Introduction

We live in a forest of symbols on the edge of a jungle of fact. —Joseph Gusfield.

What does it mean to speak of language and public communication, today, in a media-world where language is used to persuade and to manipulate audiences to the extent that we might be said to live in a “climate in which truth has become … less important than the demands of political, commercial, artistic, and even scientific success” (Reisch and Hardcastle, 2006, p. x)? To put it bluntly, we exist in an “era of unprecedented bullshit production” (Penny, 2005, p. 1). Our information environment is defined by pervasive distrust and cynicism (bad signs for democracy not to mention the job market for up-and-coming students of media and business communication, eager to ply their knowledge and earn a living in the trenches of symbolic influence). What are we to do except to better educate ourselves in order to better recognize the signs of our evolving media landscape and to better situate ourselves among them in order to protect ourselves against manipulation or to better equip ourselves in our quest to manipulate others?^[1]

Definitions

Communication defined by a “lack of connection to a concern with truth” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 33). The essence of bullshit is an “indifference to how things really are” (p. 34).^[2]

Shit, clearly, is a crude metaphor for manipulative language in the public sphere. As Frankfurt notes, “excrement is not designed or crafted at all; it is merely emitted, or dumped. It may have a more or less coherent shape, or it may not, but it is in any case certainly not wrought“^[3] (2005, pp. 21-2, emphasis in the original). Yet bullshit as a condensation symbol for manipulative appeals is clearly wrought, worked into shape on purpose; it is language (both visual and verbal symbolic appeals) that is designed purposefully to have designs upon others. And these designs are not always obvious and the appeals aren’t always truthful. Bullshit, it seems obvious, isn’t good for you. “Excrement is matter from which everything nutritive has been removed. Excrement may be regarded as the corpse of nourishment, what remains when the vital elements in food have been exhausted” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 43).

History

once upon a time …

Varieties

Typically, there are lots of different forms of our objects of inquiry … here is where we start to distinguish them…

In his investigation of the numerous concept of “bullshit,” Gary Thompson examines the various ways in which people use the phrase, intending to dispute the widely held belief that it serves as a blanket label for anything seen as worthless. Thompson’s ideas are informed by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who makes a link between bullshit and humbug. Frankfurt defines humbug as “deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody’s own thoughts, feelings, or attitudes” (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 143). Frankfurt, on the other hand, adds nuance by underlining the counterfeit nature of bullshit, comparing it to poor commodities, and emphasizing that speakers prioritize the perception of their words over their adherence to reality (Frankfurt, 2005, p. 47).

Frankfurt’s paradigm, while attractive, is challenged in subsequent discussions, particularly by G. A. Cohen. Cohen claims that Frankfurt’s formulation does not include all examples of what is widely referred to as bullshit. He criticizes poststructuralist academic writing as “unclari0able nonsense” and emphasizes the use of impenetrable jargon (Cohen, 2005, p. 332). Another criticism, advanced by Ben Kotzee, contends that certain terms, such as “collateral damage” or “hexagonal fastening device,” while branded as bullshit, yet have a connection to fact (Kotzee, 2005, p. 168). These concerns led Thompson to urge for a more thorough examination of numerous types of bullshit, going beyond Frankfurt’s definition and putting light on the intricate links between bullshit and propaganda. Thompson is interested in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, recognizing the limitations of existing frameworks and emphasizing the importance of nuanced categorizations.

[Provide info re. Thompson’s types]

In the vast landscape of propaganda, the term “bullshit” takes on a multifaceted role that extends beyond mere lies. Gary Thompson delves into this intricate world, where bullshit becomes a tool for manipulation and persuasion. To grasp the nuances, let’s journey through various examples that illustrate the different dimensions of bullshit in the realm of propaganda.

1. Lies

Consider this scenario in the domain of environmental activism: a firm claims to have introduced innovative eco-friendly procedures to reduce its carbon impact. However, behind closed doors, the corporation continues to use environmentally destructive techniques and fails to reach declared sustainability standards. This misleading narrative, intended to present the firm as environmentally responsible, is an example of bullshit defined by explicit lies. In this scenario, the purposeful falsification of material serves the purpose of projecting a positive public image for the corporation in the context of environmental propaganda. This deliberate manipulation of information serves the agenda of promoting the product, illustrating how lies, as a facet of bullshit, can be prevalent not only in political spheres but also in the realm of commercial propaganda.

2. Spin

Spin is used strategically in political discourse to influence public opinion. For example, when a politician professes support for same-sex civil unions and frames their attitude as “evolving,” they are engaging in Frankfurtian spin. This language strategy gently manipulates the emotional connotation, attempting to show the speaker positively without resorting to outright lying (Thompson, 2016).

Moving beyond politics, corporations use spin extensively in the food market to create narratives that influence customer behaviour. For example, industrial behemoths such as Monsanto and DowDuPont support organizations such as the US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, presenting them as working in the public interest while acting as marketing vehicles for the sector (Real Food Media, 2019). This method of creating narratives through front groups and artificial campaigns highlights the essence of spin, as outlined by Thompson in his analysis of bullshit.

