Editing Persuasive definition

{{Short description|Stipulative, biased definition of a term}}
{{multiple issues|{{original research|date=January 2017}}
{{synthesis|date=January 2017}}}}
A '''persuasive definition''' is a form of [[stipulative definition]] which purports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.<ref name=BDWP-per>
{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978140510679517_ss1-72 |encyclopedia=The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy |title=Persuasive definition  |last=Bunnin |first=Nicholas |first2=Jiyuan|last2= Yu |year=2004 |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |isbn=978-1-4051-0679-5 |accessdate=2012-10-21}}
</ref>
The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "[[Definition of terrorism|terrorism]]", "[[Weaponization of antisemitism|antisemitism]],<ref>{{cite book | editor-last=Chiluwa | editor-first=Innocent | title=Discourse and Conflict: Analysing Text and Talk of Conflict, Hate and Peace-building | date=2021-09-22 | isbn=978-3-030-76485-2 | last=Blackwell | first=Susan | chapter=Language in the Service of Lawfare: The “Working Definition of Antisemitism” of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance | publisher=Springer International Publishing | doi=10.1007/978-3-030-76485-2_3 | url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-76485-2_3 |page=77| quote= The controversy over the IHRA definition is a prime example of language being both the “site of, and stake in, struggles for power”. I hope that my application of Critical Discourse Analysis to this highly controversial text will give the reader some insights into the ideological assumptions underlying its, at first sight, bewilderingly vague and inappropriate language, and that those concerned with deconstructing “common sense in the service of power” will ask themselves who is empowered, and who is disempowered, by the adoption of “persuasive definitions” such as this one.}}</ref> "democracy", etc. In [[argumentation]] the use of a persuasive definition is sometimes called definist fallacy. (The latter sometimes more broadly refers to a fallacy of a definition based on improper identification of two distinct properties.)<ref name=BDWP-deff>{{cite encyclopedia| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LdbxabeToQYC&pg=PA165|year=2008|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-0-470-99721-5|page=165|encyclopedia=The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy |title=Definist fallacy |last=Bunnin |first=Nicholas  |first2=Jiyuan|last2= Yu |accessdate=2014-10-15}}
</ref><ref name="IEP">
{{cite encyclopedia |title=Fallacies: Persuasive Definition |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |date=December 31, 2010 |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ |accessdate=2011-04-10 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009055518/http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ |archive-date=October 9, 2014 }}
</ref><ref name="IEP2">
{{cite encyclopedia |title=Fallacies: Definist fallacy |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |date=December 31, 2010 |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ |accessdate=2011-04-10 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009055518/http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/ |archive-date=October 9, 2014 }}
</ref>
<!--- sources do not agree they are the same, some say there are several kinds of definist fallacies--->

Examples of persuasive definitions (definist fallacies) include: 
* Democrat &ndash; "a leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish freedom in the economic sphere".<ref name="IEP"/>
* Democrat &ndash; "compassionate person who cares about the poor and wants to make the rich pay their fair share."<ref name="IEP2"/>

Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as [[politics]], [[sex]], and [[religion]], as participants in emotionally charged exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts. A persuasive definition of a term is favorable to one argument or unfavorable to the other argument, but is presented as if it were neutral and well-accepted, and the listener is expected to accept such a definition without question.<ref name=BDWP-per />

The term "persuasive definition" was introduced by philosopher [[Charles Stevenson (philosopher)|Charles Stevenson]] as part of his emotive theory of meaning.{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|p=82}}

