What is DEMAGOGY - what is it, word, definition, essence, examples

Updated July 24, 2021 527 Author: Dmitry Petrov
Hello, dear readers of the KtoNaNovenkogo.ru blog. In the Russian language there are concepts that do not belong to profanity, but are often used in a negative sense.

For example, demagoguery is a sonorous word with an ancient history. What was wrong with it and why is it considered abusive?

A glance at the dictionary is not enough; you have to dig deeper. So, demagoguery: what is it really?

What is demagoguery?

Demagoguery is a special approach to discussion, argument or public speaking, aimed at misleading interlocutors and the audience through well-disguised logical errors. It is widely used in political speeches and debates, in advertising and propaganda, in private and public disputes. To put it in simple terms, demagoguery is the use of various tricks to convince others that you are right without being right.

This concept arose in Ancient Greece, although initially it had a slightly different meaning. A demagogue (δημαγωγός) was a politician “close to the people” - a populist who regularly speaks out in support of ordinary people. And demagoguery (δημαγωγία) was then understood as a politician’s desire to enlist the support of the broad masses. Thus, the words “demagogue” and “demagoguery” did not initially have a negative connotation, but over time, for obvious reasons, they were discredited and acquired a modern meaning.

The goal of a demagogue is most often to emerge victorious from any argument or debate by convincing everyone that he is right using incorrect discussion techniques. At the same time, the main thing for him is to convince others of his victory, and the subject of the dispute itself usually does not matter . Demagogic techniques are usually well disguised, and even the opponent is not always able to notice them, so it is almost impossible to argue with a demagogue without preparation.

Origin of the term

Initially, the concept of demagoguery under consideration did not have a negative connotation. Its original meaning is leadership of the people or ingratiation with citizens. Later, Aristotle, rather due to the disgrace of the term “demagogue,” used the expression “prostate” instead of the analyzed word, meaning defender of the people, representative of interests.

The term demagoguery itself comes from ancient Greece. It is formed by two concepts: “demos” and “ago”, respectively “people” and “I lead”. Since the concept in question has undergone a radical semantic metamorphosis, today its exact translation does not reflect the true meaning.

Initially, the ancient Greek democratic leaders (demagogues) sought to explain to the people the meaning of the decisions taken by the authorities, which is quite difficult. Therefore, it required them to have oratory skills and use various polemical techniques.

Ancient demagogues were highly educated people from a noble noble family who were leaders of the democratic party. They enjoyed universal favor and mass success, because they represented the interests of ordinary citizens not in “languages,” but in deeds.

Often demagogues became rulers, for example, Pericles, Themistocles (commanders, orators, founders of Athenian democracy).

Later, when “upstarts” of ignoble origin, not distinguished by eloquence and intelligence (like Cleon, the son of a tannery owner, or Hyperbolus, the owner of a lamp workshop), and characterized by radical political beliefs (in modern history, they are known as “leaders of radical democracy”) made their way onto the political stage. "), the position of demagogues has changed.

In order to maintain their own positions, the “new” demagogues had to use the base desires of their fellow citizens for their own selfish purposes. As a result, their counterparts accused them of populism, corruption, political irresponsibility, and playing on the base instincts of the crowd. It is thanks to such “new” statesmen that the term “demagogue” becomes a designation for a populist politician.

Since today many political leaders actively use “ingratiation” in order to achieve recognition from the masses, the concept in question for the majority of ordinary citizens correlates with politics.

The meaning of the word demagoguery from the perspective of linguistics implies a special tactic of verbal influence, the goal of which is to achieve the desired result at any cost. Specific, tactless, and sometimes dishonest methods are acceptable here. This is why today the word “demagoguery” is used in a negative context.

Techniques and tricks of demagoguery

In order to adequately resist a demagogue in an argument or public discussion, you need to have a good understanding of the techniques and tricks he uses and be able to identify them. Of course, this does not mean that you need to use them yourself. But if you “catch the hand” of a demagogue who is falsifying facts or substituting concepts in time, you can confuse all his cards and seize the initiative in the dispute. To do this, you need to remember and learn to notice the most common techniques of demagoguery:

