Understanding and Dealing with “Discursive Terrorism”

Abstract

Social and political discourse is increasingly and disturbingly, dominated by dismissive and aggressive arguments that exclude the option of genuine dialog and the maintenance of a public sphere. This paper, based on years of empirical study, posits and explores a concept, “Discursive Terrorism” as a verbal parallel to the physical destruction of property and human beings. It has seven bases: naming a disastrous and likely outcome; linking that outcome to a specific group; treating that group as an immutable entity; describing the motivations of the group as solely destructive; reducing the number of possible responses; demanding action to end the threat; naming counteractions as purely defensive; and using simplistic, totalizing labels and actions. The appeal of this approach is that it offers reassuring certainty; it rejects relativism; it equates its subjectivity as objective; it rejects any contradictory information as subjective; it mobilizes followers by belittling the Other while aggrandizing itself; it moves attention to external factors, to discourage reflexivity; it frames messages emotionally, reducing options to defense for survival; it “wins” arguments by reducing discursive complexity and keeping its own agenda control. The results of D.T. are radical reduction of listening, both of opponents and within members; discussion is turned into an exchange of black-and-white assertions; belief in reasoned argument is reduced by apparent D.T. success; most actions that demand cooperation are blocked; short-term views are privileged over long-term planning. Responses to D.T. include use of facts to reduce labels; abandoning some conversational courtesies; increasing confidence within opponents; pointing out silly positions; claiming discursive dominance over the agenda.