Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
  • About
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Submissions
9K Likes
15K Followers
Areo
Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
Facebook 9K Likes
Twitter 15K Followers
  • Politics

Rhextortion: Misinterpretation by Proxy

  • May 4, 2018
  • 3 comments
  • 3 minute read
  • Oliver Traldi
Total
31
Shares
31
0
0

The other day a friend linked me to a tweet from one journalist to another: “i think you want to be really careful,” it said, “about using language that sounds like you might be [doing something that the second person had explicitly disavowed doing].” Ethan Strauss, a Twitter friend and first-rate sports journalist, suggested (after he saw me reply in my customarily truculent way) that there is a phenomenon here that needs a name. I think we should call it rhextortion. It’s a rhetorical extortion racket. (This phrase seemed a bit too extreme to some early readers, so if you like, substitute in “misinterpretation by proxy.”)

Let’s outline a few important features of rhextortion. One important thing is that the rhextortionist knows exactly what the target means. The potential misinterpretation is entirely in the hands of generally unnamed third parties who are not present. The rhextortionist then presents themselves to the target as doing them a favor. Here, for example, the target learns from the rhextortionist what the target themselves “wants.” How kind! They’re not the ones trying to control your language; they’re simply warning you that the misinterpretation is out there, somehow, without commenting on whether it’s justified.

Now, what’s the goal of the rhextortionist? Let’s just look at the facts. When someone prevents you from saying P on the grounds that someone else might interpret it as meaning Q, you haven’t been prevented from saying Q. You’ve been prevented from saying P. A realist has to assume that the goal, therefore, is to prevent people from saying P. Further, we should ask: would the rhextortionist ever be satisfied by a superficial recasting of your statement? You rephrase P as P*, which means pretty much the same thing as P but is harder to interpret as Q. But now the rhextortionist says: “P* could easily be interpreted as P. And we now know that P is a dog whistle for Q. So you want to be really careful about saying P*.” The treadmill never ends; symbolic power can always be continuously redshifted as the universe of unspeakable objects relentlessly expands.

Rhextortion should be thought of within a broader picture of linguistic voodoo, and within a broader system of interpretive freedom in which the ability to appear to demonstrate that words mean something other than what they obviously mean confers both virtue and power. It is kind of like the negative side of the Living Constitution, or of progressive interpretations of millennia-old religious documents. Intentional, creative exegesis also falls squarely into hot take culture. These absurd interpretive machinations are buttressed by dubious psychological hypotheses about unconscious associations and implicit biases: “When people hear that, what they actually process is this,” and so on. Sometimes the presentation is more nakedly political: “None of the Good people should ever read anything that could even conceivably make them feel Bad, and none of the Bad people should ever read anything that could even conceivably make them feel Good.”

I suspect that the fact that the censorship in question is effected through precisely the sort of clever literary finagling and back-of-the-napkin social pseudoscience that’s in vogue at many of our best institutions of higher learning helps the rhextortionist feel that they are being smart as well as doing good. It is the truest and best use of the contemporary liberal arts education. “Nobody but me,” I imagine they occasionally think, “could so intelligently find these awful sentiments lurking in these anodyne phrases; thank goodness I am also such a paragon of progressive virtue and thus can use my powers for good rather than for evil.” It seems never to occur to them that they are, in fact, just a certain kind of corrupt cop whose goal is control of what’s said and what’s sayable in the public sphere. Do what we say, they tell you, or we won’t be here to protect you when the mob comes with their wrenches and their baseball bats. Then they call the mob down.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:
Total
31
Shares
Share 31
Tweet 0
Pin it 0
Related Topics
  • interpretation
  • Politics
  • rhetoric
  • Twitter
Oliver Traldi

Oliver Traldi is a writer living in the United States. He has a bachelor's degree in classics and a master's degree in philosophy. He is an assistant editor at Areo.

