it typically concerns informal contexts rather than public debates. In Section 2, we consider positive propaganda and its relation to emotional effects. For Stanley, positive propaganda relies on the production of emotional effects, feature which risks to erode rational debates even if there is a good purpose behind. Instead, we argue that positive propaganda can work with no appeal to emotions. To this end, we focus on the use of ‘she’ as the default personal pronoun in academic writing and suggest that this measure can count as positive propaganda which rather than eroding rational debates by relying on emotional effects, closely resembles affirmative action aimed at counterbalancing a pre-existing form of injustice and inequality.

The Worst and the Best of Propaganda

Disputatio

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"The Worst and the Best of Propaganda"}

In this paper we discuss two issues addressed by Jason Stanley in How Propaganda Works: the status of slurs (Section 1) and the notion of positive propaganda...

The Worst and the Best of Propaganda

Published Online: Dec 08, 2020

Page range: 289 - 303

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2018-0006

Keywords
Slurs, code words, positive propaganda, affirmative action

© 2018 Bianca Cepollaro et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

The Worst and the Best of Propaganda

Published Online: Dec 08, 2020

Page range: 289 - 303

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2018-0006

KeywordsSlurs, code words, positive propaganda, affirmative action

© 2018 Bianca Cepollaro et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Keywords
Slurs, code words, positive propaganda, affirmative action