False alternative. With this technique, the demagogue tries to bring his opponent’s statement or proposal to the point of absurdity, investing his words with a completely new meaning. For example: “What do you mean by not yelling at you? Maybe I should just shut up?!” And if the opponent does not notice that he has fallen for the hook, then he begins to make excuses, explaining that this is not what he meant at all.
False dilemma. This technique is similar to the previous one. If a populist politician cannot find arguments to support his position, he tries to convince the audience that there are only two possible paths, and the second, of course, is terrible. Another common application is the radical attitude “You are either with us or against us.”
Substitution of a thesis or concept. Having realized that he is losing the argument, the demagogue can begin to distort his opponent’s statements, replacing his theses. For example, if you say that you like warm summer weather, he may argue that the heat is bad for your health. In this case, it is very important to immediately point out to him the logical error, because we were talking about heat, not heat.
Denial of the opponent's competence. Sometimes a demagogue can cite as an example the mistakes of his opponent or facts from his biography, allegedly showing that he is incompetent in a given dispute. For example, if a person is too young and did not live through the Soviet era, this is pointed out to him. That is, an age difference automatically makes an older person more competent, regardless of his level of education, bias and other factors.
Deviation from the point. If the demagogue has nothing to object to, he tries to change the topic. For example, if the director of an enterprise is told about the damage his production causes to the environment, he may begin to talk about how many jobs his company provides. His opponent himself will not notice how he will be made a villain, because he wants to “expose honest workers who need to feed their families to the cold.”
Incorrect formulation of the question. Everyone knows the classic trick question: “Have you stopped drinking cognac in the morning yet?” Of course, this is a humorous interpretation, but there are also much more sophisticated formulations that can put a person in a bad light, leaving him no room for an adequate response. The only option in this case is to directly and clearly say that the opponent intentionally put a false statement into the question.
Inversion of the presumption. There is a well-known principle: “The burden of proof lies with the approver.” The demagogue tries to distort this approach by forcing the opponent to argue with reason to refute the baseless claim. The most famous illustration is “Russell's Teapot” - a concept that proposes that the statement that somewhere in our solar system flies a porcelain teapot is true (after all, no one has yet proven the opposite).
Distortion of characteristics. Sometimes the properties of the object being discussed (or assumed) are obvious from the context. But a demagogue may deliberately distort them and then insist that there is no logical contradiction in his position. This technique is often used by traders and consultants, advising the buyer of a product that does not have the characteristics that he requested.
Manipulation of cause and effect. There is a well-known saying: “After does not mean after.” It appeared for a reason, because people have always tried to find cause-and-effect relationships where there are none. This was especially successfully used by shamans and priests, who explained to their tribes that there had been no rain for a long time because people were sinners or had not made sacrifices to their gods for a long time. But as soon as it rained, the shaman claimed that it was all thanks to his ritual or generous sacrifice.
Ignoring arguments. If a demagogue has nothing to argue, he can simply ignore his opponent's argument. And quite often such tactics are successful, so it is important to explicitly draw his attention to the argument that he chose not to notice.
Answer a question with a question. Everyone knows that answering a question with a question is rude. Many people do this involuntarily, and this technique allows a demagogue to seize the initiative in a conversation, essentially saying: “I’m asking the questions here!”
Presenting advantages as disadvantages and vice versa. Demagogues often take advantage of the fact that everyone has their own perception of pros and cons, and in general the concepts of positive and negative traits are blurred. The same qualities can also be interpreted in different ways. For example, caution can be called cowardice, courage - recklessness, and the desire to find the truth - tediousness.
Relativism. This technique involves the use of arguments such as “Not everything is so simple,” “Absolute truth does not exist,” or “Each of us is right in our own way.” Demagogues resort to it when they feel that they have lost an argument, although they previously insisted that they were right.
Denial of logic. When it comes to some emotional issues related to love, family ties and other personal relationships, many say that there is no point in being guided by logic. In fact, this is not the worst technique. In essence, the person resorting to it admits that he has run out of logical arguments, and he simply wants to end the argument.

Article by Yuri Nesterenko

I read it.
To be honest, it left an unpleasant aftertaste: not just biased, but sometimes even offending the feelings of people (in particular, believers). Complete absence of NTZ. The question arises: is a link to it needed here? Maybe it's better to delete it? Moreover, doubts arise about its authority, given that the author is an IT specialist by training, and not a rhetorician or a humanist at all. Ivan the Knight 13:16, March 2, 2008 (UTC) IMHO, a completely normal article. If it is bad, incorrect, indicate the reasons for the shortcomings of the article, and not the author himself and his education. Good article, many examples, neutral. She didn't hurt my feelings. SVMVP Ehpc 10:04, April 20, 2009 (UTC) Nesterenko’s article is certainly not a scientific study. Demagogic techniques have long been classified and well understood; In the USA, at any university there is a logic course where fallacies are discussed. At the same time, the classification in the article is rather unsystematic and unconvincing; logical errors, violations of the ethics of the dispute, etc. are piled together. Read, for comparison, the corresponding article on the English Wiki. There are examples for some points, but not for others; Moreover, the examples are quite controversial (the author’s reasoning about ten guilty or one innocent is his personal point of view and does not stand up to any criticism). Many points that appear side by side in the classification have a fundamentally different nature: in one case, the presence of demagoguery is easily verifiable by formal criteria, in the other, it is not. A number of things that the author classifies as demagoguery are, in fact, completely acceptable artistic and rhetorical devices (reduction to the point of absurdity, for example). Who said anything about science? Is demagoguery specified and formalized? Absurd. Based on en-Wikipedia, your fallacies are just private methods of demagoguery, and is their classification really standardized and there are no variations from author to author, proof point to the studio? In general, it’s just an interesting article, why not leave it. Or are all the links on Wikipedia mega-scientific, unshakably, infallibly true, but this article is a failure? PS Of course the link to Lurkmore makes more sense.