Previous Article
  • Politics

Islamic Feminism is a Myth

  • May 2, 2018
  • Khadija Khan
View Post
Next Article
  • Features

The Philosophy of Nonviolence: The Lost Legacy of Martin Luther King

  • May 5, 2018
  • John Wood, Jr.
View Post
You May Also Like
View Post
  • Politics

The Generational Divide and the Death of Dialectic

  • December 5, 2019
  • Gabriel Scorgie
View Post
  • Politics

Australia: No Country for Celebrity Entitlement

  • December 4, 2019
  • Luke J. Graham
View Post
  • Politics

Andrew Yang and Zoltan Istvan Subvert the Political Binary

  • December 2, 2019
  • Peter Clarke
View Post
  • Politics

China or the US: Who Will Lead Us Through the Twenty-First Century?

  • November 28, 2019
  • Will Staton
View Post
  • Features
  • Politics

An Economic Theory of Whiteness

  • November 26, 2019
  • Jonathan Church
View Post
  • Politics

The Dissolution of the Rule of Law

  • November 22, 2019
  • Elizabeth Finne
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

Trump Isn’t Selfish—That’s the Problem

  • November 20, 2019
  • Ben Bayer
View Post
  • Politics

Want to Fix Public Schools? Fix the Public First.

  • November 19, 2019
  • David J. Ferrero, Ed.D.
3 comments
  1. James Kierstead says:
    May 26, 2018 at 1:58 am

    Thanks for this. One problem is the people often do misinterpret what you’re saying, either because they haven’t been listening properly, because transmuting a nuanced opinion into a coarse ones saves them the trouble of thinking, or for baser strategic motives. I haven’t seen any data on how common this is, but I personally feel that it’s very difficult to put forward a nuanced opinion at the moment without it immediately being shoe-horned into some pre-conceived ideological category. But I think you would agree that the answer isn’t to stop putting forward nuanced opinions out of fear that they may be misunderstood or misrepresented. The onus should be on those who can’t or won’t listen to be more sensitive and less tribal about ideas. How we actually encourage people to do that – well, I think that’s one of the great political questions of today.

    1
    Reply
  2. Tara the Moral Libertarian says:
    May 7, 2018 at 6:12 am

    Thanks. I think we should popularize the use of this word as much as possible.

    As a Moral Libertarian I believe in free speech and the free market of ideas being moral requirements of society. Rhextortion makes this impossible. We therefore absolutely NEED to defeat Rhextortion.

    Reply
  3. Edward Freeman says:
    May 7, 2018 at 2:44 am

    Good article. I’ve seen this tactic around, and it’s good to have it named.

    3
    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read by Topic
Academia Alt-Right Art Conservatism Culture Democracy Donald Trump Economics Education Environmentalism Evolutionary Psychology Feature Feminism Freedom of Expression Free Expression Free Speech Gender Higher Education History Human Nature Human Rights Identity Politics Immigration Intersectionality Islam Islamism Letter Liberalism Media Mental Health Philosophy Political Correctness Political Polarization Politics Postmodernism Psychology Race Racism Regressive Left Religion Science Social Justice Social Media Terrorism Women's Rights
New to Areo
  • The Generational Divide and the Death of Dialectic
  • Australia: No Country for Celebrity Entitlement
  • The Uses and Abuses of the Human Sciences
  • Andrew Yang and Zoltan Istvan Subvert the Political Binary
  • Dostoevsky’s Campaign Against Rationalism and Progress
  • Unlearning Race: A Letter Exchange with Thomas Chatterton Williams
  • China or the US: Who Will Lead Us Through the Twenty-First Century?
  • A WEIRD Problem for Human Nature
Join the Discussion
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Will on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Will on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Anonymous on MDMA: The Cure for Sophistry?
  • Will on The Generational Divide and the Death of Dialectic
  • Anonymous on Andrew Yang and Zoltan Istvan Subvert the Political Binary
Read by Category
  • Areo Magazine
  • Battle of Ideas
  • Culture & Media
  • Features
  • From Under
  • Letter from the Editor
  • Philosophy
  • Politics
  • Psychology
  • Report
  • Review
  • Science & Tech
  • Uncategorized
  • What We're Reading
  • What's in the Works
Read from our Vault
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
AreoMagazine.com uses cookies. To find out more, as well as how to remove or block these, see here: Our Policy
Areo
  • About
  • Submissions
2016– 2019 © Areo Magazine

Input your search keywords and press Enter.