Keywords
dehumanization; immigrants; refugees; gangs; 2016 presidential election; Donald Trump; family separation
Select the category the research project fits.
Social Sciences/Humanities
Is this submission part of ICaP/PW (Introductory Composition at Purdue/Professional Writing)?
No
Abstract
This study contributes to contemporary dehumanization theory by tracking and comparing dehumanizing rhetoric used by all presidential candidates during the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections. Using data hand-collected from all presidential speeches conducted during these periods, including accounting for adlibbing by Donald Trump, I argue that Trump was distinctive in his dehumanization of immigrants and refugees, far surpassing all other candidates. His language surrounding these groups focused heavily on 1) using non-human language to describe their actions and migrations; 2) assigning criminality and viciousness to immigrants; 3) repeating stories of the deaths of American citizens by immigrants; 4) saying that immigrants and refugees have values incongruent with Americans; and 5) emphasizing the idea that immigrants and refugees are a threat to the American way of life. Dehumanization is often used as justification for aggressive policies and behaviors, which has been demonstrated through the Trump administration’s family separation policies. This paper adds to the conversation about dehumanization by providing evidence that Trump presents a major increase in dehumanizing rhetoric compared to previous candidates, which is important to note as new policies unfold. Additionally, it provides a foundation of collected data for future studies.
Recommended Citation
Warnock, Amanda, "The Dehumanization of Immigrants and Refugees: A Comparison of Dehumanizing Rhetoric by All Candidates in Three U.S. Presidential Elections" (2019). Purdue Undergraduate Research Conference. 5.
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/purc/2019/Oral_Presentations/5
The Dehumanization of Immigrants and Refugees: A Comparison of Dehumanizing Rhetoric by All Candidates in Three U.S. Presidential Elections
This study contributes to contemporary dehumanization theory by tracking and comparing dehumanizing rhetoric used by all presidential candidates during the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections. Using data hand-collected from all presidential speeches conducted during these periods, including accounting for adlibbing by Donald Trump, I argue that Trump was distinctive in his dehumanization of immigrants and refugees, far surpassing all other candidates. His language surrounding these groups focused heavily on 1) using non-human language to describe their actions and migrations; 2) assigning criminality and viciousness to immigrants; 3) repeating stories of the deaths of American citizens by immigrants; 4) saying that immigrants and refugees have values incongruent with Americans; and 5) emphasizing the idea that immigrants and refugees are a threat to the American way of life. Dehumanization is often used as justification for aggressive policies and behaviors, which has been demonstrated through the Trump administration’s family separation policies. This paper adds to the conversation about dehumanization by providing evidence that Trump presents a major increase in dehumanizing rhetoric compared to previous candidates, which is important to note as new policies unfold. Additionally, it provides a foundation of collected data for future studies.