![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/polarizing-language.jpeg\")
Senior businesswoman telling her colleagues to stop arguing on a meeting.<\/p><\/div> Communication scholars,\u00a0ancient rhetoricians<\/a>,\u00a0legal scholars<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0psychologists<\/a>\u00a0have all studied some of the most basic pathways along which words do their work \u2014 how love is sustained in lasting relationships, how political leaders rally troops to war, how treaties are made or conflict de-escalated.<\/p>\n The effect of words is both a concern in our interpersonal and social interactions, in which small acts of incivility can leave us\u00a0feeling anxious and angry<\/a>, and in our political discourse, where some Canadians worry about\u00a0whether Trumpist rhetoric is making Canada feel like a more polarized and dangerous place<\/a>.<\/p>\n Whether we are talking about\u00a0civic rudeness at the grocery store<\/a>\u00a0where strangers seem more inclined to insult or offend one another \u2014\u00a0including in racist ways, as evidenced by a spike in anti-Asian racism<\/a>\u00a0during the pandemic \u2014 or how we conduct ourselves in political protest, the rhetorical techniques likely to amplify conflict and tension are relatively easy to spot.<\/p>\n Violent rhetoric inspires violent action<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 maybe not all of the time, but violent rhetoric is the surest pathway to violent action. This is true all along the continuum from interpersonal relationships to political rallies.<\/p>\n When deciding what to amplify online or in civic discourse, we can improve how we contribute constructively to our society\u2019s fragile social predicament if we\u2019re aware of the most prominent seven rhetorical tactics that are likely to amplify polarization, leading to anger and potentially violence. Research shows that divisive,\u00a0violent, dehumanizing rhetoric<\/a>\u00a0can sanction negative or hateful views that people may otherwise have hidden,\u00a0and embolden people to act<\/a>\u00a0on these.<\/p>\n What\u2019s worse, these seven rhetorical tactics tend to beget one another and inspire a communication cycle in which emotions are amplified and conflict is escalated.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Division\/Identification<\/a>:<\/strong>\u00a0We often try to understand the world by looking for similarities and differences. This tendency manifests itself in communication when we try to draw a clear line between\u00a0an \u201cus\u201d and a \u201cthem.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0We then look to strengthen these divisions by celebrating what \u201cwe\u201d stand for and denigrating what \u201cthey\u201d believe in \u2014 liberal versus conservative, left versus right, and so on. These divisions can leave people feeling a stronger sense of identification with their in-group and a stronger hatred for the out-group. Any time we hear someone use \u201cus\/them\u201d language, we ought to pause to recognize that this division is a rhetorical invention \u2014 and we ought to ask what kinds of work this invention is designed to do.<\/p>\n 2. Hyperbole:<\/strong>\u00a0This word\u00a0comes from the Greek for \u201coverthrown\u201d (as in a ball launched too far to be caught)<\/a>. Hyperbole is a creative inaccuracy meant to exaggerate or highlight some property of an event or person in order to intensify some feelings. This is the favoured technique of the internet troll. Exaggeration can drive attention because of the ways in which emotions are amplified. When hyperbole is combined with \u201cus\/them\u201d rhetoric then you are certainly on a pathway to violence. Hyperbole does not lead to rational deliberation; it\u2019s not intended to have that effect. If your child tells you it\u2019s the worst day of their life because of homework, or if a political commentator suggests that\u00a0the Liberals use of the Emergencies Act is an unprecedented over-reach of government power<\/a>, both are committing hyperbole to get your attention and amplify your emotions.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0False equivalence<\/a>\/false analogy:<\/strong>\u00a0American entrepreneur\u00a0Elon Musk recently compared Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.<\/a>\u00a0This is a false analogy.\u00a0Vaccine protestors comparing their treatment to Jewish people during the Holocaust is a false equivalence<\/a>. Like hyperbole, these are exaggerated attempts to amplify feelings of division and stoke emotions. To argue against the comparison between Trudeau and Hitler will only further amplify emotions because the comparison starts from a position of unreason. A false equivalence is a sure sign that the speaker wants conflict and wants to heighten emotions. \u201cHolocaust distortion can act as a \u2018gateway drug\u2019 to conspiracy theory and more dangerous forms of antisemitism. And it\u2019s used to recruit, to radicalize, and to sow broad cultural and social discord,\u201d says @WmsRobt<\/a> in this article from @ShareAmerica<\/a>: https:\/\/t.co\/Li3dv3pJ25<\/a><\/p>\n — IHRA (@TheIHRA) February 22, 2022<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nWords\u00a0have consequences<\/a>. They can make us feel love, anger, fear, hope. Those emotions, depending on how strongly they\u2019re felt, can incite actions.<\/p>\nAt the grocery store, political protests<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n