Establishing Credibility through Conflict: A Comparison of Anti-Vaccination and Prowar Rhetoric

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: 

When justifying a country’s need to go to war, rhetors often employ decivilizing vehicles, which are metaphors that describe the opposing side as savage and barbaric. These vehicles are part of a process that reduces the enemy into an inhuman and therefore immoral and untrustworthy force. As a result, anything they do or say is suspect by the very nature of who they are assumed to be. For example, when political leaders argued for invading Iraq in 2003, they did so by discrediting Saddam Hussein. If Hussein cannot be believed, then any evidence he provided to show Iraq had disarmed would also be dismissed.

Beyond literal war, social issues are also polarizing. Within the vaccine debate, both pro and anti sides criticize the decisions of the other, often using what appear to be decivilizing vehicles. In this sense, they are diametrically opposed, much like enemies in war. This paper explores the rhetorical strategies used within this controversy with the following research questions:

RQ1: How does anti-vaccination rhetoric compare to prowar rhetoric?

RQ2: Does anti-vaccination rhetoric utilize decivilizing vehicles to strengthen their argument against vaccines?

Methods: 

In 2015, an outbreak of measles at Disneyland led to a renewed discussion about the dangers of vaccine resistance. Several public health officials blamed unvaccinated individuals for weakening herd immunity. These accusations clearly questioned the implications of the anti-vaccination movement for the wider community. Being attacked, vaccine truthers took to their websites to defend their right to refuse. Using a sample from seven of the most prominent anti-vaccination websites based on Google rankings, this paper qualitatively analyzes the online posts for their similarity to prowar rhetoric and use of decivilizing vehicles.

Results: 

In much the same way that politicians justified war by vilifying Hussein, so have vaccine truthers characterized pharmaceuticals. By implying that big pharma places more interest on profit than safety, anti-vaccine proponents identified their enemy as a deceitful and corrupt enterprise that cannot be trusted. They then extended this depiction to include all other pro-vaccine sources, like doctors and health organizations. With this demonization, truthers could call into question the motivations of all sources of information, thereby discrediting any outside authority.

Conclusions: 

Without this process of elimination, the anti-vaccination movement would have no credibility. Instead, by rejecting all traditional evidence, they positioned themselves as the only true experts. They continue to recommend to parents to become their own experts, which further diminishes the idea of formal expertise. Rather, truthers preferenced experience, basing their credibility on their own struggles with vaccinations.

Implications for research and/or practice: 

This paper offers a new avenue for exploring how credibility is established through dissenting rhetoric in science and health. Naming the enemy in a particular way can provide a path to establishing credibility when none exists. This also presents a new challenge for the medical community to try and combat misconceptions because if scientific evidence is being ignored, then providing more science is not an effective strategy.