Critical Literacy: A Demonstration

The above image is taken from a recent post from the Liberal Party's Facebook page. Coverage of the story can be found here. In a previous blog I discussed the importance of "critical literacy," and here is a perfect example of why it is important. To be fair, most of the feedback I have seen about the above image has been negative, and this gives me some hope. Critical literacy is not a special talent reserved for the educated few, it is something that is accessible to all human beings; we are critical animals.

At the core of this image lies a fallacy, a juxtapositional fallacy in the form of a hypothetical (if/then) proposition: "If Labor can't even control our borders, then how can they control street crime in our suburbs?" "Street crime" and "border control"are not explicitly linked: the argument is not explicitly made that immigrants are the cause of crime. The argument is implied, however, by the use of the structure of the hypothetical proposition. The structure of the hypothetical proposition implies a logical relationship; this is intuitively obvious to most people, but most people are unable to break the issue down to a sufficient level to identify the mechanics of the fallacy. The ability to name a fallacy is a vital component of critical literacy.

The logical relationship implied by a hypothetical proposition is, more specifically, a relationship of causality. It has a number of variations, including strict temporal causality: "if X occurs, then Y occurs." That is, X causes Y. There is also comparative causality; that is, an indirect causal relation whereby two states of affairs or events are related by a common cause but do share a direct temporal cause. This is the variation which the hypothetical in the above image ostensibly adopts: "if X is the case, then Y is also the case." Structurally speaking, the hypothetical does not change form for either variation, it is always if/then. This structural invariance is important because it allows for ambiguity, and it is through this ambiguity that the implied link is made. The insidious suggestion that immigrants are the cause of crime is smuggled in at the intersection of the comparative and temporal hypotheses: "if X occurs/is the case, then Y occurs/is the case."

In the case of our example, there is a shift from one to the other: "if X is the case, then Y occurs." More specifically: "if it is the case that Labor cannot control our borders, then it will occur that they cannot control street crime in our suburbs." This is an awkward formulation, to be sure. But there are a number of other indicators in the proposition, as well as the rhetorical form the proposition takes that help to support my analysis. Firstly, the use of modal verbs "can't" and "can"; secondly, the use of the adverb "even." The use of the modal verb helps to mask the implication; we can see this if we change the modal verb to its copula equivalent: "is," or rather the plural "are." For example: "if Labor aren't controlling our borders, then they aren't controlling street crime in our suburbs." The link between immigrants and crime is more obvious because the copula verb, distinct from the modal verb, expresses an absolute relationship. Modal verbs merely indicate contingency, or possible relationships.

Modal verbs are shifty, but they allow the kind of ambiguity by which such insidious suggestions are made. What is more, the modal verbs allow the shift from the comparative (indirect link) to temporal (direct link) form of the hypothetical proposition. The implication is more fluid: "if you can't control the borders, then more crime might happen." Schematically: "if X is the case, Y might occur." Because of the ambiguity that's involved, the reverse is also true: "if X occurs, then Y might be the case." The significance of this shiftiness should be clear: it allows for the suggestion of a temporal causal link, while at the same time implying a comparative causal link. In this case, the proposition implies that "weak border protection," or more broadly "immigration," is a cause of "street crime," but it is packaged with the suggestion of a "common cause," which might be summed up as "Labor's incompetence." Because of the modality of the proposition, however, both "Labor's incompetence is the cause of weak border control as well as street crime" and "weak border control (immigration) is a cause of street crime" are valid inferences to be drawn from the state. Schematically: "X causes Y, and X causes Z" and "X causes Y causes Z," respectively.

The adverbial "even" provides an anchor-point for the shifting modality of the hypothetical. "Even" provides a suggestion of emphasis, and in this case exasperation. Consider the statement: "You can't even get that right!" The implication is that the individual in question also can't get other things right: put simply, the adverbial "even" implies more than what is said in sentences in which it appears. Grammatically, the adverbial "even" has a subordinating feature similar - although not identical - to a subordinating conjunction. That is, the meaning of the sentence, clause, or phrase in which it features is predicated on something prior to or subsequent to the sentence, clause, or phrase, in which it features. This kind of interconnection is a common feature of all adverbials. Adverbials signal this interconnection, whether it's a "therefore" or a "consequently"; the role of the adverbial is to indicate that other information is relevant to understanding the sentence in which it features. In the case of our example, it indicates prior assumptions, firstly about the Labor party, but more specifically about the issue. That is, that immigration is a problem; as such, the adverbial "even" acts as a psychological prompt for what follows. The modal-adverbial construct "can't even" prompts the reader for their assumptions.

Along the same line, the "if" part of the hypothetical proposition also prompts the reader to prepare for a subsequent "then." So not only is the reader prepared for a propositional statement, they are also primed for a negative statement: "if [...] can't even" must be followed by a "then [...] can't." It would be nonsensical for "if [...] can't even" to be followed by "then [...] can." It is, to be fair, quite logical to follow "if [...] can't" with "then [...] can," for instance: "if he can't play rugby this year, then he can play soccer." It is the inclusion of the adverbial "even" that primes the reader for a negative conclusion. So not only is the "logical" relationship between immigration and crime implied by the grammatical structure of the hypothetical proposition, the rhetoric (the choice of key words) of the construct primes the reader for a particular - negative - association.

One final element of the example is worth discussing: the rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are what I call "illicit rhetorical devices" and I will discuss them more explicitly in my grammar blog. Rhetorical questions, as is commonly understood, are not real questions looking for an answer; they are questions that imply their answer. They are an illicit device because they are used to smuggle in (pardon the pun) information without that information being stated explicitly. That the hypothetical proposition is fashioned into a rhetorical question is the final indication of the kind of  sinister misinformation that the above example peddles in; it is "illicit" in every sense of the word. The rhetorical question is a more obvious psychological prompt than the adverbial "even," but its function in the example is to tie together into a single act of signification (the question mark at the end) the different logical, rhetorical, and grammatical signifiers that constitute the proposition. The rhetorical question induces reflection, but a reflection that is influenced by the question itself. Remember, the rhetorical question implies its answer, so the reflection the question induces is as "loaded" as the question.

To reiterate, it is heartening to know that most of the commentary about the image has been critical; it is heartening to know that there is at least an intuitive grasp of the deception and manipulation involved. But without the capacity to name the fallacies and break down the deceptions, the battle against ignorance and bigotry is only ever half-fought. An emotional response to a emotionally manipulative image or argument does not result in more moderate minds. Critical literacy is the vital tool to break apart the kind of invidious politics we are faced with, not just in Australia but around the world.