Abstract
A dogwhistle, in its most centrally-discussed sense, seeks to obscure part of its meaning from part of its audience. Yet, as many have noted, dogwhistles that are flaunted at an opposing group play a prominent role in political speech. I call these speech acts 'brazen dogwhistles'. This paper deals first with theoretical concerns, exploring the features of brazen dogwhistles, arguing that we have good reasons to consider them to be dogwhistles, and making room for them in a broadly Saul-style account. In the second half, this paper addresses lessons more closely tied to the political project of reducing the pernicious effects of dogwhistles. It explores how dogwhistles can be used in a targeted way in smaller settings and sheds light on the role of active audience interpretation, suggesting that the best response to a potential dogwhistle is to withhold the benefit of the doubt.