==Overview==
Language can simultaneously communicate information (informative) and feelings (expressive).{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|p=67, 137}} Unlike other common types of definitions in logic, persuasive definitions focus on the expressive use of language to affect the feelings of readers and listeners ultimately with an aim to change their behavior.{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|p=137}} With this fundamentally different purpose, persuasive definitions are evaluated not on their truth or falsehood but rather on their effectiveness as a persuasive device.{{sfn|Hurley|2008|p=94}} 
Stevenson{{sfn|Stevenson|1937|}} showed how these two dimensions are combined when he investigated the terms he called "ethical" or emotive.{{sfn|Macagno|Walton|2014|}} He noted that some words, such as ''peace'' or ''war'', are not simply used to describe reality by modifying the cognitive response of the interlocutor. They have also the power of directing the interlocutor's attitudes and suggesting a course of action. For this reason, they evoke a different kind of reaction, emotive in nature. As Stevenson{{sfn|Stevenson|1937|p=18–19}} put it: "Instead of merely describing people's interests, they change and intensify them. They recommend an interest in an object, rather than state that the interest already exists." These words have the tendency to encourage future actions, to lead the hearer towards a decision by affecting his or her system of interests.{{sfn|Stevenson|1944|p=210}} Stevenson distinguished between the use of a word (a stimulus) and its possible psychological effects on the addressee's cognitive and the emotive reactions by labeling them as "descriptive meaning" and "emotive meaning".{{sfn|Stevenson|1944|p=54}} Applying this distinction reveals how the redefinition of an ethical word is transformed into an instrument of persuasion, a tool for redirecting preferences and emotions:{{sfn|Stevenson|1944|p=210}}

{{quote|Ethical definitions involve a wedding of descriptive and emotive meaning, and accordingly have a frequent use in redirecting and intensifying attitudes. To choose a definition is to plead a cause, so long as the word defined is strongly emotive.}}

In persuasive definitions the evaluative component associated with a concept is left unaltered while the descriptive meaning is modified. In this fashion, imprisonment can become "true freedom",{{sfn|Huxley|1936|p=122}} and massacres "pacification".{{sfn|Orwell|1946|}} Persuasive definitions can change or distort the meaning while keeping the original evaluations that the use of a word evokes. Quasi-definitions consist in the modification of the emotive meaning of a word without altering the descriptive one. The speaker can quasi-define a word by qualifying the {{lang|la|definiendum}} without setting forth what the term actually means. For instance, we can consider the following quasi-definition taken from Casanova's Fuga dai Piombi. In this example (1), the speaker, Mr. Soradaci, tries to convince his interlocutor (Casanova) that being a "sneak" is an honorable behavior:{{sfn|Casanova|1911|p=112}}

{{quote|I have always despised the prejudice that attaches to the name "spy" a hateful meaning: this name sounds bad only to the ears of who hates the Government. A sneak is just a friend of the good of the State, the plague of the crooks, the faithful servant of his Prince.}}

This quasi-definition employed in the first case underscores a fundamental dimension of the "emotive" meaning of a word, namely its relationship with the shared values, which are attacked as "prejudices." This account given by the spy shows how describing the referent based on a different hierarchy of values can modify emotive meaning. The value of trust is not denied, but is placed in a hierarchy where the highest worth is given to the State.{{sfn|Walton|Macagno|2015|}}

Stevenson gives two definitions of the word ''culture'' in order to illustrate what a persuasive definition can accomplish:

* The original definition: "widely read and acquainted with arts"
* The persuasive definition: "imaginative sensitivity"

Both carry the positive emotive meaning of culture; it is still a good thing to be cultured by either definition.  What they change is what exactly it means to be called "cultured."  Because being cultured is a positive trait, the society views being well read and acquainted with the arts as positive traits to have.  By promoting a persuasive definition of "imaginative sensitivity" the society begins to views those qualities positively because they are attached to a word with a positive emotive meaning.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stevenson|first=Charles Leslie|date=1938-01-01|title=Persuasive Definitions|jstor=2250337|journal=Mind|volume=47|issue=187|pages=331–350|doi=10.1093/mind/XLVII.187.331}}</ref>

Unclear, [[figurative language]] is often used in persuasive definitions.{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|p=154}} Although several techniques can be used to form such a definition,{{sfn|Macagno|Walton|2014|}} the [[genus–differentia definition|genus and difference]] technique is the usual one applied.{{sfn|Hurley|2008|p=103}} Both definitions in the taxation example above agree that the genus is a procedure relating to governance but disagree on the difference. Persuasive definitions combine elements of [[stipulative definition]]s, [[lexical definition]]s, and sometimes [[theoretical definition]]s.{{sfn|Hurley|2008|p=94}}

Persuasive definitions commonly appear in political speeches, [[editorial]]s and other situations where the power to influence is most in demand.{{sfn|Hurley|2008|p=94}} They have been dismissed as serving only to confuse readers and listeners without legitimate purpose.<ref name="Kemerling">{{cite web |url=http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm |title=Definition and Meaning |first=Garth |last=Kemerling |date=2001-10-27 |work=Philosophy Pages |accessdate=2011-04-09}}</ref> Critical scrutiny is often necessary to identify persuasive definitions in an argument as they are meant to appear as honest definitions.{{sfn|Hurley|2008|p=94}}{{sfn|Copi|Cohen|1990|pp=137–138}}{{sfn|Macagno|Walton|2014|}}

==See also==
*[[List of fallacies]]
*[[Definition]]
**[[Fallacies of definition]]
*[[Dogwhistle politics]]
*[[Essentially contested concept]]
*[[Loaded language]]
*[[Poisoning the well]]
*[[Stipulative definition]]
*''[[The Devil's Dictionary]]''

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Sources==
{{Refbegin}}
*{{cite book|last1=Casanova|first1=G.|title=Historia della mia fuga dalle prigioni della republica di Venezia dette "li Piombi"|date=1911|publisher=Alfieri e Lacroix|location=Milano|url=https://archive.org/details/historiadellamia00casa}}
*{{cite book |first=Irving M. |last=Copi |first2=Carl |last2=Cohen |title=Introduction to Logic |url=https://archive.org/details/introductiontol00copi |url-access=registration |edition=8th |publisher=Macmillan |location=New York |year=1990 |isbn=0-02-946192-8 }}
*{{cite book |first=Patrick J. |last=Hurley |title=A Concise Introduction to Logic |edition=10th |publisher=Thomson |location=Belmont, California |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-495-50383-5 }}
*{{cite book|last1=Huxley|first1=A.|author-link=Aldous Huxley|title=Eyeless in Gaza|title-link=Eyeless in Gaza (novel)|date=1955|publisher=Chatto & Windus|location=London|ref={{harvid|Huxley|1936}}|orig-year=First published 1936}}
*{{cite book|last1=Macagno|first1=Fabrizio|last2=Walton|first2=Douglas|title=Emotive Language in Argumentation|date=2014|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=New York|isbn=9781107676657}}
*{{cite journal|last1=Orwell|first1=G.|title=Politics and the English Language|journal=Horizon|date=1946|title-link=Politics and the English Language|author-link=George Orwell|volume=13|issue=76|pages= 252–265}}
*{{cite journal|last1=Stevenson|first1=Charles|title=The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms|journal=Mind|date=1937|volume=46|pages=14–31|doi=10.1093/mind/XLVI.181.14|url=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5224f8d1e4b02f25c1dde748/t/53a88f89e4b006b908226c56/1403555721302/Stevenson+-+Emotive+Meaning.pdf|url-status=bot: unknown|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160523131039/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5224f8d1e4b02f25c1dde748/t/53a88f89e4b006b908226c56/1403555721302/Stevenson+-+Emotive+Meaning.pdf|archive-date=2016-05-23}}
*{{cite journal |last=Stevenson |first=Charles|title=Persuasive Definitions |journal=[[Mind (journal)|Mind]] |volume=47 |number=187 |date=1938 |pages=331–350 |doi=10.1093/mind/xlvii.187.331}}
*{{cite book |last=Stevenson |first=Charles|title=Ethics and Language |publisher=Yale University Press |location=Connecticut |year=1944 |lccn=a45001043|oclc=5184534}}
*{{cite journal|last1=Walton|first1=Douglas|last2=Macagno|first2=Fabrizio|title=The Importance and Trickiness of Definition Strategies in Legal and Political Argumentation|journal=Journal of Politics and Law|date=2015|volume=8|issue=1|pages=137–148 |doi=10.5539/jpl.v8n1p137|doi-access=free}}
{{Refend}}

{{Defining}}

[[Category:Definition]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Framing (social sciences)]]
[[Category:Propaganda techniques]]
[[Category:Cognitive biases]]
[[Category:Social constructionism]]