A demagogue acts with an intention to mislead rather than to lead a person who appeals to the emotions and prejudices of people esp. in order to advance her own political ends Most and foremost, more often than not, demagoguery is a deliberate distortion of logic, although unadulterated lie is also a frequent part of social discourse. I submit a demagogue must have an audience whose judgement he intends to influence, although the demagogic methods apply also to private deliberations with no ill intent, in which case they result in self-deception. Unfortunately, pedagogues are only human and occasionally resort to demagoguery in defending or promoting their pedagogical views.
Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty, stability, and what is famously called “an escape from freedom.”
Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s), largely by promising certainty, stability, and what is famously called “an escape from freedom.”
It significantly undermines the quality of public argument for reasons and in ways discussed below. In the most abstract, the reason it is so harmful is that it creates and fosters a situation in which it is actively dangerous to criticize dominant views, cultures, and political groups. It makes discourse a kind of coercion, largely through rousing and appealing to hate. Thus, the very people who make the decisions cannot hear all the information they need. Historically, demagoguery is a precursor to the ending of democracy—that is, when demagogues succeed, their first move is almost always to restrict the power of the people or parliaments in favor of some kind of tyrannical or totalitarian system.
Some people don't distinguish demagoguery from propaganda (which is generally defined as dishonest and fallacious discourse intended to further the power or agenda of the propagator), but I would say that it is a subset of propaganda: demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that functions to motivate people by rousing and justifying hatred of an outgroup. In other words, all demagoguery is propaganda, but not all propaganda is demagoguery. In addition to propaganda, there are other kinds of discourse that are unproductive or harmful (e.g., bargaining), but they are distinguished from demagoguery in that they don't promote hate and violence.
Polarization
This is one of the two most important qualities of demagoguery. To polarize is to divide a diverse range of things into two poles. Thus, a demagogue breaks everything into two camps: the one she represents (what people call the in-group), and evil (the out-group). This kind of polarization recurs throughout demagoguery—there are only two options, there are only two policies, there are only two groups. If you are not on their side—with all your heart and soul, in all ways and without hesitation—then you are against them. The tendency to put things in these terms greatly simplifies complicated issues (which is almost certainly its main attraction) and implicitly justifies brutal tactics against large groups of people (another attraction for demagogues). It also (almost certainly intentionally) shuts down deliberation, as really good decision-making necessitates considering all the options, and there is almost never a situation in which there are really only two options.Polarization is also sometimes called "black or white thinking"—meaning that the person does not understand that there are shades of grey. Children typically go through a cognitive stage where this is how they see things; because people tend to pass through it when they get better educated (and learn that there are almost always more than two bifurcated options), critics of demagoguery often assume that demagogues are themselves pretty stupid.
I'm not sure that's true, or, if it is true (there certainly is a lot of evidence to suggest that demagogues may have a kind of low cunning but not much in the way of subtle thinking), it doesn't explain everything. "Black or white thinking" is also a sign of certainly personality disorders (sometimes in a form that psychologists called "triangulation"), and it's a natural reaction when people are in a state of panic. This raises the issue—a recurrent one in literature on demagogues—on whether demagogues are necessarily people with fairly severe personality disorders.
I think it's difficult to tell whether demagogues simplify a complicated situation as a purely rhetorical strategy, or because that's how they really see things. I think it's always very difficult to figure out what a demagogue "really" thinks. Certainly, polarizing is a useful rhetorical strategy for demagogues, especially if they can work their audience into a state of panic.
Ingroup/outgroup Thinking,
I'm not sure that's true, or, if it is true (there certainly is a lot of evidence to suggest that demagogues may have a kind of low cunning but not much in the way of subtle thinking), it doesn't explain everything. "Black or white thinking" is also a sign of certainly personality disorders (sometimes in a form that psychologists called "triangulation"), and it's a natural reaction when people are in a state of panic. This raises the issue—a recurrent one in literature on demagogues—on whether demagogues are necessarily people with fairly severe personality disorders.
I think it's difficult to tell whether demagogues simplify a complicated situation as a purely rhetorical strategy, or because that's how they really see things. I think it's always very difficult to figure out what a demagogue "really" thinks. Certainly, polarizing is a useful rhetorical strategy for demagogues, especially if they can work their audience into a state of panic.
Ingroup/outgroup Thinking,
A Rhetoric of HateAnother constant in demagoguery is that the demagogue tries to promote and justify hatred of the "out-group." That is, demagogues identify some group as "in"—people like them—and some other groups as "out". Ingroup/outgroup identity is about essential identity. Because members of the ingroup are essentially good, the same behavior on the part of the ingroup is good, and the outgroup is evil (discussed as "entitlement" at greater length below). The essentially good nature of the ingroup is a "precommitment," meaning it is prior to and protected from discourse—no number of counterexamples will change the person's perception that the ingroup is good.
The demagogue assumes or argues for hating members of that group, as well as anyone who defends that group (or who even criticizes hating them). Sometimes demagogues are quite open that they are advocating hate.
Slipperiness on Crucial Terms;
The demagogue assumes or argues for hating members of that group, as well as anyone who defends that group (or who even criticizes hating them). Sometimes demagogues are quite open that they are advocating hate.
Slipperiness on Crucial Terms;
God and Devil Terms Demagogues rely heavily on certain terms that are conventionally accepted and not very clearly defined. Because they're used so often, and so rhetorically powerful, these terms can seem clear to an audience as long as the audience doesn't stop to think exactly what the rhetor mean. And demagogues certainly won't define them—the vagueness of the terms is very helpful for their purposes.
