DOG WHISTLES IN POLITICS

 DOG WHISTLES IN POLITICS

____________________________________

INTRODUCTION

   In politics, in particular, a "dog whistle", is the use of coded

language, or suggestive language, in political messaging in

order to garner support from a particular group without

provoking opposition. This concept is named after ultrasonic

dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog

whistles use language that appears normal to the majority,

but communicates specific things to intended audiences. They

are generally used to convey messages likely to provoke

controversy

__________________________________________

AUSTRALIAN STUDIES ON POLITICAL DOG WHISTLES

  In her book, VOTING FOR JESUS AND POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA,

Amanda Loberg writes that the goal of the dog whistle is to

appeal to the greatest number of people, while SILENCING

and alienating the smallest number of people. She uses the

example of politicians choosing broadly appealing words like

"family values" which have extra resonance for Christians,

while avoiding over over-Christian-moralizing that might

otherwise turn off Christian voters. 

  Australian political theorists argue that the problem with

dog whistles is to completely undermine democracy.

____________________________________________

CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSIONS

   Academics disagree on whether dog whistles notion has

conceptual validity. Keep in mind what makes dog whistles

problematic; they HARM the disadvantaged groups, undermine

the ability to have a plural society. Many politicians who are

of this practice, of using dog whistles, because with dog whistles

there is always the option of plausible deniability.