Diabolical devil's advocates and the weaponization of illocutionary force

Giulia Terzian, M. Inés Corbalán

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A standing presumption in the literature is that devil's advocacy is an inherently beneficial argumentative move; and that those who take on this role in conversation are paradigms of argumentative virtue. Outside academic circles, however, devil's advocacy has acquired something of a notorious reputation: real-world conversations are rife with self-proclaimed devil's advocates who are anything but virtuous. Motivated by this observation, in this paper we offer the first in-depth exploration of non-ideal devil's advocacy. We draw on recent analyses of two better known discursive practices - mansplaining and trolling - to illuminate some of the signature traits of vicious devil's advocacy. Building on this comparative examination, we show that all three practices trade on a manipulation of illocutionary force; and we evaluate their respective options for securing plausible deniability.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1311-1337
Number of pages27
JournalPhilosophical Quarterly
Volume74
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2024

Keywords

  • Conversational ethics
  • Devil's advocacy
  • Mansplaining
  • Plausible deniability
  • Public discourse
  • Trolling

Cite this