Cover not available

In:Conspiracy Theory Discourses
Edited by Massimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi and Angela Zottola
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 98] 2022
► pp. 99–120

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
“You want me to be wrong”

Expert ethos, (de-)legitimation, and ethotic straw men as discursive resources for conspiracy theories

 | Universities of Lausanne and Neuchâtel
 | University of Fribourg
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.05her
Abstract
This chapter discusses features of conspiratorial discourse related to the representation of social actors through the lens of rhetorical and argumentative analysis. Specifically, it identifies a previously undocumented variant of the straw man fallacy (a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position meant to refute it more easily), namely the ethotic straw man, which unscrupulous arguers can use to legitimate their own credibility and undermine their opponents’, thereby evading scientific discussion of relevant issues. A TV-interview with French virologist Didier Raoult, who championed hydroxychloroquine-based treatments in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, is taken as a case in point to explain why such quasi-populistic discourse, prominently centred on questions of ethos, fits conspiratorial narratives so well.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conspiracy theories as argumentative objects
  • 3.Ethos: A multi-layered notion
    • 3.1Situational ethos
    • 3.2Communicational ethos
    • 3.3Discursive ethos
  • 4.The straw man fallacy: From propositional to non-propositional misrepresentations
  • 5.Case study
    • 5.1Delegitimating the media by misrepresenting their true nature
    • 5.2Delegitimating the media by misrepresenting their intentions and emotions
    • 5.3Legitimating authority by ridiculing the interviewer
    • 5.4Legitimating an ethos of victim by misrepresenting media intentions
  • 6.Why ethotic straw men are likely to appeal to conspiracy theories
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Aikin, Scott, and John Casey. 2011. “Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men.” Argumentation 25 (1): 87–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Straw Men, Iron Men, and Argumentative Virtue.” Topoi 35: 431–440. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amossy, Ruth, (ed.) 1999. Images de Soi Dans Le Discours: La Construction de l’ethos. Sciences Des Discours. Lausanne and Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2014. Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1: The Revised Oxford Translation. Vol. 192. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1990. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonnafous, Simone. 2002. “La Question de l’ethos et Du Genre En Communication Politique’. In Actes Du Premier Colloque Franco-Mexicain Des Sciences de La Communication, 35–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byford, Jovan. 2011. Conspiracy Theories. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cattani, Adelino. 2020. “Persuading and Convincing.” In OSSA Conference Archive, OSSA 12: Evidence, Persuasion & Diversity. Windsor, ON.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornilliat, François, and Richard Lockwood (eds.). 2000. Ethos et pathos : le statut du sujet rhétorique : actes du Colloque international de Saint-Denis (19–21 juin 1997). Colloques, congrès et conférences sur la Renaissance 21. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doury, Marianne, and Pierre Lefébure. 2006. “« Intérêt Général », « Intérêts Particuliers ». La Construction de l’Ethos dans un Débat public.” Questions de communication, no. 9 (06–30): 47–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duthie, Rory, Katarzyna Budzynska, and Chris Reed. 2016. “Mining Ethos in Political Debate’. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2016), ed. by Pietro Baroni, Thomas F. Gordon, Tatjana Scheffler, and Manfred Stede, 299–310. Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Robert Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Errecart, Amaia. 2019. “De La Sociabilité Associative : Formes et Enjeux de La Construction d’un Ethos Collectif.” Mots, no. 121 (November): 89–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and John E. Richardson (eds.). 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. First issued in paperback. Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuhrer, Joffrey, and Florian Cova. 2020. ‘“Quick and Dirty”: Intuitive Cognitive Style Predicts Trust in Didier Raoult and His Hydroxychloroquine-Based Treatment against COVID-19.” PsyArXiv. [URL].
