More often than not, we contend, a broader view of the targets and or bases in the analogics of inoculation theory and character assassination reveal connections that not only keep the analogic consistent, but additionally, lead to more cohesive programs of study in the respective areas. 

Josh Compton & Daniel lam

The names of both inoculation theory and character assassination are doing a lot of work, respectively. Regarding inoculation theory—the classic theory of resistance to influence that shows how attitudes and beliefs can be made resistant to persuasion through pre-exposure to weakened versions of persuasion—its analogic namesake has been references as the theory’s foundation, as a guide for inoculation research, and as the theory’s core explanatory. Regarding character assassination—the rhetorical practice of derogating someone or something—the term carries strong connotative and denotative meanings, characterizing such rhetorical acts as particularly destructive—potentially a final, irreparable action. Researchers of character assassination extend the analogy to clarify applications of their theorizing. The analogy embedded in the name character assassination, then, helps to explain the overall concept of these communication phenomena, and additionally, helps to explain specific forms of character assassination. And yet, analogies can also be confounding when used to name theories. Scholars working with both theories have cautioned taking the analogies too literally. And yet, considering two theoretical constructs—inoculation theory and character assassination—that both carry analogic names can, we are arguing here, benefit from the strengths and grow from the limitations of each analogy. That is, the same qualities that make analogies helpful explanatories for each theory, respectively, continue when considering the two theories together. Additionally, considering the limitations of the analogies with each theory raises some interesting concerns—and opportunities—that cross both theories, collectively. After discussing the benefits and drawbacks of inoculation theory’s and character assassination’s analogics, we propose that a broader view of the targets and or bases in the analogics of both reveal connections that not only keep the analogic consistent, but additionally, lead to more cohesive programs of study in the respective areas.

Compton, J., & Lam, D. [Dartmouth undergraduate student] (2021, September). Mixing metaphors: The analogics of inoculation theory and character assassination [paper presentation]. Character Assassination and Reputation Politics, Arlington, VA, United States.

For more information

Dartmouth article here.

CARP: Character Assassination and Reputation Politics Research Lab

CARP 2021 Conference