One way to describe the kinds of terms that demagogues like is that they are heavy on connotation but light on denotation (everyone knows how they feel about those concepts, but are not actually very clear on just what they denote). The strange thing is that you can think the term is perfectly clear until you actually start to define it, and then you can discover that it's extremely vague.
Fallacies
One way to describe the kinds of terms that demagogues like is that they are heavy on connotation but light on denotation (everyone knows how they feel about those concepts, but are not actually very clear on just what they denote). The strange thing is that you can think the term is perfectly clear until you actually start to define it, and then you can discover that it's extremely vague.
Fallacies
One of the signs of demagoguery is heavy reliance on fallacies. Whether demagogues use fallacies because they are cynical about their audience (thinking their audience is too stupid to catch them), or whether their own thinking is really so deeply flawed (so that they believe their own fallacious arguments) is a fascinating question, but probably can't be solved. Fallacies are argumentative moves that frustrate the ability of the interlocutors to settle the conflict discursively because they violate basic rules and/or logic; they are, in that sense, unreasonable.
Simple Solutions
Simple Solutions
A demagogue never claims that the situation is complicated to explain, nor that the solution is difficult to grasp. Demagoguery depends upon the perception that political problems and solutions are easy to understand; while demagogues often grant that it may be difficult to implement their solution(s), they almost always assert that the basic concept of the solution is straightforward.
Motivism
Motivism
Motivism is the assertion that people don't really have reasons for what they do, but they are motivated by something else—a lust for power, for instance. Rarely demagogues assert that everyone has base motives (including themselves); more often they assert that the out-group has base motives, while they are motivated by something admirable or at least complicated.
The image of the...ingroup is more differentiated than the images of the others' groups, which, all in all, are much more characterized by 'internal attributions' than the ingroup. The outgroups' actions and behaviour are seldom explained by reference to external factors of communicative situation and historical, social, political and economic context, but primarily by pointing to alleged inherent and essential traits.
Entitlement, Double-Standard, Rejection of the Notion of Reciprocally Binding Rules or Principles
This is closely connected to the above, and it is one of the qualities of demogogues I find personally fascinating. The best way to explain it is that they live in a world of double standards—something that is wrong for the out-group is okay for them and the in-group, and something that is okay for them and the in-group is wrong for the out-group.
Because this sense of entitlement is a sign of stunted moral (and cognitive) development, and therefore one of the indications of certain personality disorders (e.g., Narcissistic Personality Disorder), it is one of the reasons that some people see demagoguery as a psychological issue.
An Ethos of Sincerity
Given that demagogues are willing to lie, and are often caught out in lies which they often don't even bother to contradict, it's striking that they always claim for themselves the ethos of a person devoted to a sincere expression of the Truth. Even more striking (and almost inexplicable) is that their followers accept that ethos; they always describe the demagogue as "sincere" and "authentic" and they privilege that quality over things like intelligence, accuracy, compassion, and other things that might seem fairly important in a leader. It's inexplicable because followers hold on to this image of the demagogue as sincere and honest even when s/he is continually caught out in lies, misrepresentations, and errors. (I've sometimes heard people rationalize the demagogue's inaccuracy by saying that it's okay because s/he is sincere.)
It's important to remember that the last thing a demagogue wants is fair and open discussion of issues—the main goal of demagoguery is to keep opposition points of view from getting a fair hearing. (Although they often claim to be in favor of such a discussion, in fact, they do everything they can to prevent it.) Because demagoguery is based in over-simplifying the situation, polarizing the community, and promoting hatred of out-groups, people who advocate careful consideration of the evidence and who can notice and draw attention to the demagogue's fallacies are actively dangerous for the demagogue's project.
Also keep in mind that this is my way of characterizing demogoguery, but there is a lot it doesn't explain. This is what demagogues do, but why do they do it? If, as some people say, they do it because they are seriously damaged indviduals (that is, they are sociopaths), then why do people follow them? Under what circumstances is this kind of rhetoric effective?
Because this sense of entitlement is a sign of stunted moral (and cognitive) development, and therefore one of the indications of certain personality disorders (e.g., Narcissistic Personality Disorder), it is one of the reasons that some people see demagoguery as a psychological issue.
An Ethos of Sincerity
Given that demagogues are willing to lie, and are often caught out in lies which they often don't even bother to contradict, it's striking that they always claim for themselves the ethos of a person devoted to a sincere expression of the Truth. Even more striking (and almost inexplicable) is that their followers accept that ethos; they always describe the demagogue as "sincere" and "authentic" and they privilege that quality over things like intelligence, accuracy, compassion, and other things that might seem fairly important in a leader. It's inexplicable because followers hold on to this image of the demagogue as sincere and honest even when s/he is continually caught out in lies, misrepresentations, and errors. (I've sometimes heard people rationalize the demagogue's inaccuracy by saying that it's okay because s/he is sincere.)
It's important to remember that the last thing a demagogue wants is fair and open discussion of issues—the main goal of demagoguery is to keep opposition points of view from getting a fair hearing. (Although they often claim to be in favor of such a discussion, in fact, they do everything they can to prevent it.) Because demagoguery is based in over-simplifying the situation, polarizing the community, and promoting hatred of out-groups, people who advocate careful consideration of the evidence and who can notice and draw attention to the demagogue's fallacies are actively dangerous for the demagogue's project.
Also keep in mind that this is my way of characterizing demogoguery, but there is a lot it doesn't explain. This is what demagogues do, but why do they do it? If, as some people say, they do it because they are seriously damaged indviduals (that is, they are sociopaths), then why do people follow them? Under what circumstances is this kind of rhetoric effective?