Garmendia, Joana. 2018. Irony. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. 1st Pantheon Books ed. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 2010. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, Thierry. 2005. “L’analyse de l’ethos Oratoire’. In Des Discours Aux Textes: Modèles et Analyses, ed. by Philippe Lane, 157–182. Rouen: Publication des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “L’irrésistible Rhétorique de La Conspiration: Le Cas de l’imposture de La Lune.” In Les Rhétoriques de La Conspiration, 217–236. Paris: CNRS Editions. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Richard. 1964. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. 1st edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacquin, Jérôme. 2018. “Ethos and Inference: Insights from a Multimodal Perspective.” In Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, ed. by Steve Oswald and Didier Maillat, 2:413–423. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keeley, Brian L. 1999. “Of Conspiracy Theories.” The Journal of Philosophy 96 (3): 109–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krieg-Planque, Alice. 2019. “L’ethos de Rupture En Politique: « Un Ouvrier, c’est Là Pour Fermer Sa Gueule ! », Philippe Poutou.” Argumentation et Analyse Du Discours, no. 23 (October). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehti, Lotta. 2013. “Genre et Ethos: Des Voies Discursives de La Construction d’une Image de l’auteur Dans Les Blogs de Politiciens’. PhD Thesis, Finland: University of Turku.
Lewiński, Marcin, and Steve Oswald. 2013. “When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men? A Normative and Cognitive Pragmatic Account.” Journal of Pragmatics, Biases and constraints in communication: Argumentation, persuasion and manipulation, 59, Part B: 164–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2017. Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation: The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2017. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve. 2016. “Conspiracy and Bias: Argumentative Features and Persuasiveness of Conspiracy Theories.” In Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016, edited by Pat Bondy and Laura Benacquista, 1–16. Windsor, ON: OSSA. [URL]
Oswald, Steve, and Thierry Herman. 2016. “Argumentation, Conspiracy and the Moon: A Rhetorical-Pragmatic Analysis.” In Case Studies in Discourse Analysis, edited by Marcel Danesi and Sara Greco, 295–330. Münich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saussure, Louis de. 2018. “The Straw Man Fallacy as a Prestige-Gaining Device.” In Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, edited by Steve Oswald, Jérôme Jacquin, and Thierry Herman, 171–190. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey, and Steve Oswald. 2019. “What Makes a Straw Man Acceptable? Three Experiments Assessing Linguistic Factors.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. 2009. “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (2): 202–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talisse, Robert, and Scott Aikin. 2006. “Two Forms of the Straw Man.” Argumentation 20 (3): 345–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. “The Representation of Social Actors’. In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, 1:32–70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. 1st edition. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of “Non-Propositional” Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics, Quo Vadis, Pragmatics?, 145 (May): 31–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. “Explaining Irony.” In Meaning and Relevance, edited by Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2015. Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 2014. Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation: Selected Essays by David Zarefsky. New York: Springer International Publishing AG. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Adornetti, Ines, Daniela Altavilla, Alessandra Chiera, Valentina Deriu, Anna Gerna, Lorenzo Picca & Francesco Ferretti
2025. Testing the persuasiveness of conspiracy theories: a comparison of narrative and argumentative strategies. Cognitive Processing 26:4 ► pp. 903 ff. DOI logo
Danblon, Emmanuelle & Lucie Donckier de Donceel
2024. Introduction : Les théories du complot aujourd’hui : quelles solutions pour quels problèmes ?. Argumentation et analyse du discours 33 DOI logo
Danblon, Emmanuelle & Lucie Donckier de Donceel
2024. Introduction: Conspiracy Theories Today: What Problems, what Solutions?. Argumentation et analyse du discours 33 DOI logo
Donckier de Donceel, Lucie
2024. Rhetoric and psychology: the interdisciplinary challenge of conspiracy theories. Argumentation et analyse du discours 33 DOI logo
Donckier de Donceel, Lucie
2024. Rhétorique et psychologie, le pari de l’interdisciplinarité à propos du complotisme. Argumentation et analyse du discours 33 DOI logo
Maillat, Didier & Steve Oswald
2024. Manipulation in exceptional times. In Manufacturing Dissent [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 339], ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Oswald, Steve & Thierry Herman
2024. Steve Oswald: Pragmatics and rhetoric. Argumentation et analyse du discours 32 DOI logo
Oswald, Steve & Thierry Herman
2024. Steve Oswald : Pragmatique et rhétorique. Argumentation et analyse du discours 32 DOI logo
Schumann, Jennifer & Steve Oswald
2024. Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Aikin, Scott & John Casey
2023. On Halting Meta-argument with Para-Argument. Argumentation 37:3 ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue