Let’s bullshit! Arguing, bargaining and dissembling over Darfur

Abstract

The crisis in Darfur led to one of the most powerful advocacy campaigns in recent US history. Responding to intense political pressures from this campaign, the US engaged Sudan in a heated public confrontation, increasingly echoing the rhetoric of an advocacy campaign that was surprisingly indifferent to realities on the ground in Darfur. This article examines how the exceptional mobilization around Darfur affected US policy and diplomatic outcomes, using the case to explore larger theoretical questions around deception and truthfulness in International Relations. There was a curious disconnect between the exceptionally strong language US leaders used during the crisis, and the failure of these public claims, promises and threats to achieve the desired diplomatic outcomes. Such strong language should have bolstered US arguments to persuade allies to support measures against Sudan, given the US bargaining leverage with Sudan, and opened opportunities for activists to rhetorically entrap US officials into defending the norms they publicly invoked. Instead, I argue that US leaders bullshitted their way through the crisis in response to advocacy and the demands it generated. Far from being a harmless form of moral posturing, this complicated US diplomatic efforts and undermined the prospects for a political solution in Darfur.

Ambiguous specificity: The production of foreign policy bullshit in electoral contexts

“…Where successful, it legitimises untruthfulness, erodes the quality of public debate, and is thus harmful to a functioning democracy. In turn, uncritical, indifferent, or ignorant audiences make it difficult to hold candidates to account (Seymour, 2014: 575). Electoral dynamics that incentivise candidates to latch onto nonsensical proposals because they appeal to their audiences is problematic where the institutionalised feedback mechanisms, that is, media coverage, audience backlash and electoral defeat, are not operating well enough.…”

“…This increases the likelihood that hyper-specific bullshit, that is, the deceptive invocation of seemingly detailed proposals that hide their ambiguity and factual emptiness, is successful (cf. Seymour, 2014: 586; also Petrocelli, 2018). Again, this concerns impression rather than factual content.…”

“…The speaker’s performance ‘must maintain the pretense of conveying information, hiding his lack of justification for this information from the audience, and perhaps even from himself’ (Seymour, 2014: 573). Bullshitting is about creating the right impression rather than persuasion or argumentative exchange (Seymour, 2014: 577). To do so successfully, I argue that candidates must balance between contending pressures towards both ambiguity and specificity.…”

“…The speaker risks being pressed on vague rhetoric, especially in situations where debate dynamics are difficult to control (Page, 1976: 749). Audiences may see through well-trodden verbiage because of, albeit limited, ‘epistemic awareness’ of electoral dynamics and bullshit production (Meibauer, 2016; Milita et al, 2017: 49, Seymour, 2014: 574). Voters may prefer specificity to reduce the uncertainty associated with vague positions, and may fill up the gap left by ambiguity with alternatively available information (Aragonès and Neeman, 2000: 184; Milita et al, 2017: 49).…”

“…This can persuade a trusting audience of the speaker’s evidence for their statements even though that evidence is not adequate to standards of truthful speaking: the speaker produces bullshit (Meibauer, 2016: 75–77). Uncertainty and complexity in the respective issue area makes ignorant or indifferent audiences more likely (Seymour, 2014: 578). This increases the likelihood that hyper-specific bullshit, that is, the deceptive invocation of seemingly detailed proposals that hide their ambiguity and factual emptiness, is successful (cf.…”