The food industry uses spin in a variety of ways, including funding community charities, utilizing celebrity endorsements, and backing research that is relevant to their interests. The manipulation of tales is a strategy for increasing market share and influencing consumer perception. Thompson’s spin insights help us comprehend how corporations strategically employ language and narratives to accomplish their goals, whether in politics or the food market. Communities may resist false narratives by uncovering spin and sharing true tales, hence developing a fighting chance against huge corporate interests. [H.P]

3. Irrelevance

Irrelevance has been coined as a ‘type’ of Bullshit by Gary Thompson. Irrelevance is a strategy in both the political and advertising realm that uses ‘irrelevant’ claims, regardless of their accuracy, to appeal to the receiver of the message through diversion (Thompson, pg. 141). For example, Dannon has made unfounded health claims about their yogurts that resulted in multi-million-dollar lawsuits. The inaccurate claims of dietary track support and immune system boosting properties moved the consumer’s attention aware from other potential critical deciding factors such as taste, quality, and nutritional facts and led them to be misinformed. Is the supposed and unproven claim of health benefits enough to encourage someone to disregard other factors of the product when making a purchasing decision? It definitely can be if the focus of the irrelevant claim is isolated and emphasized enough to overshadow other contributing elements (Thompson, pg. 141).

Often times, irrelevant bullshit ultimately seems minor and not extremely impactful (Thompson, pg. 141).  It can be argued that people should be aware that the messaging they see is constructed to increase sales and support in politics and advertising (Thompson, pg. 141).  However, is that the consumers job or should they be able to trust that the producer of the message is being truthful about their product? This concept of Irrelevant Bullshit can also be understood from Easwaran’s perspective and exerts from Frankfurt that explains how Bullshit is more harmful towards truth than lying is (Easwaran, pg. 22). Easwaran argues that liars at least acknowledge the truth in order to go around it. Whereas in contrast, when someone is bullshitting, they can simply ignore anything and everything without an acknowledgement of truth (Easwaran, pg. 22). This disregard for truthful acknowledgement and accurate representations, can make Irrelevant Bullshit sometimes difficult to spot and misleading. All in all, this type of Bullshit is one that utilizes appeal to emotions and ideology in conjunction with a common ignorance for truth in order divert the consumer to the desirable path with specially crafted blinders. [CZ]

Context & Connections

Bullshit is pervasive in our public communication. Macnamara (2020, p. 17) details some of the contributing factors, explaining seismic shifts in the media landscape that have come to define the shape of developed Western societies:

• • The collapse of traditional media business models and the atrophying of independent journalism.
  • Unprecendented growth in new forms of largely unregulated social media platforms, networks, search engines, streaming services, and other forms of ‘new media’.
  • Rapid growth of PR and new forms of ‘strategic’ corporate and government communication.
  • A shift from recognizable (i.e., transparent) mass media advertising to hidden persuasion through native advertising, sponsored content, and paid social media influencers, as marketers and media organizations seek new ways to reach fragmented audiences. …
  • Rapid growth development of disruptive ICTs such as bots, learning algorithms, and other advances in AI.

Macnamara suggests the post-communication label to describe this overall sea-change in the way that communication affects the maintenance and the abuse of trust in an era of spin, fake news, post-truth and weaponized social media.^[4] The term refers to “an evolution in which communication has been transmogrified from its normative purpose and function, with its principles and characteristics superseded and replaced by antithetical features.” Ultimately, it means that the communication we have today is but a pretence of communication as it originally was and as it ought to be (Macnamara, 2020, p. 95). Post-communication lends academic credence to a discussion of bullshit, wrapping up the effluent in well-established scholarly convention. “In many instances, ‘post-something’ denotes deterioration or even collapse” (Macnamara, 2020, p. 65). Like Frankurt’s flexible attitude to truth and falsity, post-communication might be understood as communication permanently stuck in a spin-cycle gone amok.^[5]

Another way of contextualizing the disparate types of bullshit is to invoke Robert Proctor’s description of “the current period of politics and public communication as the age of agnotology, referring to the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt created by the distribution of inaccurate or misleading information” (see Macnamara, 2020, p. 12). The mutation and denigration of communication causes its consumers to become adrift in a culture of malaise, cynicism, anomie and disaffection.

If, as Frankfurt said, “one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit” (2005, p.1), then clearly, we can’t escape it^[6]. But what does it mean to be awash in bullshit? “In an age of bullshit, we all become politicians or white-collar criminals, able neither to confirm nor deny the veracity of what we see, or know, or think we know” (Reisch and Hardcastle, 2020, pp. xiii-xiv).

WORK CITED

Cohen, G. A. (2005). Propaganda and Rhetoric in Democracy. In G. L. Henderson et al. (Eds.), Propaganda and Rhetoric in Democracy (pp. 137-154). Southern Illinois University Press.

Easwaran, K. (2023). Bullshit activities. Analytic Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12328

Exposing corporate spin. Real Food Media. (2019, August 8). https://realfoodmedia.org/issues/exposing-corporate-spin/

Frankfurt, H. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton University Press.

Kotzee, B. (2005). Propaganda and Rhetoric in Democracy. In G. L. Henderson et al. (Eds.), Propaganda and Rhetoric in Democracy (pp. 137-154). Southern Illinois University Press.

Macnamara, J. (2020). Beyond Post-Communication: Challenging disinformation, deception, and manipulation. Peter Lang.

Penny, L (2005). Your Call Is Important To Us: The Truth About Bullshit. McClelland & Stewart.

Reisch, G. A., and Hardcastle, G. L. (2006). On Bullshitmania. In G.L. Hardcastle and G.A. Reisch (eds.), Bullshit and Philosophy: Guaranteed to get perfect results every time (pp. vii-xxiii), Open Court.

Thompson, G. (2016). A Taxonomy of Bullshit. In G. L. Henderson et al. (Eds.), Propaganda and Rhetoric in Democracy (pp. 137-154). Southern Illinois University Press.