[lg policy] Re: What is David Starkey up to here?

[Dave Sayers]

Ok peeps... after receiving a number of interesting responses, and also separately consulting
someone who I remembered is an expert in the study of rhetoric, I think I've determined that there
is no specific name for this particular rhetorical manoeuvre. To recap, this is where someone
describes a hypothetical conversation, in which s/he voices an opinion. This allows the opinion to
be expressed, without actually 'saying' it (e.g. David Starkey here: http://goo.gl/nUG7e).

To round up the responses so far, although this rhetorical device doesn't have a specific name, it
does fall into some broader categories:

1. Dog-whistling: a term originating in Australia, meaning a message that means one thing to a
general audience, but something extra (often more sinister) to a certain subsection of that audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

2. "Preterizione" in Italian (which seems to be the English for preterition, aka apohasis).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterition
I had wondered about this one myself originally, but Starkey's trick just doesn't seem to fit quite
well enough. He's not "describing what something is by explaining what it is not"; he's describing a
hypothetical conversation, in which his actual opinion is embedded. Similarly it doesn't quite fit
the meaning of the associated rhetorical terms, paralipsis, or (maybe the nearest miss) occultatio.

3. A kind of prosopopoeia - speaking as something else - allied, perhaps, with a kind of irony - in
the sense of distancing.

4. Making it into a hypothetical quotation adds a kind of passive voice.

These are all relevant things to say about what Starkey is up to here, but I don't think they really
hit the nail on the head (or, sadly, hit Starkey on the head).

Now, I am a shy and retiring soul really... I generally shun the limelight (ahem), but I think it's
time for a new term to capture this specific rhetorical strategy. As William Saroyan once wrote,
"Have no shame in being kindly and gentle, but if the time comes in the time of your life to kill,
kill and have no regret." I'm not about to kill anyone, but I will create a rhetorical term and have
no regret. How about........

HYPOTHETITIO

This is meant to achieve two things: 1) be a play on the word 'hypothetical', which is what this
rhetorical strategy does -- it describes a hypothetical conversation so that the speaker can
communicate an opinion whilst never actually really technically explicitly really saying it; and 2)
sound all technical and clever, and similar to other rhetorical terms like dispositio, confirmatio,
elocutio, insultatio, occupatio, and of course, occultatio.

What do we think folks? Here, I made a Doodle poll for you to vote (no registration needed).

http://doodle.com/kns3c774uf3qiwfa

Please vote and let me know what you think. If there's enough enthusiasm for it, I'll make a brand
spanking new entry in Wikipedia. If not, then it's back to the drawing board......


Dave

--
Dr. Dave Sayers
Honorary Research Fellow, Arts & Humanities, Swansea University
and Visiting Lecturer (2012-2013), Dept English, Åbo Akademi University
dave.sayers at cantab.net
http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers



On 18/09/2012 14:42, Dave Sayers wrote:
> Hello lgpolicy folk,
> 
> Please click here (it's nothing naughty)...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh7macVIxeM#t=2m40s
> 
> If that doesn't take you to 2 minutes 40 seconds in, then just scroll along to that point. David
> Starkey here uses a cunning little rhetorical device to say what he think of Islam, but also not
> quite actually technically really explicitly say it.
> 
> I'm hoping to use this in a lecture about rhetorical devices. But my question is, what is the name
> of that rhetorical device? The closest I can find so far is either occultatio or paralipsis --
> variations on the theme of describing something by not describing it, e.g. a politician saying "let
> us say nothing of my opponent's unfortunate incident in a public toilet with a parrot and a jar of
> mustard". Starkey is somewhere wide of that. He's not saying 'I won't say anything of my opinion
> that Islam is a vile disgusting religion'. He says 'If I [...] say [clever pause] I think Islam is a
> vile disgusting religion' etc. That's different, insofar as he's creating a hypothetical dialogue
> between him and a hypothetical opponent. That stops anyone accusing him of (or arresting him for)
> talking that way about Islam, which is precisely the power of this particular rhetorical device,
> whatever it's called.
> 
> So, any ideas as to what it's called? Is it some sub-set of occultatio that I haven't come across?
> 
> Since I'm on the subject, anyone else planning a class on rhetoric might like the following clip:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVv0F3WdzKA
> 
> Galloway's opening statement is awash with easily identifiable rhetorical devices, including:
> anaphora; symploce; enumeratio; inductive reasoning; hypophora; understatement; pathos.
> 
> I set my students a homework exercise to find those, plus any others they could pick out, and we had
> a very interesting discussion about it all -- really spurred their interest in the subject.
> 
> Thanks all!
> 
> Dave
> 
> --
> Dr. Dave Sayers
> Honorary Research Fellow, Arts & Humanities, Swansea University
> and Visiting Lecturer (2012-2013), Dept English, Åbo Akademi University
> dave.sayers at cantab.net
> http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers
> 
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list