Ad Hominem: When Personal Attacks Replace Arguments
Author’s General Introduction
Propaganda is the manipulation of masses through media. In this series, we dive deep into the mechanisms of influence to understand how our perception is shaped and how we can protect ourselves from it. Each post examines a specific technique, its functionality, and practical ways to expose it.
Propaganda Technique
Ad Hominem (Latin for “against the person”) is one of the oldest and most common manipulation techniques in public communication. This method deliberately diverts from factual arguments by attacking the speaker’s person, character, past, or personal characteristics instead of engaging with the content presented. In the modern media landscape, Ad Hominem has evolved into a systematic strategy to discredit unwelcome opinions and silence critical voices.
The psychological effectiveness of Ad Hominem attacks is based on the human tendency to link messages with their messengers. When a person is successfully discredited, their arguments are automatically perceived as less credible, even if they are factually correct. This technique exploits cognitive biases like the halo effect, where the evaluation of a person is transferred to all their statements. Media deliberately employ Ad Hominem to simplify complex debates and emotionally manipulate the audience instead of promoting factual discourse.
Ad Hominem manifests in various forms: Direct personal attacks target character or behavior, circumstantial attacks (Ad Hominem Circumstantial) imply self-interest or bias, and Tu Quoque attacks (“You too!”) accuse the opponent of hypocrisy. In media, these techniques are often employed subtly, such as emphasizing irrelevant biographical details, using derogatory labels, or focusing on personal weaknesses instead of substantive arguments.
Recognizing Ad Hominem attacks requires consciously separating person from argument. Critical media literacy means asking: “Is the issue being discussed here, or is the person being attacked?” Even if personal criticism may be justified, it doesn’t automatically make factual arguments wrong. A democratic discussion culture requires the ability to distinguish between evaluating people and evaluating their arguments.
Application Examples
The following examples are deliberately fictional to illustrate the mechanisms without discrediting real persons or events:
Example 1 – Political Debate: A fictional politician proposes tax reform. Instead of discussing the concrete proposals, media reports focus on his luxurious lifestyle and label him as an “out-of-touch elite politician.” The substantive content of the reform is thereby pushed into the background, and public discussion focuses on his person rather than the political content.
Example 2 – Scientific Debate: A fictional scientist publishes a study on a controversial topic. Instead of questioning her methodology or results, the media highlights her previous connection to a certain organization and suggests she is “biased” or “not objective.” This avoids scientific discussion of her research findings.
Example 3 – Social Criticism: A fictional activist criticizes certain social problems. Instead of refuting his arguments, he is labeled as a “troublemaker,” “disruptor,” or “extremist.” His personal history is scrutinized to find points of attack, while the problems he raises are not discussed factually.
Example 4 – Economic Debate: A fictional economist warns about certain economic developments. Instead of examining her analyses, she is portrayed as a “pessimist” or “doomsayer.” Her academic career is questioned, and it’s suggested she has personal motives for her warnings, thereby avoiding factual engagement with her economic forecasts.
Example 5 – Media Reporting: A fictional journalist uncovers a scandal. Instead of verifying the uncovered facts, his past is scrutinized, his motivation questioned, and he is portrayed as “sensationalist” or “unreliable.” The actual content of his research is thereby discredited without factual examination taking place.
Further Reading
Hardinghaus, Christian: “War Propaganda and Media Manipulation: What You Should Know to Avoid Being Deceived” (German Edition. English Edition coming soon)
Further Information
- Walton, Douglas N. (1998): Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press.
- Tindale, Christopher W. (2007): Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
- Woods, John & Walton, Douglas (1989): Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972-1982. De Gruyter Mouton.
- Hamblin, Charles L. (1970): Fallacies. Methuen & Co Ltd.
- Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Grootendorst, Rob (2004): A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.
- Aristotle: Sophistici Elenchi (On Sophistical Refutations). Classical source on argumentative fallacies.
