Enthymematic free space: the efficacy of anti-stop-and-frisk arguments in the face of racial prejudice

Abstract

Abstract Much scholarly energy has been invested in understanding how rhetors covertly invoke racial bias and how “color-blind” rhetoric produces unintended racist effects. Less scholarly attention has been paid to the unintended racist effects of anti-racist rhetoric. Anti-racist rhetors often present racial disparities in the criminal justice system to argue for reform, but psychological research suggests that such information can inspire audiences to support the status quo. To understand the rhetorical factors that contribute to such results, we analyze anti-stop-and-frisk literature produced by two New York advocacy organizations. These organizations employ racial disparity figures in enthymemes, defined by Aristotle as syllogisms that invite audiences to complete sometimes incompletely expressed lines of reasoning. Variations in which parts of an enthymeme are clearly or prominently stated influence the range of possible propositions that audiences can supply to fill in missing or obscured pieces—the enthymematic free space. Based on our analysis, we identify three sources of risky enthymematic free space involving racial disparities that allow audiences to employ their racial prejudices as premises in arguments against stop-and-frisk, consequently concluding the opposite of what is intended. We recommend three alternative argumentative strategies to reduce the risk of producing this unintended rhetorical result.